The role of management and leadership

Barker’s thesis (2011) is a qualitative comparative study examining three core components of a framework implementation at two elementary schools in a county of southern California entitled RtI2. Response to Intervention (RtI) is a framework used to identify at-risk school students and ensure their responsiveness to general education. It is a multi-tier approach in which at-risk students with learning and behaviour needs are supported by various re-search-based instructions and interventions. RtI² is an extension of the original RtI framework,

using a data-driven problem-solving model to identify specific student needs.

The study investigates the contribution of the following three areas to successful imple-mentation of RtI²: (1) leadership attributes, skills and practices; (2) professional development practices and new roles; and (3) general education teachers, special education teachers, and support staff.

The schools had implemented RtI for a minimum of three years and were recommended by members of the county RtI² taskforce. The researcher carried out semi-structured interviews with ten participants at each school and thus a total of twenty participants were taking part.

At each site the participants included a principal, six classroom teachers, and three support staff (a psychologist, a speech pathologist, and a special education teacher).

The author draws six conclusions based on the results. The first conclusion was that the school staff viewed the principal’s “knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and asses-sment” as the most critical behaviour for successful RtI² implementation. This refers to school principals’ knowledge of best practice, in other words to their knowledge of the current curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices based on the needs of students.

When principals know the linguistic, emotional, and educational needs of their students, they are better able to determine appropriate curriculum and instructional practices. In ad-dition to knowing the curriculum, instruction, and assessment, site leaders needed a strong understanding of RtI² processes and procedures as well. The most frequent responses regarding leader behaviour that was seen to hinder implementation efforts were “lack of knowledge” and “unrealistic expectations.”

The second conclusion also addressed leadership behaviour. Five additional leadership be-haviours were identified as being important for successful RtI² implementation, though to a lesser degree than the knowledge identified in conclusion one above. These were: flexibility (when principals can adapt their leadership behaviour to the needs of the current situation and are comfortable with dissent), the capacity to be an optimiser (when principals can inspire and lead new and challenging innovations), monitoring/evaluation (when princi-pals monitor the effectiveness of school practices and their impact on student learning), the capacity to be agents of change (when principals are willing to challenge and do actively challenge the status quo), and finally culture (which fosters shared beliefs and a sense of community and cooperation).

Out of the six factors mentioned above, five (knowledge of curriculum instruction and

assessment, flexibility, being an optimiser, monitoring/evaluating, being a change agent) were behaviours which correlated with “second-order changes”: that is, changes that in-volve innovations or changes in values and beliefs. These changes may be in conflict with prevailing values and norms. They are complex and non-linear, and affect every aspect of the system. As a reform effort, RtI² – which requires a shift in thinking and a change in the way in which students receive services – requires a leader who understands change efforts.

The degree to which a school principal demonstrates these behaviours may vary depending on the stage of implementation.

The study also identified factors that hindered implementation. The two topics frequently mentioned were lack of knowledge and unrealistic expectations. Other areas were also mentioned: resistance to change, lack of focus/vision, lack of communication, and lack of resources.

The overall conclusion of the study was that the impact of reform efforts such as RtI² is heavily dependent on instructional leadership, professional development opportunities, and the availability of human and material resources.

In a study by Quint et al. (2015) conducted in the Midwestern United States, the primary purpose was to evaluate the impact of a scheme entitled SFA (Success For All) on elementary school students’ reading achievement compared to that of students in non-SFA schools.

SFA aims to improve the reading skills of all children, but is especially directed at schools that serve a large number of students from low-income families. SFA involves a reading programme from kindergarten up to grade six that uses extensive cooperative learning in pairs and small groups. One-to-one or small-group tutoring is used for students falling behind grade-level expectations. Frequent criterion-referenced and instruction-based forma-tive assessments are used to ensure that all students are on track in terms of their learning achievements, and quarterly benchmark assessments are used to track progress in meeting grade-level expectations. Moreover, a solutions team works to prevent or solve problems that go beyond academic content. In order to achieve the above, the schools receive staff training, extra staff, coaches who work with the school staff to implement SFA, an SFA facilitator who helps all teachers with programme implementation, ongoing professional development, and school-wide assessments. This amounts to leadership development that engages the principal and school-leadership team in a continuous improvement process based on data analysis, goalsetting, and achievement monitoring.

The study also investigates the implementation of the SFA model. It had three primary goals: (1) to measure the fidelity with which the programme model is put into place; (2) to assess the contrast between the treatment and the control in educational experience; and (3) to document the implementation process and the lessons for scale-up and replication.

The research design chosen was a randomised controlled trials. The 37 primary schools were randomly assigned to treatment (for nineteen schools) or control group (for eighteen schools). The study investigated two groups of students: the primary sample, students who had experienced SFA from their first year in school (approximately 3,000 kindergarten students); and the auxiliary sample, students who had not received the intervention at the beginning of their school experience. Students were assessed on reading skills in the fall of the 2011/12 school year, and assessed annually in the following three years on various developmentally appropriate measures of reading achievement.

The study also investigated implementation fidelity by means of a variety of measures. The key source of information on implementation fidelity was the School Achievement Snapshot.

The snapshot was completed for each school at the end of the school year by the particular school’s SFA coach. It contained 40 items relevant to the presence or absence of school-wide structures associated with the programme model, along with twenty items describing classroom processes. Logs were collected from first- and second-grade reading teachers in each of the 37 study schools in the spring of 2012, 2013, and 2014, with an expected sample of approximately 48 logs per school. Surveys were collected for principals and teachers in control and experimental schools to illuminate the contrast in treatment represented by implementing SFA. Interviews with principals and teachers were carried out to give insight into the implementation of SFA.

The results related to the impact of SFA showed that it improved students’ phonetic abilities, had no effect on student comprehension or reading fluency, had a positive impact on students with low pre-literacy skills, but had no effect on special education and grade-retention rates.

The authors also calculated the total cost of SFA: the programme cost $ 217 more per student per year in SFA schools than in control schools.

The implementation of SFA was related to the commitment of the school principal and the SFA coach. In each instance where schools were rated as not having a fully involved principal, the overall snapshot score (implementation fidelity) was low. The SFA coach also promoted the implementation process. All SFA schools were supposed to employ a SFA coach full time for the implementation. However, some coaches were not full time and some

were also asked to perform other than SFA tasks. Schools with full-time committed SFA coaches had an average implementation score of 89 per cent, while those that did not have a SFA coach had an average implementation score of 59 per cent. According to the survey, 83 per cent of teachers believed that the SFA coaches provided teachers with useful feedback.

These results showed that successful implementation did not appear to be related to SFA essential training. School principals and teaching staff at nineteen schools received essen-tial training in SFA at some point during the implementation, but they varied in when they received it, who received it, and how much they got. Fifteen of the nineteen schools were rated on the snapshot as having received this training during the first year of the implemen-tation, while the remaining four received it first only at a later point. By year three, teachers generally found the SFA training that they had received at the start of the year – whether directly from SFA or not – to be only somewhat useful. That said, there is no real evidence that SFA’s provision of essential training was associated with a school’s snapshot score (fidelity implementation) in any given year. Some higher-scoring schools received training and others did not, and the same is true of lower-scoring schools. The result indicates that essential training is less useful in terms of implementation, but that continuing support (through the SFA coach and principal) is the key for successful implementation.

The study by Wall (2012) examined staff perceptions of the implementation of common for-mative assessment, and considered what kinds of leadership and cultural ideals contribute to the effective use of these assessments.

Common formative assessment is a process that partners the teacher and the students to systematically gather evidence of learning, with the goal of using this evidence to improve student achievement. At the school described in this study, formative assessments were developed and administered regularly at grade-level to all students, with the purpose of monitoring student progress in line with common statewide standards (grade-level expe-ctations or GLEs). Students were provided with additional support if necessary in order to meet proficiency standards. In order to equip the school with the necessary knowledge and resources to carry out common formative assessments, school improvement money allo-cated by the district was used to enrol leadership members in a professional development programme.

In terms of methodology, a qualitative case-study design was applied, using multiple data sources including interviews, focus groups, observations, a survey, and document analysis.

Data is collected at one upper elementary school catering to students in grades three to five, located in the Midwestern United States.

Regarding the results of the study, the author claims that the implementation of common formative assessments led to a 29 per cent improvement in mathematics scores; however, this was not proven, but rather perceived to be the case among the individuals interviewed and observed for the study. Thus an improvement in students’ mathematics achievement since the implementation of common formative assessments is not convincingly explained by the main study variables.

Overall, three major themes emerged during data analysis, revealing how the effective use of assessment is linked to changes in curriculum, instruction, and use of data. These were:

(1) the focus and alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessments; (2) the use of data to drive instruction; and (3) the use of differentiating instruction to meet student learning needs. Furthermore, four predominant types of leadership were found to facilitate the implementation and effective use of common formative assessments: (1) renewal lea-dership, (2) moral/ethical lealea-dership, (3) instructional lealea-dership, and (4) distributed leadership. Among the cultural characteristics that contributed to successful implementation efforts, re-culture, collaboration, high expectations, and caring relationships were found to be especially valuable. The study informants describe how students subsequently took up the changes implemented at the school by working harder and being supportive of the intervention.

Teachers described the implementation of common formative assessment as being hard at first, but after the initial start-up period, only positive statements were made regarding the implementation of the intervention. A picture was drawn of a staff and leadership united in being on board and engaged in the concept, and a school that had experienced positive changes in cooperation between teachers and the school climate. As for factors hindering the implementation of common formative assessments, teachers, as mentioned, described the start-up period as difficult and overwhelming, and the principal had to struggle to get everyone on board, resulting in the loss of some staff members.

The PhD thesis by Roland (2012) investigated the key challenges of implementing the Re-spect programme in two Norwegian schools. The programme aimed to reduce and prevent challenging behaviour such as concentration difficulties and bullying. Representatives from among teachers as well as the school principals were included in the Respect group in each

school, and their main task was to promote and support the implementation of the work of Respect in their school. Previous research showed there had been great variation in the effects of the Respect programme when implemented in a range of schools.

The aim of the study was to gain an understanding of the challenges encountered by tea-chers during the implementation process of the Respect programme, and to discuss this in relation to implementation quality. Implementation quality was defined both as how an im-plementation programme was intended to be carried out and how it actually was carried out.

The study was a case-study following two Norwegian schools. The schools were selected from those that had taken part in the Respect programme between 2005 and 2007. The pro-gramme lasted two years. Qualitative interviews were carried out at three points in time:

six months after the programme started, one year into the programme, and two years after the programme end.

The first two rounds of interviews were individual interviews with four teachers from each school, including two teachers from the Respect group and two teachers not involved in the group. The participants were randomly selected among the teaching staff. A total of eight teachers took part in school A, and a total of seven in school B. At the third interview, participants who had taken part in the first two rounds of interviews were invited to take part in a focus group. Five teachers from school A took part in the focus group, as did three teachers from school B.

Field notes were taken by the researcher at three points in time: At the onset of the imple-mentation, one year into the programme, and two years after the programme end. At this last stage, participants were able to give feedback on the results.

The results of the study showed a great discrepancy between the way in which the Respect programme was intended to be carried out and how it was actually carried out. Thus the quality of implementation was low in both schools. The quality of implementation was affected by both process factors and organisational factors. Roland identified the following process factors: clarity, expectations and responsibility, collective understanding, and re-sistance to change.

Both schools changed principals during the implementation period, which affected the im-plementation adversely. Teachers in both schools believed that the principals should have encouraged stronger teacher obligation to the programme. They perceived their leaders as

“invisible” in the implementation process, and overall they described a lack of direction and leadership from their principal.

The lack of leadership appeared to be the primary reason for the implementation failing in both schools. Teachers were unclear about the principles of the Respect work. There was no shared understanding of the Respect principles, although everyone agreed that it was the key to a successful implementation. There were no principals who encouraged an obligation to the Respect work. No one felt responsible for the Respect work, not even teachers in the Respect group who were supposed to be the driving force of the implementation. Thus the implementation failed to have the intended effect in both schools.