DECISION MAKING UNDER MULTIPLE ACCOUNTABILITY POLICIES: A STUDY OF
GENESEE COUNTY’S HIGH SCHOOL LEADERS
By
Keith Newton Smith

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILSOPHY
Educational Administration: K-12
2011

ABSTRACT
DECISION MAKING UNDER MULTIPLE ACCOUNTABILITY POLICIES: A STUDY OF
GENESEE COUNTY’S HIGH SCHOOL LEADERS
By
Keith Newton Smith

This study sought to understand which aspects of current school accountability
measures cause high school principals the most concern and what specific actions they
were taking to address their concerns. This study took place in Genesee County
Michigan. The primary method of data collection was semi-structured interviews.
Thirteen traditional high school principals participated in the study.
Building leaders identified the top concerns with current school accountability
measures they face. Fifty-eight concerns were identified by participants in this study.
The 58 concerns were combined into 12 overall concerns. Adequate Yearly Progress
stood out as the primary concern of high school principals. Concerns with the Michigan
Merit Curriculum and Michigan Merit Exam closely followed. The three concerns AYP,
MMC, and MME comprised the top concerns identified in this study that were shared by
nearly all participants. Mid-level concerns were comprised of Highly Qualified Status,
Graduation Rate, School Improvement, and Education Yes!
Following the identification of these building leaders concerns, participants were
asked to identify what actions they had taken to address their concerns. These actions
were coded into six categories: course and curriculum changes; development of
teachers; instructional targeting, development, and assessment; interventions;
leadership; and organizational structure and management.

This study showed that policy has been effective at prompting action within
schools. The federal NCLB and state Education Yes! policies have gotten high school
principals to take action directed at various aspects of these policies. An interesting
finding of this study is that policy has created a situation where building leaders are
more prone to take action to address their concerns. High school principals, from
buildings obtaining a B grade on the Michigan School Report Card took nearly twice as
many actions compared to school earning A’s, C’s, and D’s.
Unfortunately the situations that provoked action were not the ones policy would
have highlighted. It was very apparent that high school principals in this study are not
acting from a deep diagnostic sense of the problems they face. This problem is
compounded by participants use of a piecemeal approach coupled with the absence of
a strong planning process. Participants were not only uncertain about the effectiveness
of the actions they were taking but also relied heavily on neighboring schools to provide
for models to emulate.
Overall, this study suggests that while concerns and actions taken by high school
principals correspond with policy elements that carried the highest stakes for schools,
the actions were not focused on increasing the quality of classroom instruction that high
school students receive.

© Copyright by Keith Newton Smith, 2011
All rights reserved

This work is dedicated to my entire family.
I would like to thank the following people:
My mom and dad for helping make me the person I am today;
My wife Michelle for her endless love and support;
My daughters Madeline and Kaitlin for providing me with motivation;
MikeTesch for always being there for me;
Brandon Oaks for keeping me on the straight and narrow;
Vince Fratinardo for being my coach;
Marshall Perkins for allowing me to bounce ideas off of him;
and Patrick Daniel for the hydrotherapy when I needed it.
I would like to give special recognition to my Aunt Dr. Peggy C. O’Keeffe.
There is no way I would have finished, without your continued help and support.

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of this dissertation marks the end of my long career at Michigan
State University. I have received a bachelor’s degree in Chemistry, masters’ degree in
Curriculum and Teaching, and an Education Specialist degree in K-12 School
Administration. During my first two years, I had the good fortune to be a member of the
men’s track and field team. After being a student at MSU for 17 years there are a few
people I would like to thank.
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. BetsAnn Smith, for her patience, guidance,
and support throughout this long journey. At the end of this dissertation, I can clearly
see many of the things you pointed out along the way. Without your help, my thinking
and writing would never have gotten a clear focus.
Dr. David Arsen was instrumental in keeping me going throughout the years. He
has helped guide me and support me for several years. Had I not taken a few of your
courses I likely would not have continued on this journey.
Dr. Maier thank you for agreeing to be on my committee. I am eternally grateful
for your help during my time of need. You have selflessly given your time.
Dr. Printy graciously stepped in to help me out during a time of transition. My only
regret is that I never had the pleasure of taking a course you taught. Thank you for
serving on my committee .
Jim Bibbs (former MSU men’s track and field coach) thank you for believing in
me and giving me a chance. I would not trade that experience for anything. One day
you told me “One maybe two people in this world make a living pole vaulting. You’re not

vi

one of them, make sure you get to class”. You helped keep me grounded and things in
perspective. You pushed my limits and showed me I could accomplish things I never
dreamed of. Without your guidance, I never would have made it to today.
Rick Atkinson (former MSU men’s gymnastics coach) thank you for coaching me.
While I was not on your team, you took me in and invested a lot of your time and energy
into making me better. You taught me the value of taking time to think things through.
Whenever I felt I reached an intellectual wall, I drew on my past experiences of working
out in your gym and remember anything is possible.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
Changes in School Accountability ......................................................... 1
Logic of New Accountability Policies .................................................... 3
Problem Statement ............................................................................... 5
Research Purpose and Questions ........................................................ 8
Context ..................................................................................... 10
Justification and Significance ................................................... 11
Definition of Terms .............................................................................. 12
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...................................................................................... 14
Levers and Accountability ................................................................... 14
Policy as a Lever ...................................................................... 14
Accountability Policies .............................................................. 17
History of NCLB .................................................................................. 20
Introduction .............................................................................. 20
New Requirements................................................................... 21
Capacity ................................................................................... 30
Impact on Schools.................................................................... 31
Staff Quality ............................................................................. 35
Funding .................................................................................... 35
Michigan Response to NCLB .............................................................. 37
Education Yes! and Report Cards ............................................ 37
Michigan Merit Examination ..................................................... 42
Michigan Merit Curriculum ....................................................... 43
History of the Principal’s Role in Local Governance ........................... 44
Principal Role Expectations ..................................................... 45
Implications of Competing Expectations for Principals ............. 47
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLGY
................................................................................................. 51
Restatement of Purpose ..................................................................... 51
Study Design ...................................................................................... 51
Participants ......................................................................................... 52
School Level Profiles for Genesee County ......................................... 53
Enrollment Trends .................................................................... 53
Financial Health ....................................................................... 55
viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Demographic Information ......................................................... 56
Demonstrated Student Achievement........................................ 56
Data Collection and Methodology ....................................................... 58
Data Analysis ...................................................................................... 61
Validity ..................................................................................... 63
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 67
Introduction: Reviewing the Interviews................................................ 67
Top Concern: AYP .............................................................................. 69
Instructional Targeting, Development, and Assessment .......... 71
Course and Curriculum Changes ............................................. 74
Organizational Structure and Management.............................. 76
Interventions ............................................................................ 77
Leadership ............................................................................... 79
AYP’s Impact on School Leaders' Actions ............................... 79
Additional Major Concerns: MMC and MME ....................................... 79
Course and Curriculum Change ............................................... 83
Interventions ............................................................................ 87
Organizational Structure and Management .............................. 89
Remaining Categories.............................................................. 92
Instructional Targeting, Development, and Assessment .......... 92
Developing Teachers ............................................................... 94
Brief Summary of Patterns in AYP and MME and MMC Analysis ....... 94
Mid-Level and School Level Concerns ............................................... 95
School Level Concerns ....................................................................... 97
Summary of Patterns ........................................................................ 102
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
............................................................................................... 105
Analytic Overview of the Data ........................................................... 105
Distribution of Actions by Types of School ............................. 107
Summary of Data ................................................................... 111
Interpreting Patterns of Action and Inaction ...................................... 113
Piecemeal versus Systemic Action ........................................ 113
Effecting Change to the Instructional Core............................. 114
Thinking and Acting Diagnostically......................................... 118
Unclear Connections to Planning Processes ......................... 119
Uncertainty About Efficacy and Effectiveness ........................ 121
Cautious Follower Approach .................................................. 123
Not-Very-Effective Approaches .............................................. 125
Conclusion ........................................................................................ 132
ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Implications for Accountability Policy ..................................... 134
Implications for School Leaders ............................................. 135
Implications for Future Research ........................................... 136
APPENDICES

…..…………………...........…………….………………………….138

A. Research Participant Information and Consent Form .................. 139
B. Interview Protocol ........................................................................ 142
C. IRB APPROVAL .......................................................................... 146
REFERENCES

............................................................................................... 147

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1

Matrix of AYP Requirements ............................................................... 26

Table 2.2

No Child Left Behind School Improvement Sanctions for
Schools Receiving Title I Funds .......................................................... 27

Table 2.3

Michigan School Report Card Grade Matrix ....................................... 41

Table 3.1

Analysis of Participating and Nonparticipating Schools by
AYP Status ......................................................................................... 53

Table 3.2

Recent Enrollment Trends for Genesee County School Districts
Included in This Study......................................................................... 54

Table 3.3

Student Demographic Information by High School ............................. 57

Table 3.4

Genesee ISD 2007 Free and Reduced Lunch & School District
2000 Census Data .............................................................................. 58

Table 3.5

Report Card Grades and AYP Status of Genesee County
High Schools....................................................................................... 59

Table 3.6

Examples of Coding Scheme .............................................................. 64

Table 4.1

Matrix of School Leader Concerns ...................................................... 68

Table 4.2

Instructional Actions in Response to AYP Concerns .......................... 73

Table 4.3

Course and Curriculum Change Actions for AYP ............................... 75

Table 4.4

Organizational Structure and Management Actions for AYP .............. 76

Table 4.5

Intervention Actions for AYP ............................................................... 78

Table 4.6

Comparison of Actions, Michigan School Report Card Grade,
and AYP Status .................................................................................. 80

Table 4.7

Course and Curriculum Change Actions ............................................. 84

Table 4.8

Breakdown of Intervention Actions for the Michigan Merit
Curriculum .......................................................................................... 87

xi

LIST OF TABLES – Continued

Table 4.9

Organizational Structure and Management Actions for the
MMC and MME ................................................................................... 90

Table 4.10

Instructional Targeting, Development, and Assessment for
the MME ............................................................................................. 93

Table 4.11

Developing Teachers Actions for the MMC......................................... 94

Table 4.12

Frequency of Mid-Level Concerns ...................................................... 97

Table 4.13

Display of Categorized Actions Taken by Building Leaders
in Response to Mid-Level Concerns ................................................... 98

Table 4.14

Actions Taken for Unique Building-Level Concerns .......................... 103

Table 5.1

Percentage of Actions Taken by Building Leaders in Response
to Top or Mid-Level Concerns, Separated by Categories ................. 106

Table 5.2

Percentage of Actions by Schools Making and Not Making AYP ...... 108

Table 5.3

Percentage of Actions by Schools in Response to Michigan School Report
Card Grade ....................................................................................... 110

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1

Frequency of identified concerns. ....................................................... 70

Figure 4.2

Frequency of AYP actions taken. ........................................................ 72

Figure 4.3

Combined MMC and MME concerns. ................................................. 81

Figure 4.4

Actions taken in response to concerns over MME and MMC. ............. 83

xiii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

In 2002, Congress passed the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA). This reauthorization contained the most significant changes to
the act since its inception in 1965. A cornerstone of the 2002 reauthorization, commonly
referred to as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, was much stronger school
accountability measures for student learning.

Changes in School Accountability
Some key elements of the 2002 NCBL Act were first introduced in the 1994
reauthorization of ESEA, named the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA). That
reauthorization introduced the creation of (1) state learning standards in reading/English
and math, (2) annual assessment of student learning in reading and math, and (3) the
criterion called adequate yearly progress (AYP), which measured the percentage of
students classified as proficient or above on reading and math learning standards as
measured by annual assessments (USDOE, 2004). Each state was able to create its
own assessments and to determine its own benchmarks of proficiency, but the Act set
all states and schools with the goal of making significant and sustained progress
towards the goal of all students be proficient (USDOE, 2004).
The 2002 NCLB Act added to these requirements. It introduced a requirement
that all teachers meet a new “highly qualified” training standard and a requirement that
schools publish an annual report card highlighting student performances on
standardized tests. More pointedly, the 2002 Act introduced a progressive system of

1

sanctions against schools that did not meet NCLB benchmarks and standards. For
instance, a school failing to make AYP for two consecutive years would have to provide
supplemental educational services (tutoring) or school transfers to students. After five
consecutive years of not making AYP, schools might be sanctioned to replace the
governing structure of the school, replace the principal, or even close the school to have
it reopen as a charter school.
The federal accountability measures embedded in NCLB presented school
leaders with many new pressures and demands. They were not, however, the only new
accountability measures bearing down on them. State legislatures were also designing
and implementing new accountability systems. For example, in 2002, as a direct result
of the NCLB Act the state of Michigan created and implemented a new accountability
system named Education Yes! The Education Yes! system created school report cards
that combined school process and outcome measures into a simple grade, A – F.
Seventy percent of a school’s report card grade derived from student reading and math
scores on the annual Michigan Educational Assessment Program (known as the MEAP
tests). The remaining 30% derived from a school’s self-assessment of various school
improvement processes, such as: vision and purpose; governance and leadership;
teaching and learning; documenting and using results; resource and support systems;
stakeholder communications and relationships; and commitment to continuous
improvement. Principals understood that marking their buildings low in any of these
areas would have a negative impact on their schools’ overall Michigan School Report
Card Grade, which was frequently reported in the local newspaper along with scores for
other schools in the area. School boards, superintendents, and prospective new

2

students had easy access to Education, Yes! information. These factors put pressure on
principals when filling out the self assessment rubrics.
In 2007, Michigan changed its high school assessment from the MEAP, to the
Michigan Merit Exam (MME). The MME was composed of three sections: the ACT, the
ACT Work Keys test, and content tests aligned to state learning standards in English,
math, science, and social studies. Following the creation of the MME, Michigan
implemented the Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC). The new curriculum extended in
several disciplines the number of semesters required for graduation with a diploma.
Previously, graduation standards were decided upon locally. But the MMC introduced
state requirements that all students complete 4 years of mathematics (including a
second year of algebra), 3 years of science, 2 years of foreign language study, and an
online course (Revised School Code Act, 2006).
In the case of Michigan, then, high school principals' position and responsibilities
shifted, in a period of roughly 5 years, from one of primarily answering to their local
community to one of being held accountable to federal and state laws addressing
curriculum, testing, student learning, graduation requirements and overall school
performance (Steptoe, 2006).

Logic of New Accountability Policies
NCLB and Education Yes! have been implemented with the expectation that
accountability measures would drive schools to obtain improved outcomes. NCLB and
Michigan’s Education Yes! legislation were designed to ensure that each school in
Michigan re-evaluated its practices to ensure that every student obtained a quality
education. The underlying theory was that requiring a Michigan School Report Card

3

Grade, for every building and district, would create local pressure on schools to
improve. Mandating the reporting of performance of students in subgroups would force
schools to focus on ensuring that every student’s academic achievement reached the
same level (MDE, 2010b). Michigan went one step further with the adoption of the
Michigan Merit Curriculum, which was intended to prepare all students for college or
work readiness (MDE, 2010a). Taken together, these laws required all high schools in
Michigan to change their expectations in all aspects of schooling in order to reach these
new standards.
These new accountability policies were very effective at applying pressure on
high school principals. Unfortunately, the plans of many principals to immediately
increase either demonstrated student achievement or standing on school report card
grades did not have the intended affect of improving education for all students.
Concerns quickly surfaced that some schools were engaged in: using discipline to push
out low-performing students, turning schools into test preparation factories, and
engaging in strategic gamesmanship to side-step many of the requirements (DarlingHammond, 2004).
A prime example of how accountability measures can corrupt schooling is the
“Miracle in Texas” (Leung, 2004). Texas had accountability policies that served as a
model for the NCLB Act. Under the Texas policy, the Houston public schools (between
2001 and 2002) reported drop-out rates of 1.5%. A state audit, however, revealed
troubling discrepancies. An audit of half the high school records showed that 3000
students who left the district should also have been counted as drop-outs (Leung). The
reporting bias was viewed as a direct result of the pressures placed on districts and

4

schools by the new policies. Critics fear that, faced with increasing demands to meet
higher student outcomes each year, leaders will feel compelled to produce desired
results, real or not.

Problem Statement
As new pressures have accumulated, concerns have multiplied as to how school
leaders at various levels of the education system are responding to NCLB and other
accountability policies (Barnett, 2004). To begin, the policies put direct pressures on
school leaders to act as effective leaders of school and instructional improvement.
Traditionally, principals were primarily acting as managers. As such, their main
responsibilities centered on setting goals, allocating resources, managing the
curriculum, monitoring curriculum, and evaluating teachers (DiPaola & Hoy, 2008). New
accountability measures called on principals to act as instructional leaders focusing on
improving teaching and learning, using data to make decisions, and prescribing and
participating in meaningful professional development (King, 2002). Presumably in an
attempt to find individuals with a differing set of skills, Michigan eliminated school
administrator certification. Michigan was one of only two states, at the time of this study
that did not require administrative certification (Ivers, 2008). Since the conclusion of this
study, Michigan has reinstated administrative certification.
Researchers considering responses to NCLB have utilized bounded rationality
models to examine leadership decisions (Meier, Kohn, Darling-Hammond, Sizer, &
Wood, 2004). These models assume decision makers -- in this case, school leaders -face major limitations in (1) access to relevant information and (2) existence of reliable
strategies from which they might choose (March, 1994). According to this model,

5

decision makers rely heavily on local knowledge and gravitate toward strategies that are
the least disruptive to the existing structure of the organization (Gross & Supovitz,
2005). That is, school principals are not likely to engage in exhaustive reviews of the
school reform literature looking for comprehensive strategies. Instead, they will settle for
surface level interventions and interventions they see used in neighbor districts.
The new measures present many potential action and value conflicts to school
leaders. High school principals may face a particularly difficult web of competing
demands. School boards and superintendents often respond to NCLB and related
measures by pressuring building principals to increase student achievement (Vitaska,
2008). While most educators believe that long-term systemic change is what is most
needed in schools, accountability systems often reward high target actions that yield
quick results, such as teaching students test-taking strategies. Principals may find
themselves in situations where they feel pressured to implement the most expedient
rather than the most effective solution. For example, researchers have documented how
accountability policies can influence how principals allocate academic support and
assistance. Students may be divided into “safe cases” -– those students who should
perform well on tests, “target cases” -– students who, with additional assistance stand a
good chance of meeting performance measures, and “hopeless cases” -– students
deemed unlikely to benefit from additional assistance to a level that would allow them to
meet proficiency standards (Gen Net Principals, personal communications, 2008).
Resources are directed to students in the first two categories, while students considered
“hopeless” may not be provided with additional support and may even be encouraged to
attend an alternative high school or to be home schooled. Other sufficing tactics noted

6

include redistributing courses and study time, aligning course content directly to tests,
“pushing out” students likely to lower outcomes, or other tactical efforts to produce good
test scores (Gross & Supovitz, 2005).
The goals of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and NCLB
may come into conflict if and when a special education subgroup is unlikely to reach
AYP benchmarks. As the percentage of proficient students required for AYP increases,
schools, with few exceptions, must also increase the achievement scores of their
special education students. Depending on the type and degree of disabilities present,
these benchmarks, while commendable, may be in conflict with the goals and objectives
articulated in the students’ Individualized Education Plans (IEP). For example, in 2005,
the Illinois State Board of Education and two Illinois school districts filed suit, the first of
its kind, against the United States Department of Education (Pascopella, 2005). The
lawsuit sought to declare any section(s) of NCLB in conflict with IDEA invalid. While the
lawsuits did not prevail, the conflict between meeting the individual needs of special
education students and meeting AYP remains and grows as the percentage of students
needing to meet proficiency climbs to 100% in 2014.
New York City provides an example of conflict between improving overall student
achievement and improving achievement specifically as it impacts AYP. For example,
one requirement of NCLB is that all schools publish report cards and that a portion of
the report card must be based on student achievement. In an effort to reach this AYP
requirement, Joel Klein, New York City’s Chancellor, based 55% of one component of
high schools’ student achievement grade on the percentage of courses that students
pass (Bennett, 2007). A local policy, referred to as “seat-time credit,” allowed students

7

who failed a class to complete a project for another teacher and have the failing grade
revised. The two policies together - NCLB and that of the New York City schools,
constituted “a conflict of interest in that it invites - nearly forces - schools to grant kids
credit when credit is not due” (Bennett, 2007). Since the implementation of NCLB, the
number of New York City schools reaching AYP benchmarks has risen; however, during
the same time frame, performance on the National Education Achievement Program
(NEAP) assessments has remained unchanged.
In addition, some strategies for improving outcomes measured by new
accountability policies may also conflict with what parents and communities desire for
their children’s education. Quite simply, some parents do not want their child held to
Michigan’s high standards. They believe that their local school did a good job educating
them and they turned out fine. These parents do not see the point in requiring their child
to successfully complete a second year of algebra as well as chemistry or physics.
Another conflict that frequently arises occurs when students, due to the increased
requirements, are unable to take elective courses. Many students who struggle and
have to retake courses or are being placed in support classes to help with required core
classes are unable to take elective courses that may more closely relate to their goal of
post-secondary employment (Gen Net Principals, personal communication, 2009)

Research Purpose and Questions
In an effort to meet continually rising accountability standards, high school
principals may find themselves in the precarious position of having to prioritize their
concerns resulting from the current school accountability measures they face, decide
what actions they are going to take in response to their concerns, and manage conflicts

8

between what they believe is best, in the long term, for their students, schools, and
communities and what will produce the outcomes demanded by new accountability
policies. Current school improvement laws, both federal and state, coupled with the
resulting regulations have not only highlighted a multitude of areas in need of
improvement but also have changed the traditional role of the high school principal from
manager to instructional leader. Based on the high number of potential areas to focus
on, high school principals have to prioritize the areas that are of most concern to them
and their schools. Paramount to any discussion about the effectiveness of federal and
state school accountability policies is understanding the actual impact within schools.
The impact of these policies can be observed by identifying the actions principals took
in response to their concerns.
The purpose of this study is to investigate how high school principals in Genesee
County, Michigan, responded to the joint implementation of accountability policies
demanded by both federal NCLB and state Education Yes! policies. The study sought to
understand how principals navigated and prioritized the demands and pressures of
multiple policies by identifying and categorizing their key concerns and the types of
actions they took in response. The study also sought to understand conflicts between
these actions and personal and professional beliefs of these principals concerning what
was best for the students in their care.
Specific research questions were:
1. How are high school principals prioritizing pressures from multiple

accountability policies? Are some policies having much more influence on
high school principals' actions than others?

9

2. What school improvement actions have high school principals taken in

response to these policy driven concerns? How might these actions be
categorized and understood in terms of their affects on core elements of
school organization?
3. Does this data suggest that high school leaders are developing clear and/or

common approaches to school improvement as a result of new policy
pressures?

Context
Genesee County, Michigan’s fifth most populated county, is located in the
southeastern portion of Michigan. Within its 649 square miles are urban, suburban, and
rural communities. The county has a mix of high and low socio-economic districts as
well as a mix of highly homogeneous and highly diverse districts in terms of student
racial and ethnic composition. This eclectic mixture of communities all face the same
federal mandate to increase student achievement.
The county seat, and once the economic center of the county, is the city of Flint.
Flint was once a bustling center of the automotive industry. At the time of this study in
December 2009, the unemployment rate for the greater Flint area was 11.1%, the
highest among metropolitan areas in Michigan. Michigan itself holds the dubious
distinction as the state with the highest unemployment rate in the nation (Turner, 2011).
Genesee County's 436,000 residents are predominately white (75.3%) or African
American (20.4%). The leading industries in the county are manufacturing (24.1%),
education, health, and social services (21.1%), and retail trade (21.8%). The median
household income for the county is just under $42,000. While these statistics show a

10

fairly moderate portrait of county residents, individual difference among cities and towns
vary greatly. This variation comes in large part due to the greater number of people
living in the city and small urban suburbs of Flint compared to outlying communities.
While the cities range from the highest ethnic diversity of 41.4% white and 53.3%
African American to the lowest with 98.5% white and 0.2% African American, the
schools are somewhat different because some cities and towns have multiple school
districts within their boundaries as well as schools of choice (U.S. Census, 2000). The
extremes of diversity within school districts range from having a student population
consisting of 7% white and 88% African American to 97% white and 0.7% African
American (GISD, 2009a).
Median household incomes in cities within the county range from a low of
$28,000 to a high of $54,000 (U.S. Census, 2002). This information tells part of the
story. One city in the county includes 8% of the households that earn more than $200
thousand a year. A rural city in the county has no household making more than $200
thousand a year and only 6 families making more than $150 thousand a year.

Justification and Significance
The focus of many studies of accountability policies (primarily NCLB) has been
their potential influences on student achievement on standardized tests (Dee & Jacob,
2009; Leopold, 2011; Sunderman, 2004a; USDOE, 2006). This study examines instead
how the rapid emergence of multiple accountability policies is influencing high school
principals' actions. To date, many case studies have targeted one accountability policy
or one school. This study develops a picture of how thirteen principals in a single county
have navigated multiple policies, allowing us to consider the nature of actions taken and

11

to determine if significant patterns of action are taking shape. Further, the study
considers whether leaders face conflicts between responses they feel they must take to
meet new pressures and their professional values regarding what they feel is best for
their schools and students.

Definition of Terms
No Child Left Behind is a reauthorization (2001) of the federal Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. Use of the term NCLB refers to a set of core
measures, including AYP, school report cards, subgroup creation and reporting, and
sanctions.
Adequate Yearly Progress is one of the cornerstones of the No Child Left Behind
Act. For Michigan high schools, AYP is calculated for each school using data on
achievement (status, change, and growth), as well as graduation rates. Achievement
status measures how well a school is doing on educating its students. Achievement
change measures whether student achievement is improving or declining. Achievement
growth measures whether students are obtaining at least one year of academic growth
during a school year. The final requirement is an 85% graduation rate for high schools
(MDE, 2008b).
Graduation Rates beginning in 2007 were calculated by tracking individual
students who first enrolled in ninth grade in fall 2003, and graduated four years later
with a regular diploma. This method uses a freshman cohort to determine the
graduation rate (MDE, 2008b).
Highly Qualified teachers are required to have either a college major or minor in
each subject area they teach or pass a state subject area test to demonstrate

12

competency in each area. Michigan allowed for some existing teachers to utilize a
portfolio option to demonstrate competency.
Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC) was crafted by the state legislature in 2006,
increasing the state graduation requirements from 0.5 to 16 credits in specific areas
beginning with the class of 2011. Formerly, credit requirements for students could vary
from district to district; the only state requirement was a successfully completed civics
course. The MMC requires all students to earn 4 credits of English, 4 credits of math
(Algebra, Geometry, Algebra II, and a math class in the final year), 3 credits of science
(Biology and Chemistry or Physics), and 3 social studies credits (World History,
Economics, Civics, and U.S. History) (Revised School Code, 2006). The new curriculum
meant that high schools had to support many more students to successfully complete
more academic courses than in the past.
Michigan Merit Exam replaced the MEAP test for high school students in 2007.
The test is comprised of the ACT test, portions of the ACT Work Keys test, and
Michigan specific content tests in math, English, science, and social studies. This test is
used by the Michigan department of Education to determine a school’s AYP status.

13

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature is divided into four sections. It begins with a review of
policy as a lever to change in education and a review of the basic logics of
accountability policies. In this section, current policy directions are noted, including
shifting policy foci from access and inputs to outcomes. It then discusses more
specifically the Federal No Child Left Behind policy (NCLB), including its policies and
impacts. Michigan’s Ed Yes! accountability program, enacted as a response to new
federal rules, is then examined. The chapter concludes with an overview of the role of
high school principals in schools and communities.

Levers and Accountability
Policy as a Lever
The United States Constitution and corresponding Supreme Court decisions
have provided much of the foundation for federal involvement in schools. Throughout
the 1900s, legislative policy has been an increasingly popular means of influencing
education.
The U.S. constitution has both excluded and encouraged federal involvement in
schools. The 10th amendment to the U.S. constitution sets aside all powers not given to
the federal government to state government. Since education is not specifically
mentioned in the constitution, it is considered a state function. The 14th amendment to
the constitution, however, has been the foundation for federal involvement in schools.
This amendment encompasses both due process and equal protection rights. Due

14

process ensures the fair and equitable treatment of teachers and students within
schools. Equal protection prohibits the discrimination of individuals based on race,
ethnicity, national origin, or gender.
The U.S. Supreme Court has utilized the 14
amendments on schools. Examples include 1
speech, assembly, and religion; 4
and 8

th

th

st

th

amendment to assert constitutional

amendment rights concerning free

amendment rights concerning search and seizure;

amendment rights concerning cruel and unusual punishment. Perhaps most

notably, in 1954, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the 14

th

amendment

applied to schools with their decision in the landmark case, Brown vs. The Board of
Education. This decision struck down the practice of separate but equal schooling and
called for the integration of public schools. A slew of federal laws followed, aimed, for
the most part, at ensuring equal access to education. The United States Code now
contains statutes covering age discrimination (1967); equal access (viewpoint
discrimination, 1984); family educational rights to privacy (confidentiality of student
records, 1974); individuals with disabilities (discrimination of people with disabilities who
receive special education services, 1975); section 504 of the rehabilitation act 1973
(discrimination of people with disabilities); title VII 1(discrimination of people based on
race, religion, gender, or national origin, 1964); and title IX (discrimination of people
based on gender, 1972) (Dennis, 2000).
Direct federal involvement also dramatically increased with President Johnson’s
enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965. The
cornerstone of ESEA was Title I, which provided financial resources to schools for the

15

targeted assistance of poor and minority students. Between 1965 and the 1990s, the
aim of this federal policy was compensatory education and supplementing resources for
specific student populations, i.e., low income, minority and non-English language
speakers (Marshall, 2011). These policies shifted attention from the basic problem of
getting students to school, toward the challenges of equalizing schooling inputs and
processes. One marker of this progression was a number of school finance cases which
declared some state finance systems unconstitutional on the grounds that they did not
assure a minimum standard of resources to all schools (Koski, 2011). Another was the
1983 National Commission on Excellence in Education report, Nation at Risk, which
highlighted perceived failings of American schools. This report contained
recommendations for policies to improve educational productivity and efficiency through
stronger standards and expectations (National Commission on Excellence in Education,
1983). The recommendations focused on adoption of more rigorous curriculum
standards for all students, higher standards for the teaching profession and changes to
school organizations. In the ensuing years, many states began enacting policies
presented in the report (Sunderman, 2009).
The 1990s signaled a new transition in educational policy attention from a focus
on inputs and processes to pressuring greater scrutiny of schooling outcomes. For
example, the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA was named the Improving America's
Schools Act. The Act (IASA) mandated not only that states develop challenging learning
standards for all students but moved to hold schools accountable for student
achievement through a measure of adequate yearly progress (AYP) (Sunderman,
2004b). Few states made substantive progress meeting the goals of IASA, for which

16

there was no real monitoring or accountability mechanism. This laid the groundwork for
the NCLB Act which was to follow it (Sunderman, 2009).

Accountability Policies
From ESEA’s inception until the 1980s, federal and state involvement in
educational policies aimed at helping schools improve focus on inputs. During this time,
educational policy sought to provide greater resources for disadvantaged students. By
providing increased resources, education policy sought to increase intrinsic motivation
of both students and teachers. If teachers had the right amount of resources, they could
meet the unique needs of all students. If intrinsic motivation was not successful, then
identified motivation would work. Identified motivation occurs when a person willingly
chooses to perform a behavior despite the fact that the behavior is not intrinsically
motivating to them. In theory, this is easy, since people have a natural tendency to take
in the values promoted by their mentors and authorities (Sheldon & Biddle, 1998).
Unfortunately, demonstrated student achievement on state and national assessments
proved to be non-responsive to educational policies aimed at increasing resources and
relying on intrinsic or identified motivation (Hanushek & Raymond, 2004).
As a result of both the Nation at Risk study (1984) and the Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study (1995), which highlighted the failings of America’s
schools, state accountability policies and systems increased during the 1990s. While
states, for the most part, developed their own school accountability policies, they held
common underlying beliefs: the quality of education was not as good as it should be;
student learning needs to be improved; student outcomes rather than process or
resource measures should be used to judge school quality; content standards and

17

associated assessments will make it clear what teachers are expected to teach and
students are expected to learn; schools should be held accountable for learning by all
their students; holding schools accountable for student achievement will motivate
greater effort on the part of teachers and students; and information provided by the
accountability system can contribute to improved teaching and learning (Linn, 2005).
Research in early 2000 showed that accountability policies had a positive impact
on student achievement. Analysis of data from the National Assessment of Education
Progress (NAEP) tests showed that states that had adopted some form of accountability
produced, on average, higher student results than states that had not (Hanushek &
Raymond, 2003). Carnoy and Loeb (2002) found that black and Hispanic students in
states with accountability systems generally improved more than white students on the
NAEP 8th grade math test. Early research on accountability policies showed that it was
being effective at increasing student achievement, especially with some minority groups
that previously had not shown gains.
Expanding on their earlier work analyzing states with accountability systems and
results on the NAEP test, Hanusek and Raymond (2004) found that while reporting
overall results had minimal impact on school performance, the “force” of accountability
policy comes from attaching monetary awards or threats of takeover to school
performance. This approach relies on external or introjected motivation from teachers
and principals, where external motivation is seen when a person does something largely
to obtain a reward or avoid a punishment, whereas introjected motivation is apparent
when a person does something to avoid guilt or anxiety. When teachers and principals

18

are acting as a result of external or “introjected” motivation, unintended consequences
to accountability policy are likely to be introduced (Sheldon & Biddle, 1998).
Several rational yet unintended consequences resulted from assessment-based
accountability systems. Scholars have pointed out concerns with students being pushed
out of school, more students being retained at grade level, increased dropout rates, and
narrowing of the curriculum (Meier et al., 2004). There are two ways for schools to affect
student achievement: increase the quality of education that students receive or change
the composition of students taking the test by removing the low-performing students.
There is a growing concern that schools are utilizing some or all of these approaches to
produce “gains” in test scores.
The two consequences of pushing students out and narrowing the curriculum
will be developed further. Studies have shown that in response to assessment based
accountability systems, more schools are likely to retain students whose achievement is
below grade level, exclude low-achieving students from admission, and/or encourage
students to transfer or drop out if it is thought that these students are not likely to meet
proficiency standards (Darling-Hammond, 2007). Studies from Massachusetts, New
York, and Texas provide examples of schools that have “raised” test scores while losing
large numbers of low-performing students (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
While specific concerns over narrowing the curriculum in high schools exist, a
definitive study on the issue does not. A 2004 study from the Center of Educational
Policy highlighted the affects of NCLB on curriculum at the elementary level. While 64%
of districts require specific instructional time for reading and 53% require specific
instructional time for math, 20% of schools have changed their policies to increase

19

instruction in math reading. On average 94 minutes are devoted to reading and 64
minutes are devoted to math daily (Scott, Kober, Rentner, and Jennings, 2004). This
additional time for reading and math instruction is directly correlated to a reduction of
time devoted to subjects such as social studies, science, the arts, and physical
education. While similar research has not been completed at the secondary level, it may
be possible to infer that similar changes in instructional emphasis have occurred.

History of NCLB
Introduction
The 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was the latest reauthorization of the
federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, the previous
reauthorization being the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994. Originally, ESEA
sought to provide schools with additional funds to provide supplemental services for
minority and economically disadvantaged children. NCLB continues this mission, but
has greatly increased the federal role in education, insisting that all students reach high
levels of proficiency. This has, in part, been accomplished through a comprehensive
accountability system and the addition of formal and informal sanctions for schools that
fail to meet the expectations set forth in the new law (Hall, 2007).
NCLB strives to overcome a long tradition of states not being held accountable
for school performance. The predecessor to NCLB was the 1994 Improving America’s
Schools Act (IASA), also a reauthorization of ESEA. Much of the framework for NCLB
came from IASA. Notably different was the level of attention states paid to this law. Very
little was done to enforce the expectations set forth in IASA; no state had federal funds
withheld for non-compliance (Kim et al., 2005). A primary obstacle to holding states

20

accountable is the small percentage of funding for education that comes from
Washington, only 7% of the overall education budget; yet, states seem to be complying
with NCLB despite occasional grumblings about possibly returning the federal money.

New Requirements
NCLB mandated numerous new requirements for schools. Five prominent new
requirements directly affecting high schools are discussed below.

#1 Assessment
The No Child Left Behind Act specified very specific testing guidelines. Excluding
students who are exempt through uncontrollable circumstances, i.e., “hurricanes or
unforeseen financial resources of the state,” proficiency testing of all students in
mathematics and reading or language arts is required at least once in grades 3 through
5, grades 6 through 9, and grades 10 through 12 (NCLB, 2002a). Science proficiency
testing was required to begin during the 2007-08 school year, at least once in each of
the three grade spans noted above. The law also requires the assessments: (1) be the
same measurement of achievement for all children, (2) align with the states’ challenging
content expectations, and (3) involve multiple up-to-date measures of student academic
achievement, including measures that assess higher-order thinking skills and
understanding (NCLB, 2002a).

#2 Adequate Yearly Progress
Adequate Yearly Progress was first defined by the federal government in the
1994 reauthorization of ESEA titled Improving America’s Schools Act. IASA defined
AYP:

21

In a manner that (1) results in continuous and substantial yearly improvement of
each school and local education agency sufficient to achieve the goal of all
children…meeting the state’s proficient and advanced levels of achievement;
[and] (2) is sufficiently rigorous to achieve the goal within an appropriate
timeframe. (Elmore & Rothman, 1999, p. 85)
The 2002 reauthorization of ESEA, titled No Child Left Behind, greatly expanded on this
original definition. NCLB mandated each state to define AYP in a manner that applies
the same high standards of academic achievement to all public school students in the
State; is statistically valid and reliable; results in continuous and substantial academic
improvement for all students; measures the progress of public schools primarily on
academic assessments; includes separate measurable annual objectives for continuous
and substantial improvement for not only all public school elementary and secondary
students, but also further including economically disadvantaged students, students from
major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with limited
English proficiency (NCLB, 2002a). Additional requirements for AYP under NCLB
included using the graduation rate as an academic indicator at the high school level;
having separate measures for both reading/language arts and math; and requiring 95%
of not only each subgroup but also an entire school be tested each year (Education
Week, 2004).

#3 Highly Qualified Staff
One of the cornerstones of the No Child Left Behind Act is that all students be
taught by “highly qualified teachers.” Highly qualified was defined in the federal
legislation to mean that a teacher has (1) earned at a minimum a bachelor’s degree;
(2) acquired full state certification as a teacher; and (3) has demonstrated subject area
competence in each area taught (USDOE, 2002).

22

Considerable research shows that teachers’ content knowledge is directly related
to their effectiveness (Haycock & Peske, 2006). Darling-Hammond (2000), Loeb (2000),
and Wayne and Youngs (2003) all have confirmed this relationship. The relationship
between teacher quality and student achievement is most evident at middle and high
school levels. A study from the University of Tennessee illuminated the connection
between effective teaching and student achievement. Researchers found that low
achieving students gained only 14 points each year on the Tennessee state test when
they were taught by the least effective teachers (Haycock & Peske, 2006). When taught
by the most effective teachers, low achieving students gained 53 points in the same
amount of time.
One problem under-performing school districts, particularly large urban districts,
have is recruiting and keeping teachers. This can be seen in the statistic that more than
one in every five core academic classes in high poverty schools are taught by teachers
who are not certified in the subject(s) that they teach (Almy & Theokas, 2010). Math
classes in high poverty schools are twice as likely to be taught by an out-of-field
teacher, who is thus not highly qualified by federal standards. Research has shown that
students in schools with high percentages of minority students are twice as likely to
have a novice teacher as in schools with small populations of minority students
(Haycock & Peske, 2006).
The aforementioned research demonstrates that schools need to put the most
effective teachers with the neediest students. The issue is more complex than merely
hiring highly qualified, enthusiastic teachers. Research shows that individuals who begin
their career in high poverty schools frequently leave (in disproportionate numbers) not

23

only their schools but also the profession (Kim et al., 2005). For real improvement to
occur, the combined issues of quality and stability need to be addressed.

#4 Report Cards
NCLB also required states to publish a state report card beginning no later than
the 2002-03 school year (NCLB, 2002b). The state report card is supposed to be
concise and presented in an understandable uniform format in a language, when
practicable, that the parents can understand. Required information consists of
(1) aggregate student achievement at each proficiency level disaggregated by race,
ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status, English proficiency, and economically
disadvantaged; (2) comparisons between achievement levels of each group of students;
(3) percentage of students not tested disaggregated by the eight same categories;
(4) the most recent two-year trend in student achievement in each subject area;
(5) aggregate information on any other indicators used by states to determine AYP;
(6) high school graduation rates; (7) information on the performance of local educational
agencies; (8) and the professional qualification of teachers within the state (NCLB,
2002c).
Also beginning in 2002-03, all the school districts (local educational agencies)
are required to generate report cards for the district (NCLB, 2002d). School district
report cards must include all of the information required on the state report cards. In
addition, districts are required to report the number and percentage of schools identified
for improvement as well as the number of years the school(s) have failed to make AYP
(NCLB, 2002d). Districts must also compare their student achievement data to
statewide assessment data. Individual school report cards include all of the above

24

information along with achievement comparisons to other schools in the district. School
report cards must also include comparisons to the state on the other indicators used to
determine AYP.

#5 Sanctions
This section will consider sanctions designated in the NCLB as a method of
encouraging change. Policy by its very nature is ill-suited to change actual classroom
practices. Policy can, however, influence teaching practices through individuals such as
principals and agencies such as state departments of education (Ladd, 2001). A brief
examination of how sanctions can be used as a lever for change will follow. This section
concludes by considering the impact of sanctions on individual schools.
The most significant sanctions in NCLB are applied when schools fail to make
AYP. As shown in Table 2.1, there are 36 ways that schools can fail to make AYP
based on achievement testing.
It is also important to note that schools are also held accountable for two
additional measures: at the elementary and middle school levels attendance rates must
be calculated and at the high school level graduation rates must be calculated. Meeting
the required levels on these two criteria is also required for each of the nine categories
listed in Table 2.1, bringing the total number of ways that a school can fail to make AYP
at each grade assessed to 45.
Once a school fails to make AYP for two consecutive years, it is obligated to
implement certain sanctions (NCLB, 2002e). Since these programs often involve
changing the decision making structure within a school, they are frequently referred to
as restructuring options. It is important to note that schools do not have to “fail” in the

25

Table 2.1
Matrix of AYP Requirements

Math
Participation

Reading
or
ELA Participation

Math
Proficiency

Reading
or
ELA Proficiency

All Students
High Poverty
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Native American
White
Students with
Disabilities
Limited English
Proficiency

same content area or even the same subgroup for two years before sanctions are
applied. For example, if Asian students failed to make AYP in mathematics one year
and special education students failed to make AYP in reading the subsequent year, the
school have to begin implementing the required sanctions. See Table 2.2 for the
progression of sanctions.
Any school receiving Title I funding that fails to make AYP for two consecutive
years is labeled “identified for improvement”. Once this designation is obtained, the
school must spend 20% of its Tile I funding on a combination of two programs. The two

26

Table 2.2
No Child Left Behind School Improvement Sanctions for Schools Receiving Title I
Funds
First Year

Second Year

Did not make
Adequate
Yearly
Progress

Did not make
Adequate Yearly
Progress

Third Year
School must offer
supplemental
educational
services and/or
transfer option

Fourth Year
Corrective
action

Fifth Year
Restructuring

programs described in detail below are supplemental educational services and transfer
options. While 20% of a school’s title one funding must be spent on these two
programs, it is somewhat up to the school on how to allocate the funding. The only
requirement is that no less than 5% of the funding may be spent on either (USDOE,
2005).
Transfer option. The federal government’s interest in school choice can be traced
back to President Clinton’s Improving America’s School Act. The idea behind school
choice is to provide low-income families the kind of choice that white suburban families
have when they choose their schools by where they decide to live (Kim et al., 2005).
IASA gave school districts the ability to use Title I money to fund intra-district choice
programs (Kim & Sunderman, 2004a). This aspect of IASA, for the most part, went
unnoticed. Federal legislatures, realizing the potential of school choice to help bridge
both the racial and economic gaps, greatly expanded school choice programs under
NCLB. When a Title I school fails to make AYP for two years, the school district must do
the following: (1) offer students who are enrolled in the school the option to transfer to
27

other schools in the district that are not identified for improvement, on a space-available
basis; (2) provide or pay for transportation for students who choose the transfer option,
within certain cost limits; and (3) give priority to the lowest-achieving students from lowincome families if there is not enough space available in non-identified schools or funds
to cover transportation costs.
The final Title I regulations stated that if a district does not have the capacity to
transfer these students, then it must either create additional capacity or provide a choice
of other school districts. (Kim et al., 2005). New York schools applied this literal
approach and approved 8000 transfers resulting in massive overcrowding in some
schools. New York legislators quickly passed legislation to prevent this from recurring
(Kim & Sunderman, 2005).
For districts that do not have the ability to provide intra-district choice, either for
lack of other schools in the same grade span or lack of space at other schools, districts
are charged with providing choice options in neighboring school districts. There are
numerous obstacles to achieving this vision. First, in some states, such as Michigan,
school finance is tied directly to individual students. If a student leaves a school district
then so does the funding for that child. As a result, districts have a disincentive to
attempt to create transfer options for students to attend another district. Second, there is
nothing that requires neighboring districts to take these students. In fact, districts may
not want to take students from "failing" schools, as these students are frequently viewed
as a threat to their own AYP status (Mathews, 2003).
The reality of school choice, under NCLB, is that it will have minimal meaningful
impact. The absence of strong schools with space in or near large urban districts is a

28

huge obstacle to real choice (Kim et al., 2005). In reality, the only transfer option for
many students may be a school marginally better than the one they were attending. It is
also important to note that, according to research, parents use factors other than
student achievement when selecting schools. Considerations such as day care,
convenience, social factors, and sports play a strong role when parents choose a school
(NCREL, 2003).

Supplemental educational services. If a school does not make AYP for two years,
the second sanction to impact schools is the requirement to provide supplemental
educational services (SES). The law defines SES as "additional academic instruction
designed to increase the academic achievement of students in low-performing schools"
and indicates that it "must be high quality, research-based, and specifically designed to
increase student achievement" (Kim et al., 2005). NCLB goes on to state that SES
programs must be provided outside the normal school day and may not be provided by
the school identified for improvement.
SES programs are used more frequently than transfer options for two reasons:
(1) the school does not lose enrollment and resulting state funding for a student under
this system and (2) additional programs/tutoring are generally thought to enhance the
efforts of the local school (Lecher, 2005). It should be noted, however, that when NCLB
was written there was no research-based evidence that supplemental services were
effective. SES programs are a logical intervention that lack the rigorous scientific
research mentioned in the law (Slavin, 2006).
Section 1116(b)(7)(C) of the No Child Left Behind Act outlines corrective actions
for schools that fail to make AYP by the end of the second school year after

29

identification under paragraph one of section 1111 (NCLB, 2002e). Schools in this
category shall continue to provide the supplemental educational services and the
transfer option called for in the second year of sanctions. Additionally, schools must
take at least one of following corrective actions: replace school staff relevant to the
failure to make AYP; fully implement a new scientifically based researched curriculum
including professional development for all relevant staff; significantly decrease the
management authority at the school level; appoint an outside expert to advise the
school on its progress to making AYP; extend the school year or day; or restructure the
internal organizational structure of the school.
If a school fails to make AYP after one year of corrective action, NCLB goes on
to define the next phase of sanctions as restructuring. Again, the school must continue
to provide the supplemental educational services and the transfer option called for in the
second year of sanctions. Schools in the fourth year of sanctions must pick a form of
alternative governance. Alternative governance options include reopening the school as
a public charter school; replacing all or most of the staff (which may include the
principal) who are relevant to the school’s failure to obtain AYP; enter into a contract
with a private management company with a demonstrated record of effectiveness to
operate a public school; turn the operation of the school over to the state educational
agency (if permitted under state law and agreed to by the state); or any other major
restructuring of the school’s governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms.

Capacity
One area of concern with NCLB is the capacity of the federal government to
maintain support. First, federal priorities are subject to legislative appropriations.

30

Second, a change in federal resources can lead to abandonment or scaling back of
projects, and finally, elected officials influence federal priorities. As more and more
schools begin to fail to meet NCLB standards, it seems unlikely U.S. congressional
representatives will continue to label a rapidly growing contingent of their constituents
as failures. Forty-one states had registered some form of complaint concerning the
intrusion of NCLB, by August of 2005 (Garcia, Mathis, & Wiley, 2005). Only time will tell
if the federal government can keep this expanded role in education a top priority.
The increased federal role in education has led to increased responsibilities for
states and local school districts. There is growing evidence that the technical demands
imposed by NCLB exceed states’ capacities to handle the psychometric problems
associated with testing and data analysis (Kim & Sunderman, 2005). Michigan
experienced this phenomenon in 2002-03, when failing schools were not identified until
January of 2004 (Dunbar & Plank, 2004). The issues surrounding state-level data still
exist today. The 2010/11 MEAP data, for assessments administered in early October
2010, were not released until March 31, 2011 (Associated Press, 2011). Additionally,
oversight of local implementation of NCLB has been almost nonexistent. Most states,
including Michigan, lack financial and human capacity within their departments of
education to assist schools adequately once the schools are subjected to sanctions. In
many cases it appears that states are struggling to meet most of the demands NCLB
placed on them (Sunderman & Orfield, 2007).

Impact on Schools
Proponents of NCLB point out that to “stay in business” schools must implement
change and improve (NCREL, 2003). Ideally, sanctions provide the leverage for

31

meaningful change. Some would claim that these reforms are well deserved since local
policy makers and school officials have, for decades, ignored the problems within
schools (Mitzell, 2003). Opponents of NCLB quickly point out that the only benefit
brought by sanctions has been increased test scores and that these scores have not
correlated to overall educational attainment (Carnoy & Loeb, 2002).
Research has indicated that teachers reallocated their time and resources
towards tested content (Hamilton, 2011). A notion emerged that this narrowing of
curriculum was permissible if the content contained in the assessment was worth
teaching (Linn, 2000). In reality, however, while student achievement has increased, the
variability between states’ proficiency standards makes comparisons difficult. From
2002 until 2009, there were more states that posted gains in student achievement in
math and reading, in grades 4, 8, and high school, than states whose achievement
scores either remained flat or declined (Kober, Chudowsky, and Chudowsky, 2010).
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NEAP) testing confirmed the state gains
for most subgroups, from 2005 until 2009, in grades 4 and 8 (Kober, Chudowsky, and
Chudowsky, 2010). Despite these positive findings (a basic upward trend) enough
differences exist between state and national testing to raise concerns about the
narrowing of achievement gaps between student sub-groups, such as African
Americans and Hispanics.
Resulting from the lack of cohesiveness between individual states’ standards and
assessments aimed at determining their effectiveness, current policy has focused on
the adoption of a national set of Common Core Standards. The Common Core
standards are the result of efforts by the national governor’s association and association

32

of chief state school officers. To date, 42 states have formally adopted the common
core (Common Core, 2011). While in theory the common core is a state initiative, U.S.
Education Department Secretary Arnie Duncan noted that:
The release of the common core standards is an important step toward the
improvement of quality education nationwide. States have come together to
develop standards that are internationally benchmarked and include the
knowledge and skills that students must learn to succeed in college and career.
(USDOE, 2010, p. 1)
Current assessment-based accountability practices call on high schools to
educate all students to higher academic standards prior to graduation. This is somewhat
problematic because this is not what high schools were designed to do. Historically,
students have not all taken the same coursework, studied the same content, or met the
same standards to graduate (Siskin, 2003). As assessment-based accountability
systems have continued to evolve, concerns at the high school level over the narrowing
of the curriculum, time allocated to test preparation, the practice of pushing at-risk
students out of school, and over-certifying students into special education have
emerged (Neill, Grisbond, and Schaeffer, 2004).
In general, large urban schools were the first to be impacted by NCLB sanctions.
Nationwide, urban schools comprise only 27% of the total number of schools; yet they
account for 42% of the total failing schools (Chudowsky & Chudowsky, 2005). In
addition, some states with existing assessment programs, such as Michigan, had
existing data that “allowed” earlier identification. Michigan had 544 schools fail to make
AYP in 2006 compared to 436 in 2005 and 297 in 2004 (MDE, 2006). The state report
shows 399 high schools, nearly one-third of all high schools, failed to make AYP. The
good news is that 163 schools came out of sanctions, with 55 of those schools having

33

been in the most advanced phases of sanctions. This advanced identification has been
tempered recently. During the 2009-10 school year 86% of all schools made AYP
(MDE, 2010c). Eighty-two buildings were removed from NCLB sanctions by making
AYP for two consecutive years. There was also an 11% increase in the number of high
schools making AYP. While NCLB uses the phrase “scientifically based research” over
100 times, there is no “scientifically based” research to support the use of sanctions as
effective means to reform schools (Chudowsky and Chudowsky, 2005). Now that
Michigan schools have implemented restructuring options for a few years, some data
are emerging. Districts that have implemented four or more strategies over two years
are significantly more likely to meet AYP that those that did not. Ninety-six percent of
schools implementing four or more strategies over the past two years made AYP,
compared to 80% that implemented fewer than four strategies.
No single reform strategy has proven to be most effective (Scott, Kober, Rentner,
and Jennings, 2005). In the 2004-05 school year, however, the most popular
restructuring option, “implement any other major effort that significantly changes the
governance of the school,” was used by 93% of the schools. Fifty-eight percent of
schools chose to appoint a new principal, while 17% chose to pursue coaching as a
means of improvement.
Michigan is experiencing some success with the use of sanctions to remove
schools from the list of failing schools. Testing and sanctions, however, are not
addressing the underlying problems that cause poor performance (Garcia et al., 2005).

34

Staff Quality
The requirement in NCLB that all students be taught by “highly qualified”
teachers created serious problems for local schools. 'Highly qualified' was defined in the
federal legislation to mean that a teacher (1) has earned at a minimum a bachelor’s
degree; (2) has earned full state certification; and (3) has demonstrated subject area
competence in each area they teach (USDOE, 2002). The federal definition of “highly
qualified” created troubles for states in that many teachers, particularly veteran
teachers, were certified for the grades and courses they taught, but these same
teachers did not meet the new federal requirements to teach these classes.
As a result of the new legislation, states were required to determine how
teachers could receive “highly qualified” designation, with all teachers required to meet
these requirements by June 30, 2006. The simplest and easiest way was to have a
major or minor in each subject area taught and pass some type of state assessment to
demonstrate competence. Teachers were also able to obtain highly qualified status
through state defined initiatives where the states have “significant flexibility”(USDOE,
2004). The use of specific professional development in core content areas and/or the
development of a portfolio that contained sufficient information to demonstrate
competence in each core content taught are two examples of state-defined highly
qualified criteria.

Funding
Funding may be the most polar topic considered when discussing NCLB.
Supporters and opponents of the federal legislation both have strong factual ground on
which to stand. The real issue concerns whether or not the historically high level of

35

federal funding is sufficient to cover the added expense to meet requirements in the
legislation. Some unintended monetary effects, which undermine the overall objectives
of the policies, have already surfaced.
Both former U.S. Secretaries of Education, Margret Spellings and Rod Page,
have stated that NCLB is fully funded with federal spending at historic levels (Garcia et
al., 2005). Education accounts for 8% of the federal budget, Title I represents 2.6% of
total education spending, and NCLB appropriations represent a 0.9% increase in overall
education spending. Congress’s initial 17% increase in Title I funding allocated for
NCLB was followed by a 2.8% increase the following year (Jennings, 2002).
There is considerable discrepancy between the level of funding proposed in
NCLB legislation and what was allocated. In 2004, Title I appropriations were increased
5.6% and appropriations for ESEA were increased 5.1% despite the proposed 2.6%
reduction called for in the President’s budget (Kim & Sunderman, 2005). President
Obama has sought increases in federal education expenditures, something president
Bush did not do after initial NCLB authorization. Recent increases in federal education
spending have come in the form of competitive grants titled Race To The Top (USDOE,
2010a). Few states and schools have been selected for this additional money.
Many groups believe NCLB is grossly underfunded. The National Governors
Association, Center for Educational Policy, and the National Conference of State
Legislatures all have voiced strong concern over the inadequate funding of NCLB. The
National Governors Association released a bipartisan statement declaring NCLB an
unfunded mandate and called for greater flexibility in addition to increased funding (Kim
& Sunderman, 2005). The Ohio legislature, working with a broad range of educational

36

experts, concluded that their annual compliance cost would be 1.5 billion dollars (Kim &
Sunderman, 2004b). Nationwide estimates show as much as a 12 billion dollar shortfall
in NCLB funding (Meier, Kohn, Darling-Hammond, Sizer, & Wood, 2004). The New
York Times criticized President Bush for failing to seek the full-authorized funding
(Mitzell, 2003). As a result of this lack of funding, many states passed legislation
preventing districts from spending additional money for compliance (Kim et al., 2005).
Many Michigan schools are in a precarious situation. The aforementioned
problem of federal funding is compounded by the worst state economy and resulting
state fiscal situation in twenty years (Garcia et al., 2005). Michigan is not alone. Thirtyseven states cut nearly 12.6 billion dollars in 2002, and 14.5 billion in 2003, to balance
their budgets. To make matters even worse, the federal government did not allow for
revenue sharing as it has typically done to help states through economic downturns. At
the 2003 meeting of the National Governors Association, President Bush cited the
federal budget deficit and the cost of the war in Iraq as reasons not to provide relief to
states.

Michigan Response to NCLB
Education Yes! and Report Cards
The Michigan Department of Education put forth a blueprint for ensuring the
success of all schools, with the 2002 adoption of the Education, Yes! a school
accountability program. This complex system combines new state accountability
requirements with the requirements mandated under No Child Left Behind. In
accordance with NCLB legislation, Michigan created guidelines explaining the various
components used to grade schools on the NCLB mandated school report cards.

37

Michigan report card grades are comprised of five state components: English/Language
Arts achievement; Mathematics achievement; Science achievement; Social Studies
achievement; and a series of performance indicators plus AYP status (MDE, 2003). The
subject area achievement data are based on assessment data that include three parts:
status, change, and, beginning in 2008, growth. A self-assessment of performance on
indicators of school improvement, and graduation rate complete the Michigan
requirements (MDE, 2003). AYP, the final facet and the federal component, is based on
the percentage of students who reach a set performance level on the state-mandated
achievement tests.
The self-assessment included in Education Yes! focuses on measures of school
performance. Measures of school performance include (1) indicators of engagement;
(2) indicators of instructional quality; and (3) indicators of learning opportunities (MDE,
2008b). There are 40 standards on which the schools have to rate themselves
according to a rubric. The self-assessment comprises 33% of a school's overall report
card grade. Clearly, there is an incentive for some schools to rate themselves more
highly in an effort to raise their overall report card grades. In 2006-07 the state of
Michigan supplied a grading program for the self-assessment. This allowed schools to
determine what their grades would be on the self-assessments based on their answers
prior to submitting the data. In 2007-08, this dilemma was removed when the Michigan
Department of Education assigned each school completing the self-assessment 100%.
Michigan’s newest school accountability tool, Mi-SAS, is based on student
achievement and compliance with Michigan Statute. Four components will be utilized to
determine an Annual State Accreditation Status for each school. The components are:

38

student achievement, compliance with Michigan statute, annual state accreditation
status, and additional school, district, community, and state information (MDE, 2009)
The new instrument has been tied up in the court system since 2009, and has been
released as of 2011 (MASSP, 2009).
As previously alluded to, Michigan’s self-assessment has undergone several
changes. The original model had schools completing an assessment including 11
standards without a rubric or any solid knowledge of how a grade would be obtained
(MDE, 2003). When Michigan released a framework for school accountability, 40 of the
99 standards were used for school self-assessment. The advantage of this system was
that a detailed rubric was provided to help schools accurately determine how they
scored; however, there were still no way for schools to determine their overall grades on
this component prior to submitting their reports. The following year a grading program
was provided with the report so schools could see their grades prior to submitting the
data. The self-assessment underwent another change during the 2006-07 school year.
While the standards remained largely unchanged, the detailed rubric for determining a
school status was greatly reduced; however, every school completing the report
received 100% in this area. As of the 2008-09 school year, schools have four options for
completing the self-assessment: (1) Schools accredited by the North-Central
Association (NCA) annually complete a standards assessment which automatically
fulfills the buildings Education Yes! reporting requirements; (2) NCA schools that did not
complete the NCA assessments are required to complete a new self-assessment;
(3) schools not members of NCA still have the opportunity to complete the 40
performance indicators as they did last year; and (4) schools not members of NCA that

39

participated in a pilot project last year will complete a document fulfilling the
requirements of Education Yes!
The remaining 67% of a school’s report card grade comes from measures of
student achievement. The measures of student achievement are divided into three
categories: (1) achievement status -– 23%; (2) achievement change -– 22%; and
(3) achievement growth -- 22% (MDE, 2003). Achievement status uses up to three
years of previous testing data to determine the overall level of achievement within the
school building. Achievement change considers the trend line of previous data to
determine whether student achievement is increasing at the rate necessary to have
100% of students proficient in the year 2014. Achievement growth is a new program
approved by the US Department of Education, beginning 2007-2008. The growth model
will measure whether individual students have gained at least one year of educational
growth for one year of instruction. Achievement status, change, and growth are used to
compute a grade in each of the four core content areas, reading/language arts, math,
science and social studies. The resulting scores for each content area are then
averaged to determine an overall achievement score for the building.
Once the self-assessment and the achievement data are obtained, an overall
score for the building can be determined using the aforementioned criteria. Letter
grades are assigned based on the scores and whether or not the school made
adequate yearly progress. Table 2.3 shows the scores necessary for schools to obtain
each grade.
It should be noted that the federal criteria of 95% students tested and attendance
or graduation rates are used to determine adequate yearly status.

40

Table 2.3
Michigan School Report Card Grade Matrix
Education YES!
Composite Score

Did Not Make AYP

Makes AYP

90 – 100

B

A

80 – 89

B

B

70 – 79

C

C

60 – 69

D/Alert

C

50 – 59

Unaccredited

D/Alert

Individual school and district report card grades have taken on particular
importance in Michigan as newspapers and school boards of education pay close
attention to these grades, now readily available to the public. As the pubic becomes
more aware of this accountability system, there is increasing pressure to improve and
maintain good report card grades (GenNet Principals, 2007).
Accountability is once again undergoing change in Michigan. The Michigan State
Board of Education and the Michigan Department of Education's Office of Education
Assessment and Accountability are proposing a new system which would replace
Education Yes! for the 2009-10 school year (MASSP, 2008). As previously mentioned,
the new accountability system Mi-SAS is still being revised and is the subject of
litigation which has inhibited its implementation. The double jeopardy of both failing to
meet AYP and being unaccredited is central to the reform. Under the new system being
proposed:

41

Schools would be accredited if 60% of students were proficient on all but one of
the MEAP/Merit Exam subjects. Two or more subjects below 60% would drop the
school to interim accredited and any subject below 35% would drop the school to
unaccredited. (MASSP, 2008, p. 2)
School letter grades also would be dropped in favor of a page of statistics explaining the
reason why a school did or did not receive accreditation.

Michigan Merit Examination
In 2007, the Michigan Merit Examination (MME) replaced the Michigan Education
Assessment Program (MEAP) at the high school level. The MME is comprised of three
sections: the ACT plus writing (ACT is one of the standard examinations required by
many colleges for admission), parts of the ACT Work Keys (Work Keys is used by many
businesses to determine competence for particular areas of employment), and Michigan
Content (it assesses all the areas of the state curriculum not tested on either of the
other assessments). Beginning with the 2008-09 school year, an additional ACT Work
Keys component, locating information, was added in order to provide students the
opportunity to obtain a work readiness certificate from ACT.
Michigan had a strong history of allowing students to retest on the state’s
standardized assessments at the high school level. Under the old high school MEAP
test guidelines, students could take the test five times. Originally, students were allowed
to take the Michigan Merit Exam twice with students first taking the exam in the spring
of their junior year. Seniors could retest one additional time. Beginning with the 2008 2009 school year, students’ ability to retest was greatly diminished. Only students who
did not obtained a qualifying (valid) score on the MME may retest.

42

Michigan Merit Curriculum
In 2006, the Michigan state legislature passed laws aimed at increasing the 3 R’s
of high school education - Rigor, Relevance and Relationships. While most high schools
had higher graduation requirements, part of the impetus for this change was the minimal
requirement (1/2 credit of U.S. Government) required by the state (MDE, 2008b). The
goal of the Michigan Merit Curriculum is for all students to be ready for college. The
curriculum requires, in part, that all high school students complete four years of
mathematics including algebra II, four years of English, and three years of science with
one course being chemistry or physics (MDE, 2006). The required curriculum also
includes three years of social studies, a semester each of health and physical
education, two years of world (foreign) languages and a credit in visual/performing arts.
Michigan Merit Curriculum now accounts for 16 credits, leaving fewer opportunities for
students to explore interests in elective areas.
The Michigan Merit Curriculum legislation contained two radically new provisions.
The first provision requires districts to grant credit for students who demonstrate
mastery of a course through the “testing out” option. The law states that:
A school district... shall also grant a student a credit if the student earns a
qualifying score... as determined by the local school district... on one or more
assessments developed or selected by the school district... that measure a
student's understanding of the subject area content expectations or guidelines
that apply to credit. (MDE, 2007, p. 2)
For many schools the testing out exam is also the final exam. Therefore,
Genesee County high school principals, curriculum directors, and superintendents have
agreed that a student who earns a grade of 78% or better on a comprehensive final
exam will earn credit in the class regardless of their overall grade.

43

The second provision the state developed was a "personal curriculum" for
students. A personal curriculum allows modifications to the required Michigan Merit
Curriculum, and in some circumstances it can still lead to a high school diploma. The
intent of a personal curriculum is two-fold: it allows students to trade courses in order to
take more math and science classes; it also modifies the algebra II requirement after
the student has completed the first half of this class. In exchange for reducing math
requirement, additional credits must be earned in other core areas.
History of the Principal’s Role in Local Governance
This review concludes with some considerations of the impact of state and
federal accountability policies on high school principals. To understand the historic role
of the principal, one must first consider the origins of public school in the United States..
Public schools, primarily one-room schools, existed for approximately 150 years before
the advent of the school principal. Once the position of principal was established, he
was responsible to the local board of education.
Local school boards are an American invention developed with the local systems
of education (Faber, 1990). Local boards of education arose through and have
jurisdiction over schools through state legislations. School boards persist because
supporters argue that elected school boards give all voices the opportunity to be heard,
provide transparency for school business, and distribute educational services fairly and
equitably throughout the school system (Hess, 2010). However, their effectiveness is
routinely debated. Opponents of school boards note that a lack of voter attention makes
it difficult for voters to hold board members accountable; electoral apathy allows
mobilized constituencies (teacher unions) to expert disproportionate influence; and

44

shifting membership of elected boards can be blamed for lack of program coherence
(Hess).
The use of school districts, as a system, arose from the geographical and the
ideological circumstances of early colonial education. Specifically, issues concerning
communication and transportation coupled with an aversion to centralized authority
necessitated a district system that allowed for local control. For example, colonies were
often created with specific outcomes in mind. As a result, schools from different regions
held differing priorities (Spring, 2001). Historian Lawrence Cremin (1970) points out that
Virginia companies, chartered in the early 1600s, primarily were concerned with the
creation of plantations -- for the express purpose of generating profit. As such,
education in this area centered on maintaining discipline. Many New England colonies
were created for specific religious purposes and schooling, with an emphasis on
religious doctrine, was viewed as important to sustain a well-ordered community.
Local control and variation in schooling has continued to be a unique characteristic of
U.S. schooling. And, historically, U.S. high school principals have been assessed and
judged on how well they served local community values and needs.

Principal Role Expectations
The position of school principal evolved over a hundred years ago, when and
where one-room school houses began to disappear. From 1880 to 1920 the number of
students attending school in the United States increased from 200,000 to 2,000,000.
With the increase in student population, schools began to hire multiple teachers and
provide more services. The initial concept involved having a principal teacher who
fulfilled a variety of roles including teacher, town clerk, grave digger, church chorister,

45

court messenger, and occasionally church bell ringer (Goldman, 2006). Somewhat
interestingly, the concept of principal teacher began at the high school level. Over time
the teaching and other duties became too time consuming and the principal’s role was
limited to managing the school.
Initial expectations for school principals were managerial with limited
responsibility for academic programs (Fredericks & Brown, 1993). Over time, the
expectations of the principal’s role has changed, but, in actuality, the largely managerial
aspect of the job has remained the same. This can be seen in the following quote from
1926:
The principal of a large modern high school…has regarded himself these many
years as primarily a supervisor of instruction. But each passing year finds some
new activity demanding its share of his time and energies. A new program of
secondary education steadily assuming form and substance is pulling him farther
and farther from his classrooms, and now and then he asks himself just what are
my functions. To come down quickly to a statement of what seems to be the
trend of his new tasks, the time is not far distant when he can with entire peace
of mind and in all propriety regard himself in what will really be his fixed capacity,
the manager of a great social institution. (Courter,NASSP Bulletin, 1926)
The predominate view of principals as managers continued into the 1980s. In the
early 1980s, the A Nation at Risk Report not only highlighted the failings of American
schools but focused on the individual school as the unit of change and underscored
research emphasizing the importance of principal leadership to school reform and
improvement. Consequently, expectations for principals increased significantly.
In the past 20 years the view of principals’ responsibility has continued to evolve.
The Goals 2000: Educate America Act shifted the groundwork and assumptions
regarding school principals and introduced the notion of instructional leadership as a
key principal duty (Portin, Alejano, Knapp, & Marzolf, 2006). Initial views of instructional

46

leadership include top-down supervision and evaluation of school programs, curriculum,
and teachers; instructional supervision included setting goals, examining curriculum,
evaluating teachers, and assessing results. Modern views of instructional leadership
maintain similar focus but shun the top-down role of leadership in favor of working
collaboratively with teachers and stakeholders (Ubben & Hughes, 1997).
While current theory and policy call on school principals to be instructional
leaders, boldly leading their schools to new levels of academic attainment, in reality
management roles frequently take precedence. A 1998 study of principals as managers
and leaders highlighted the fact that while principals strove to fulfill instructional
leadership tasks, they were faced with an endless stream of management
responsibilities (Cascadden, 1998). The notion of management actually being the top
priority over instructional leadership for principals has been confirmed in numerous
studies (Chan & Pool, 2002; Cooley & Shen, 2003; Goodwin, Cunningham, & Childress,
2003; Ricciardi & Petrosko, 2001).

Implications of Competing Expectations for Principals
State and Federal legislatures have rewritten the definition of what it means to be
an educated person and what it means to be a principal. Under assessment-based
accountability brought on by NCLB, an educated person is one who scores high on
standardized math and reading tests (Meier, 2004). Relying on standardized test scores
as the measure for success usurps local school boards and parents of the ability to
define attributes of a sound education. Accountability demands brought on school
leaders by NCLB fall into three main areas: (1) assessment and accountability,
(2) parental choice, and (3) quality teachers (Petersen & Young, 2004)

47

Assessment and accountability demands placed on schools by NCLB can have
huge consequences for school principals. The section above, which highlights NCLB
sanctions, lists 'replacing the principal' as one possible consequence for poor student
performance. Assessment-based accountability concerns over narrowing the curriculum
were likewise previously examined. Principals face new pressures about how to balance
accountability demands with professional values about teaching, learning, and student
support. In Michigan, the balancing act between acceptable and unacceptable
instructional practices has become murkier. For example, State Superintendent Mike
Flanagan sent out a memo in 2009 stating that Michigan’s High School Content
Expectations were not to be a “check off list.” Mr. Flanagan went on to say, “We know
that there is no way for schools to cover in depth every High School Content
Expectations nor should districts make that attempt” (MASSP, 2009). Instead, Mr.
Flanagan called on educators to locally identify the most important expectations and
focus their instruction on these areas. For educators, this memo further blurred the line
of acceptable practices by appearing to focus instruction on tested content.
The definition of instructional leadership put forth above called on principals to
work collaboratively with staff and parents to set goals, examine curriculum, evaluate
teachers, and assess results. By setting the definition of success for all students,
accountability policy has made public engagement and parental involvement extremely
difficult (Meier, 2004). Principals can work with constituent groups in an effort to be
authentic “instructional leaders” as long as the groups’ priorities align with the state and
federal standards.

48

NCLB has also introduced potential constraints on principals in their ability to
place teachers within their building in desired assignments. In some instances teachers
who had been successfully teaching particular classes for many years prior to NCLB,
did not meet the new Highly Qualified requirements and were no longer able to teach
these classes. NCLB set the laudable goal of having a highly qualified teacher in front of
every student. Specifics of highly qualified requirements, noted previously, can cause
problems for building leaders. Some states have noted the difficulty for small rural and
large urban districts to attract highly qualified teachers (Petersen & Young, 2004).
Unable to find individuals that meet the highly qualified requirements, these districts
frequently have had to settle for individuals capable of obtaining substitute teaching
permits to fill the void. Thus, building principals have to face the community pressure
associated with the sometimes quirky outcomes of the highly qualified teacher
requirements.
Whether utilized or not, school choice programs, created by the transfer option in
NCLB, impact principals’ ability to lead as they try to balance the desires of parents with
the demands of federal and state accountability measures. School leaders are keenly
aware of the influence parent and community involvement can bring to a school
(Petersen, 1989). Principals’ jobs would be more manageable if community and
parental desires coincided with the aims of the accountability measures (Portin et al.,
2006). Unfortunately some decisions that principals are required to make in order to
meet NCLB requirements may be in direct conflict with parental and local community
desires. While NCLB created a transfer option so parents unhappy with their schools
could have their children attend another school or district, for a variety of reasons few

49

parents are willing to use this option. Thus the conflict continues (Petersen & Young,
2004).
For the vast history of America’s schools, principals have been almost
exclusively responsible to local school boards of education. Current school
accountability policy has shifted the focus of who principals are accountable to. NCLB
has brought on a matrix of overseers that school principals are held responsible to,
including boards of education, parents, and state and federal laws. As a result,
principals are now being torn between meeting the demands of local constituents and
those of state/federal accountability policies.

50

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Restatement of Purpose
The purpose of this study was to investigate how building level principals in
Genesee County, Michigan, responded to federal (NCLB) and state (Michigan’s
Education, Yes!) accountability systems. The study focused on identifying and broadly
categorizing the leading concerns and actions taken by high school principals in
response to these multiple pressures. The study aimed to develop an empirical picture
of what was transpiring in a broad sample of schools, to provide an analysis of how
leaders prioritized policy pressures, and to share how they managed conflicts between
the decisions they made and their personal and professional beliefs about what was
best for the students in their care.

Study Design
This study used a qualitative case study design. A qualitative approach was
selected as the research focused “on discovery, insight, and understanding from the
perspective of those being studied” (Merrian, 1998, p. 1). Furthermore, the study
examined events in context as they unfolded in a specified sample of high schools.
Merrian (1998) describes case studies as a means to “…gain an in-depth
understanding of the situation and meaning for those involved. The interest is in process
rather than outcomes, in context rather than a specific variable, in discovery rather than
confirmation” (p. 19). In this instance, the study aimed to reveal not only what concerns
and strategies dominated high school principals' responses to NCLB and Michigan’s

51

school accountability system, but also to bring to the surface important themes in the
thought and decision processes used.
The use of a case study approach calls for thoughtful attention to two
fundamental issues: the unit of analysis and focus on a small number of concerns
(Tellis, 1997). This study selected high school principals as its unit for two primary
reasons. First, principals have a key role in implementing policy. Secondly, research
has suggested that recent school accountability measures have indeed, changed the
orientations and behavior of principals (Goertz & Duffy, 2003). The focal issue selected
was the decision making of high school principals responding to accountability policies
and their reflections on these decisions.

Participants
Potential participants in this study were limited to the 24 principals of public high
school in Genesee County. Private, charter, and alternative high schools were excluded
from consideration because their missions and policy contexts differed from those of the
public schools in significant ways. Of the 24 potential high schools, 1 was excluded as it
was the workplace of the researcher. Four principals new to school administration or the
district were excluded since they would not be able to respond to questions about
decisions made over the past year. One principal was called to military duty in the midst
of the study. Lastly, 5 principals declined to participate in the study. This left a final
sample of 13 high school principals.
By Michigan report card standards, the sample of participating and nonparticipating schools did not differ dramatically, as evidenced in Table 3.1.

52

Table 3.1
Analysis of Participating and Nonparticipating Schools by AYP Status
Non-Participating Schools

Participating Schools

Michigan
School Report
Card Grade

Making AYP

A

9%

15%

B

27%

31%

8%

C

9%

23%

15%

D

Not Making
AYP

Making AYP

18%
36%

Not Making
AYP

8%

Note: the data in this and all subsequent tables and figures come from research conducted by the author
from 2009-2010.

But, some notable differences did exist. While 69% of the participating schools had
made AYP, only 45% of the non-participating school had. It should be pointed out that
fewer urban schools participated in the study. While the final sample provides a picture
of a broad cross-section of high school principal activity in a single country, it may not
give fair representation to low-performing urban high schools or high school leaders.

School Level Profiles for Genesee County
County enrollment trends, school district enrollment trends, building ethnic
demographics, district census information and Michigan School Report Card grades
provide a descriptive overview of the schools in this study.

Enrollment Trends
While overall student enrollment has been declining, enrollment has been
relatively flat from 1996 until 2006 (GISD, 2009b). Beginning in 2006 and extending into
53

the foreseeable future, many Genesee County schools will have to cope with declining
student enrollment and corresponding funding decreases. Table 3.2 shows the current
enrollment in the participating school districts. Here we see that enrollment trends vary
considerably from district to district in the County, with some districts gaining and others
losing students. It should also be noted that, with the exception of one district, Flint

Table 3.2
Recent Enrollment Trends for Genesee County School Districts Included in This Study

District

1998-99

2002-03

2007-08

Change from
1998 to 2008

A

5,443.90

5,259.86

5,174.01

-269.89

B

5,108.88

5,299.70

5,477.95

369.07

C

25,436.07

21,270.65

15,728.79

-9,707.28

D

4,275.68

4,342.91

4,477.69

202.01

E

997.00

1,010.45

845.00

-152.00

F

5,890.76

6,789.00

8,474.56

2,583.80

G

3,888.02

3,901.85

3,717.35

-170.67

H

2,305.21

2,128.69

1,825.57

-479.64

I

2,754.70

2,926.84

3,081.46

326.76

J

1,595.50

1,689.00

1,659.85

64.35

K

3,138.30

3,349.68

3,348.48

210.18

L

4,246.38

4,138.03

4,228.98

-17.40

Total

65,080.40

62,106.66

58,039.69

-7,040.71

54

Community Schools with two high schools in the sample, all other districts in the sample
have only one high school.
In Michigan, school funding is directly tied to student enrollment. Declining
enrollment equals decreasing revenue. Principals in districts with declining enrollments
may lack the fiscal resources to make desired changes. For example, structural
changes (movement from semester to trimester), curricular changes (additional support
classes), and instructional changes (with requisite professional development) generally
require additional resources. Principals in financially strapped school districts may
simply not be able to afford some of the changes they would like to see in their schools.
The inability to make desired changes compounds the frustration when schools fail to
meet AYP requirements.

Financial Health
Michigan changed its school funding methods in 1994 to move away from a
system based on property tax to one based predominately on sales tax (Weiss, 2008).
The new system was based on establishing a per pupil amount for districts. This system
worked well, as long as Michigan’s economy was strong. Michigan, like most states,
experienced a dramatic downturn in its economy beginning with the 2001 recession and
the following decline in manufacturing (Singh & Isely, 2009). As student populations
declined, so did schools funding.
For building principals, the uncertainty in funding created a situation where they
were forced to work with unknown future resources. Forty-three districts in Michigan
ended the 2010 school year with a deficit, up from 18 school districts in 2005 (MDE,
2011). The 21 school districts, in Genesee County, as a whole have had a 25 million

55

dollar reduction in their school fund balances in the past 5 years (Thorne, 2011). While
no study has explored the direct building-level impact of these recent sustained
decreases in funds, it likely has had an impact on decisions that building principals
make.

Demographic Information
Genesee County school districts encompass a diverse range of communities.
There are districts comprised predominately of minority students and districts with
student populations that are almost 100% Caucasian. Information on the race/ethnic
composition of the participating districts is contained in Table 3.3.
Genesee Country also has a mix of districts classified as urban, suburban, and
rural. Across the County, high school poverty levels range from a low of 4% to a high of
62% (MDE, 2007). Table 3.4 provides data not only on the percentage of students who
qualify for free and reduced meals, but also on other indicators of poverty such as
median price of house, median household income, percentage of enrolled students
living in poverty, percentage of students living with only their mother, and percentage of
mothers with a college education.

Demonstrated Student Achievement
Genesee County high schools are diverse. The largest local education agency
(LEA) in the county has approximately 17,000 students (the third largest district in
Michigan and the 263rd largest district in the entire country, according to the National
Center for Educational Statistics, 2000). The smallest high school in the county is
located in a district that has a total school population of less than 800 students. The

56

Table 3.3
Student Demographic Information by High School

High School
(same district
HS combined)

Black or
African
American

A

33.2%

B

American
Indian or
Alaska
Native

Asian

Hispanic
or
Latino

White

6.0%

2.5%

2.0%

55.9%

0.4%

1.7%

3.2%

1.2%

1.6%

92.1%

0.1%

C

75.0%

0.5%

0.9%

3.1%

20.1%

0.1%

D

2.7%

0.5%

0.6%

0.9%

92.6%

2.8%

E

4.4%

0.4%

0.4%

5.4%

89.4%

0.0%

F

4.2%

0.0%

0.9%

0.8%

81.6%

12.5%

G

3.7%

0.1%

0.6%

2.4%

93.2%

0.0%

H

1.3%

0.5%

0.9%

1.3%

96.1%

0.0%

I

0.1%

0.0%

0.4%

0.6%

98.8%

0.0%

J

2.5%

2.1%

1.1%

4.0%

90.3%

0.0%

K

10.7%

10.6%

0.3%

2.7%

75.5%

0.0%

L

2.3%

2.7%

1.1%

2.1%

91.8%

0.0%

Multiracial

second largest district in the county consistently scores among the top 5% of all schools
in Michigan on state assessments, while other districts have schools that score in the
bottom 5% of all schools in the state. Table 3.5 contains the Michigan Report Card
Grades and the AYP status of participating school districts in Genesee County for three
academic years.

57

Table 3.4
Genesee ISD 2007 Free and Reduced Lunch & School District 2000 Census Data

District

%
Students
Receiving
Free and
Reduced
Meals

A

55%

97,300

39,249

12%

33%

27%

B

25%

118,200

44,703

7%

19%

29%

C

69%

49,700

28,018

33%

57%

17%

D

22%

127,500

55,727

5%

14%

39%

E

50%

101,300

36,784

13%

23%

7%

F

20%

137,100

58,019

4%

18%

47%

G

31%

100,300

50.856

9%

21%

26%

H

36%

109,700

50,410

5%

12%

23%

I

19%

160,300

61,969

2%

11%

41%

J

48%

93,000

50,152

9%

20%

21%

K

64%

77,300

36,938

14%

28%

10%

L

25%

117,400

50,865

5%

18%

31%

Median
Price of
House

Median
Household
Income

%
Students
Living in
Poverty

%
Living with
Mother Only

%
Mothers
with
College Ed.

Data Collection and Methodology
The primary method of data collection was a semi-structured interview
addressing five themes: (1) participant’s professional profile, (2) participant’s most
pressing performance and accountability concerns, (3) participant’s responses to these
concerns, (4) participant’s experiences of policy clutter and conflict, and (5) participant’s

58

Table 3.5
Report Card Grades and AYP Status of Genesee County High Schools

High School

2008

Report Card Grade and AYP Status
2009

2010

A

C

No

C

No

C

No

B

A

Yes

B

No

B

Yes

C

D

No

D

No

D

No

D

B

Yes

A

Yes

A

Yes

E

C

Yes

C

Yes

C

Yes

F

A

Yes

B

No

A

Yes

G

B

Yes

B

Yes

B

Yes

H

B

Yes

B

Yes

B

Yes

I

B

No

A

Yes

A

Yes

J

C

Yes

C

No

C

Yes

K

C

No

C

No

C

Yes

L

B

Yes

B

Yes

B

Yes

M

C

Yes

C

Yes

B

Yes

overall reflections. The initial questions had some general, ice-breaker qualities. As the
interview progressed, questions asked for greater levels of specificity and reflection.
The interviews were conducted according to the interview protocol accepted by
the Institutional Review Board at Michigan State University. Interviewees signed
consent forms acknowledging participation in the study with the assurance that their
responses would be kept confidential. While district demographic data may make it
59

possible to deductively identify some participating districts (and thus principals) , the
specific comments and reflections shared have been grouped or treated in ways to
prevent connections to be made between comments and individuals. This protection
was explained to each participant prior to the interview.
The interview questions were piloted with two high school principals outside of
Genesee County. The first participant was a first-year high school principal and closely
represented the least experienced principal in the sample. The second participant was a
principal with 30 years in administration and provided an opportunity to examine how a
veteran administrator would respond to the questions. The two principals also
represented schools of differing sizes, one principal from a Class A school (more than
1,000 students), the other from a Class B school (between 500-1,000 students).
Knowing the value of principals’ time and the general inconvenience of being
interviewed, one concern addressed by the pilot research was the length of time the
interviews would take. The interviews were completed in 56 minutes and 73 minutes
respectively.
In all, the pilot provided evidence that participants understood the interview
questions and that the questions elicited relevant responses and information on the five
key themes. However, based on the difficulties the first- year principal had answering
questions based in a larger time frame, the study decided to exclude first-year principals
A similar interview procedure was used to gather data. Participants were given
the interview protocol prior to the interview. Study interviews were audio recorded in
media wave format for best clarity. During the interview, the researcher could visually
verify that audio was being captured. Interviews generally lasted one hour. During this

60

time, the interviewer was cognizant of and reflexive to the five activities of interviewing
put forth by Dilley (2000): (1) listen to what the person is saying; (2) compare what the
person says to what we know; (3) compare what the person says to questions on the
rest of the protocol; (4) be cognizant of when to stray from the protocol and when stick
to it; and (5) offer information to prompt reflection, clarification, or further explication as
needed. Interviews were transcribed as they were completed, using Nuance’s Dragon
Naturally Speaking 10 software.

Data Analysis
Data analysis of transcripts and interview notes began with the pilot interviews
and were guided by Yin’s model of “examining, categorizing, tabulating, and/or
recombining evidence to address the initial purpose of the study” (Yin, 1994). A key task
was developing a coding system for categorizing and analyzing the concern and action
areas principals discussed during the interview. Principals reported how their concerns
connected to particular accountability policies, and this is reported as indicated by them
in interviews . Following this, however, analysis required some scheme that could
credibly categorize (1) the issue area of a principal’s concerns (for example, a concern
for curriculum, staffing, support systems for students, etc.), and (2) the type of actions
taken (creating new rules or policies, for example). Several coding schemes were
piloted to find a credible system. A challenge was reaching a scheme that managed
complex actions. For example, a decision to invest in professional development on
differentiated instruction could feasibly be categorized as teacher development or
curriculum development or an act of school leadership and management. To manage
this, the researcher reached a set of broad but distinct categories that successfully

61

captured but separated the large range of concerns and actions reported by principals.
The 6 categories were:
1. Course and Curriculum Change: Actions made at the school (versus teacher)

level about courses offerings. Include course additions or deletions, changes
to course requirements, credit load, sequences or structure.
2. Developing Teachers: Actions aimed to develop teacher knowledge, skills

and capabilities. Commonly professional development, teacher learning
initiatives on core practice issues such as subject matter knowledge,
instructional strategies, assessment and/or data use practices.
3. Instructional Targeting, Development & Assessment: Actions directed to or

taken by teacher groups to improve classroom instruction and assessment.
Common examples were targeting and re-teaching of particular knowledge
and skills areas, using new instructional materials, developing new
assessment routines, using new grouping structures with students.
4. Interventions: Special or add-on programs aimed at particular issues or

groups of students. Common examples were new before or after-school
programs, special double-loop learning opportunities, credit-recovery
programs and/or new behavior incentive or sanction programs or policies.
5. Organizational Structure and Management: Executive actions taken to

change structure and policy at the school level. Examples were changes to
scheduling, changes in staffing arrangements, new supervision routines (i.e.
requiring lesson plans or other reports), or new attendance policies and
procedures.

62

6. Leadership: Used to capture actions by principals to educate and motivate

staff, for example helping to frame policy implications or communicate the
meaning and intentions of decisions.
Examples of the coding schemes are shown in Table 3.6.
Once a coding scheme was developed, Atlas TI software was used to support
data analyses.

Validity
Data collection for this study involved a single method: audio recorded and
transcribed, semi-structured, individual interviews with the 13 participants. The method
supported descriptive validity by capturing the actual words, phrases and even tonality
of participants.
Interviews by their very nature create specialized issues concerning internal
validity:
The interview is a social situation and inherently involves a relationship between
the interviewer and the informant. Understanding the nature of that situation and
relationship, how it affects what goes on in the interview, and how the informant's
actions and views could differ in other situations is crucial to the validity of
accounts based on interviews. (Maxwell, 1992, p. 295, citing Briggs, 1986 and
Mishler, 1986)
Internal validity concerns arose in this study because the researcher was the principal of
a Genesee county high school at the time of the study. He had had a professional
relationship with many of the participants for the past four years, meeting at professional
meetings and other venues, often discussing the accountability policies investigated in
this study. In one respect, this insider status seemed to function as an asset. The
willingness of very busy administrators to spend an hour reflecting on their work

63

Table 3.6
Examples of Coding Scheme
Coding Category

AYP

Course and Curriculum Change

My first year, the first thing that we did in
response to AYP is we got rid of all of our
remedial classes.

Developing Teachers

…making sure that staff members are aware
of core content expectations.

Instructional Targeting, Development,
& Assessment

…a test prep class for students performing
below a certain level on the PLAN test. We
have 200 kids who are signed up for it.

Interventions

Once a student fails instead of taking second
semester you retake first semester [of the
course] second semester.

Leadership

…trying to build some efficacy for what we do
do (sic) because we know you're just not
going to turn around a 15 point deficit in
subgroups over night.

Organizational Structure and
Management

Changing to a trimester schedule.

suggested that personal knowledge of the researcher facilitated the research and
perhaps indicated some level of trust in the integrity of the study. But concerns that the
interviewed principals would respond to questions with socially and professionally
correct or expected answers rather than in a spirit of reflective candor would also be
standard here. To minimize such dynamics, however, the researcher strived to achieve
a good balance of formality and more personal approach in the interview: adhering
closely to the interview protocols, not interjecting personal opinions and comments, but
asking clarifying questions upon hearing replies that seemed different from those heard

64

earlier in the interview or in other settings. Deep reading of the interview data reveals
candid expressions of struggle and frustration and a wide-ranging mix of positive and
negative opinions and assessments. So called “textbook” responses were not much in
evidence.
The process of coding the transcriptions closely aligned with the research
questions. When responding to a particular query, respondents sometimes strayed from
one concern into another. At times, new concerns aligned to other questions in the
interview protocol, and were coded accordingly. Comments that did not correspond in
any manner to any of the questions (for example, an aside about a particular student,
teacher or event) were left out of the analysis.
The inductive process used to code and categorize the interview data raises
issues of interpretive validity. The study did not involve multiple researchers who might
test the correlations of their coding, for example. Thus, the best response in the face of
these validity threats is to provide as much raw data to readers so that they have
ongoing opportunities to see and judge the consistency and usefulness of the coding
decisions and interpretations made. Here again, the researcher sought to limit
interpretive mis-steps by using the words and phrases of the interviewees as often as
possible and by checking findings against the evidence of the interview data (Maxwell,
1990). The presentation of data in Chapter 4 is fairly extensive, allowing the reader to
assess how well findings and interpretations reflect the data.
In general, qualitative studies are not designed to allow generalizations to a wider
population (Becker, 1990). The purpose of this study is to provide an empirically based
picture of what is actually transpiring among a set of schools. While this sample is not

65

representative in a statistical sense, it does provide a view of the concerns, actions, and
strategies generated by new accountability policies. Data from this study could be used
to produce grounded hypotheses or propositions for more systemic investigation in
multiple contexts. This study also fills in the gap between studies focusing on large state
level high school data sets and specific case studies of individual high schools.

66

CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS

Introduction: Reviewing the Interviews
The interview protocol began by asking school leaders, “Among all the state and
federal performance demands and accountability measures you now confront, what
issue concerns you the most”. It went on to ask school leaders to identify their top three
or four concerns after this.
An analysis of the data resulted in the emergence of three major sources of
concern: one at the federal level, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), and two state level
concerns, the Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC), and the Michigan Merit Examination
(MME). These three concerns are responsible for 174 of the 284 (61%) actions
discussed by the principals.
Four concerns clustered into mid-level concerns: (1) policies regarding highly
qualified teachers and paraprofessionals, (2) graduation rates, (3) school improvement,
and (4) Education, Yes! Less frequent or pressing concerns included issues such as
Michigan’s personal curriculum, funding, assessment, and overall teacher quality.
Table 4.1 shows concerns identified by school leaders. The concerns listed
horizontally correspond to the numbered interview. For instance: during the eighth
interview the school leader listed AYP as his/her primary concern and then went on to
identify MME and Highly Qualified as his/her other concerns. The vertical column, titled
Primary concern, highlights all participants’ top area of concern. The final four columns
show all other areas of concerns in the order identified by each participant. Since the

67

Table 4.1
Matrix of School Leader Concerns
Interview
#

Primary
Concern

1

AYP

2

Personal
curriculum
Decrease
in student
achievement (AYP)

3

Additional
Concern
State's
interpretation
of NCLB's
standards
Graduation
rates
AYP

Additional
Concern

Additional
Concern

Additional
Concern

Performance
indicators (Ed
Yes!)

Highly
qualified

School
improvement

AYP

MMC
Standardized
testing

School
improvement
Finances

4

AYP math

AYP ELA

Staff’s
understanding
of what all this
means and
how to apply it
MMC

5

MMC

MME

Ed Yes!

6

AYP

MMC

Highly
qualified

7

AYP

Graduation
rates

Staffing

8

AYP

MME

9

ACT

MME

Highly
qualified
MMC

10

AYP

Ed Yes!

MMC

11

MMC

AYP

12

MME

AYP

Curriculum
alignment
MMC

13

Graduation
rates

Test scores
(AYP)

Teacher
apathy

68

Personal
curriculum
Highly
qualified
Rating
schools
(Ed Yes!)
Providing a
safe and
orderly
environment

Graduation
rates

Assessment

Increasing
student
achievement
(MME)

Budget cuts

Attendance
and
proficiency
Subgroups
School
improvement

Highly
qualified

principals were not asked to rank these other concerns, one should not make
assumptions based on order.
Once the data from the individual interview were analyzed, it was possible to
begin aggregating the data. Figure 4.1 provides a frequency count of interviewees’
identified areas of concerns. (The “single issue” bar is used to collect some uncommon,
school-specific concerns, such as staff’s understanding of what all this means and how
to apply it, providing a safe and orderly environment, or teacher apathy.)

Top Concern: AYP
Throughout this study, Adequate Yearly Progress quickly emerged as the main
concern of Genesee County high school principals. Since this is the cornerstone of both
NCLB’s and Michigan’s Education, Yes! accountability systems, this was not particularly
surprising. Eleven out of the thirteen principals interviewed for this study listed AYP as a
leading concern, with six of the thirteen principals (46%) listing AYP as their top
concern. One principal succinctly stated, “Concern number one, for me, is AYP.
Standardized assessment scores - it's all about test scores.” Another principal explained
why AYP comprised more than one concern for him:
Here at this school the biggest concern would be AYP as far as math. Originally,
when I read through some of this stuff, I was just going to put AYP. Then I
wanted to break it down into math and English. The biggest one right now is
math. And a lot of the other concerns are going to feed into that, but that is the
biggest one. With the bar being raised last year, we were right at the cut score.
The year prior, somehow we brought our scores up 11%. I don't know if they
adjusted the test or if we had a really good group of kids coming through, but it's
looking bleak for this year.
When principals were asked to list their top 3-5 concerns, AYP comprised 22% of
the total (58) concerns listed by Genesee County principals. Only two interviewees did

69

Figure 4.1: Frequency of identified concerns.

70

not choose AYP as a concern, and these individuals are both principals at schools that
made adequate yearly progress and obtained Michigan school report card grades of a B
and C.
The 11 principals whose lead concern was meeting the requirements of AYP
mentioned 65 actions taken in an effort to ensure that their schools made AYP. These
65 actions are coded into six categories; Course and Curriculum Change; Developing
Teachers; Instructional Targeting, Development and Assessment; Interventions;
Leadership; and Organizational Structure and Management. The breakdown of all 65
actions into these categories can be seen in Figure 4.2.
From examining Figure 4.2, it is clear the most of the principals’ actions are
encompassed in the first three categories, Instructional Targeting, Development, and
Assessment; Course and Curriculum Changes; and Organizational Structure and
Management.

Instructional Targeting, Development, and Assessment
Actions concerning “Instructional Targeting, Development, and Assessment”
comprised 32% of the overall actions taken in response to AYP. Table 4.2 further
categorizes these actions.
Of these 21 actions taken by the participating principals, over half (57%) of the
actions centered on test preparation. Most of the actions encompassed using released
MME or ACT test items within the curriculum, focusing on specific skills that were
identified as weak by disaggregating test data, or general comments about engaging in
test preparation. Two interviewees provided more detail that highlighted Instructional
Targeting, Development, and Assessment actions:

71

Figure 4.2: Frequency of AYP actions taken.

72

Table 4.2
Instructional Actions in Response to AYP Concerns

Description of Action
Test Preparation

Number of Instructional
targeting, development
and assessment actions
taken in response to
concerns with
AYP actions

Number of participants
that took these actions

12

8

Curriculum Alignment and
Instruction

5

5

Disaggregating Data and
End of Course Exams

4

1

We've developed [a] very intense ACT preparation program. We actually have a
graduation requirement; students are enrolled in [specific course name withheld]
where a great deal of the time in that class is spent with online ACT prep. Every
junior will take that course during the second trimester, right prior to testing…I
mean they just hammer the ACT.
This Principal discussed his actions to raise standardized test scores in English
Language Arts:
Test prep, do we do it? Absolutely. Besides what's imbedded in the curriculum,
we spent a lot of time and writing [test prep ]in our junior level English classes.
This semester, they will write five persuasive writing pieces before they ever get
to the MME. Is it overkill? Yes. Do my writing scores need to come up?
Absolutely. I told my English teachers, if we don't come up by 10% I am going to
be disappointed. We have seen improvement in there. We are so focused on one
style of writing just because that is the style that is expected on the test.
Issues of curriculum alignment and instruction accounted for five additional
actions. Two interviewees informed me that they really focused on differentiating
classroom instruction, in order to teach all students. Two principals discussed focusing
on their schools’ writing instruction. This differs from the aforementioned test

73

preparation actions centered on writing, since no link was made to the MME, ACT, or
test preparation. The final action from this category was to articulate the scope and
sequence of course content with staff in order to develop pacing guides.
The remaining four actions in the category of Instructional Targeting, Developing,
and Assessment concerned disaggregating data and end of course assessments. The
skill of disaggregating data was taught to teachers in an effort to enable teachers to
ascertain student strengths and weaknesses. The weaknesses, once identified, were
used as the focal points around which new local assessments were developed. End of
course assessments (required by MMC to allow any student obtaining a score of 78% or
higher to earn credit for the course) was an area on which some school leaders focused
to ensure that the exam aligned with the desired outcomes on the MME, which
ultimately determine whether or not a school makes AYP.

Course and Curriculum Changes
Course and Curriculum Change actions accounted for 22% of actions taken in
response to concerns with AYP. Half of the fourteen actions in this category involved
course creation or course deletion at three high schools in Genesee County (Table 4.3).
Of the four principals who mentioned course creation, two added Advanced
Placement Courses (AP), one school added a freshmen transition course, and the final
school had an Algebra II/Trigonometry course that was split into two distinct course
offerings. The three occurrences of course deletion, as a response to concerns with
AYP, all involved the elimination of introductory or remedial courses. One principal
stated:

74

Table 4.3
Course and Curriculum Change Actions for AYP

Number of Occurrences

Number of participants
that took these actions

Course Creation

4

2

Course Elimination

3

2

Examining Curriculum

5

4

Course Sequences

2

2

Description of Action

My first year, the first thing that we did in response to AYP is we got rid of all of
our remedial classes. Whether it was subconscious or not, you noticed that most
of our students that were in subgroups of concern happened to be in remedial
courses. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they weren't going to get
what they needed before they were juniors, in order to have any chance of
passing anything.
Actions that involved examining the curriculum comprised 36% of the actions in this
category. Special Education courses were an area of particular concern, as historically,
these classes did not necessarily use high school benchmarks when constructing
curriculum. As part of AYP, special education subgroups are required to make AYP at
the same level as the general school population. Three of these actions identified by the
principals involve “raising the bar” for special education students by imparting the High
School Content Expectations to students receiving special education services. For
example, in many high schools in Genesee County, special education math resource
room classes did not cover the same curriculum (Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II)
as general education math classes. The other two actions included schools examining
their overall curriculum to make it more robust. The remaining two (14%) Course and

75

Curriculum Change actions focused on the sequences of various courses, from
something as simple as teaching U.S. History before economics instead of after it, to
eliminating a course such as pre-algebra and starting all ninth grade students in Algebra
I regardless of prior performance.

Organizational Structure and Management
The third largest category (20%) of actions taken in response to concerns with
AYP involved actions that were categorized as “Organizational Structure and
Management.”
Actions involving test taking analyses (5) and testing conditions (4) account for
69% of the 13 actions in this category (Table 4.4). Test taking analysis actions included
two distinct types of actions. The actions focused on analyzing the testing roster to
determine which students scores would not count toward AYP based on factors such as
mobility and transfer status.

Table 4.4
Organizational Structure and Management Actions for AYP

Number of Occurrences

Number of participants
that took these actions

Test Taking Analyses

5

4

Testing Conditions

4

4

Changing to Trimesters

2

2

Highly Qualified

1

1

Nothing

1

1

Description of Action

76

The two other test taking analysis actions involved item analyses to determine students
and specific areas of weakness to produce more/new forms of student performance
data to teachers to provide targeted instruction in an effort to enhance learning in time
to correct prior to MME testing. The four testing condition actions varied greatly. One
principal focused on testing conditions:
We don't bring in any of the other kids the day of the exam…feeding them
breakfast, make sure they're hydrated. I mean all those things that provide a nice
testing environment: make sure the building temperature is good; make sure that
it's very quiet here, whether we turn the bells off; that they have a little break so
they know they're going to get 10 minutes for the bathroom or twenty minutes to
have a snack and things like that.
Another principal spoke of actions he took prior to testing to help influence the testing
environment.
We tried to place more importance on the MEAP or the MME, depending on what
year, by giving an exemption from final exams to students who completed all
sections of the test. That worked for a couple years. It got students’ attention;
they really tried to get those exam exemptions. We did the pizza parties just to
raise the level of awareness. I don't think it was very high when I first got here.
The two scheduling actions involved schools making major changes by moving from a
semester approach to a trimester format. The remaining two actions were ensuring
highly qualified staff and making no changes.

Interventions
“Interventions” account for 9 of the 65 (14%) actions taken by principals in
response to concerns with Adequate Yearly Progress. A breakdown of intervention
actions taken in response to concerns with AYP is presented in Table 4.5.
Of these nine actions, four involved new and/or additional targeted support for
students within the school day. Two kinds of targeted intervention emerged. The first

77

Table 4.5
Intervention Actions for AYP

Number of Occurrences

Number of participants
that took these actions

Target support inside school
day

4

2

Credit recovery

2

1

After school tutoring

1

1

Interactions with principal

1

1

Cooperative summer program
with university

1

1

Description of Action

involved students taking an additional support class concurrently with the required core
class. One principal explained:
We've started identifying at least one group of kids, that we knew were going to
struggle coming into their freshman year, and we basically do [an] “Algeblock”,
where we give them an algebra support class backup with the same teacher they
take their algebra one class with. They have their five-minute break, come back
and do a math support. The premise of the first semester is they work on skills.
Second semester they continue working with skills that they start getting more
time to work with the teacher, so it's almost like having a two hour block of
algebra for those kids.
The other intervention involves decreasing the time students have to wait to retake a
failed class.
What we've done, we've basically followed the trimester principle, where once a
student fails, instead of taking second semester [of the course] you retake first
semester [during the] second semester.
Credit recovery accounted for two additional actions, though no specific program or
strategy was shared. The remaining three actions encompassed after school tutoring,

78

short-term interactions with the building principal, and cooperative summer school
programs with universities.

Leadership
All but one of the five Leadership actions involved increasing the staff’s
knowledge of Michigan’s High School Content Expectations and/or the MME,
Michigan’s testing system. The other Leadership action taken by a participating principal
in response to concerns with AYP, involved sharing with his/her school board his/her
opinion on the feasibility of all schools in the nation reaching NCLB’s goal of 100%
proficiency.
AYP’s Impact on School Leaders' Actions
Since all but two building leaders chose Adequate Yearly Progress as a concern,
an obvious inquiry arose as to whether or not insights could be obtained by examining
the number of actions taken by individual principals. Table 4.6 identifies the actions
taken by each school leader, the school’s report card grade, and whether or not the
school made AYP. It is important to remember that the primary factor in determining
state report card grades is the same, high-stakes test used to calculate AYP.
For the most part, it appears that high AYP concerns are leading schools to take
multiple actions, whereas schools with fewer AYP concerns or pressures are engaging
a much smaller set of actions.

Additional Major Concerns: MMC and MME
The Michigan Merit Curriculum and Michigan Merit Exam were first examined
separately. It became obvious that when school leaders discussed these two topics they

79

Table 4.6
Comparison of Actions, Michigan School Report Card Grade, and AYP Status

Number of Actions

MI School
Report Card Grade

Made AYP

13

B

N

9

C

N

4

C

N

9

C

Y

8

B

Y

7

C

Y

5

B

Y

4

B

Y

2

A

Y

2

A

Y

Note: One school needed to be excluded from this table for reasons of deductive disclosure

changed back and forth, using the two almost interchangeably. This makes sense, since
the curriculum set forth by the state (MMC) is the basis for the test (MME). As Figure
4.3, demonstrates, the combined concerns with MME and MMC are greater than AYP.
The Michigan Merit Curriculum was the second highest rated area of concern,
with two of the thirteen Genesee County high school principals interviewed selecting
this as their top priority. The MMC appeared eight times on the list of 58 concerns. One
principal explains his thoughts on the MMC:

80

Figure 4.3: Combined MMC and MME concerns.

81

I think the level of expectations is good. To head a school and state that these
kids shouldn't be able to do this is a problem. Most troubling, is they haven’t
given us enough flexibility in meeting this requirement. The personal curriculum
gives us outs for the really smart kid to do something extra; and the personal
curriculum lets us take care of our special needs students. It doesn't help us with
a below average student that just doesn't excel in math.
This same level of agreement with the MMC is not universally shared among
interviewees:
I disagree with the governor's philosophy that all of our students should be
college ready; and because of that, all of our kids have to have chemistry or
physics; all of our kids have to have algebra II, I think it is wrong. I think it is very
shortsighted on her part.
While far lower in concern than Adequate Yearly Progress, it is interesting to note that
concern with the Michigan Merit curriculum elicited nearly the same number of actions,
61, taken by principals as did Adequate Yearly Progress (65).
Out of the list of 58 concerns, seven concerns (12%) were related to the MME.
Five high school principals included in this study had concerns with the Michigan Merit
Exam. Two building leaders listed the MME as their main concern among all of the new
accountability measures. Four of the five school leaders with concerns about the MME
made adequate yearly progress during the 2007-08 school year. One principal
explained his concern:
My top concern would differ from my central office's top concern. From a district
standpoint, their big concern is obviously meeting AYP. To be quite frank, my
concern, realizing the parameters that the federal government has set forth for us
[is] nobody is going to be meeting AYP in a very short time; and I certainly see
some flaws to the system, from an the accountability standpoint; is the ACT. I
want our kids to be able to perform well on that test.
Actions taken in response to concerns over MME and MMC are pictured in
Figure 4.4. Curriculum change and development actions, aside from being the most
prevalent actions taken by building leaders in response to their concerns with MMC and

82

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Curriculum Interventions Organizational
Change &
Structure &
Development
Management

Instruction &
Assessment

Developing
Teachers

Leadership

Figure 4.4: Actions taken in response to concerns over MME and MMC.

MME accounted for nearly double the amount of actions of the next two categories
intervention and organizational structure and management.

Course and Curriculum Change
In response to concerns with the Michigan Merit Curriculum and Michigan Merit
Exam, over a third of all principals’ actions centered around Curriculum Change and
Development. Actions in this area accounted for 39 of the 109 actions (36%) in this
category. Table 4.7 lists the Course and Curriculum Change actions.
Sixty-four percent of the “Course and Curriculum Change” actions involved either
course creation or course elimination. In general, courses that were eliminated tended

83

Table 4.7
Course and Curriculum Change Actions

Number of Occurrences

Number of participants
that took these actions

Course Creation

15

7

Course Elimination

10

5

Curriculum Alignment

7

4

Scheduling/Sequencing

3

2

Test Preparation

3

2

Elimination of Academic Track

1

1

Description of Action

to be low level (such as pre-Algebra) or remedial (such as basic math). While
eliminating low-level courses has been a predominate action, principals are not
necessarily in agreement with it. One principal explained: “We've always had, in
essence, a three-track system and now we have two; that’s where my concern lies. I
think it's going to catch up.” Another principal explained the conflict in the following
manner:
We had some really good math programs in there for kids who were more
technical school or maybe community college… We've had to throw out some
good science programs, like our physical science programs, and had to retool
our chemistry program to actually create dual programs, now a college-bound
chemistry and a non-college-bound. I don't want to say non-college-bound, but
a chemistry light.
Courses that were created in response to concerns over the MME and MMC,
tended to the extremes, either advanced courses with significantly higher expectations
or support classes, taken concurrently with core classes, to assist students with

84

mastering the new MMC content, which is assessed on the MME. While advanced
courses are easy to conceptualize, the support classes are more varied. One principal
described his support classes as:
…for our lowest functioning freshman there are actually two classes, one in skills
and one in reading. The kids coming in the door will lose an elective and will
have two math classes or two English classes for at least a semester. It will be
just intensive reading strategies, almost as a last effort to get these kids to move
up a reading level or two or a grade level or two in their math.
Seven Course and Curriculum Change actions involved curriculum alignment.
These actions fall into four categories: rewriting curriculum to incorporate MMC content
into classes and rewriting assessments to mimic format and content expectations in the
MMC; forcing MMC into current courses to “save” electives; changing the sequence of
courses, and, aligning high school curriculum with middle school curriculum. These four
categories are discussed below.
i.

The most common action that principals took involved rewriting course
curricula and assessments to ensure that all MME content expectations are
addressed in the classroom. Principals also had teachers engaged in creating
assessments that were aligned to the new MMC standards and also in a
format similar to that the students will experience when they take the MME.

ii. One principal discussed his plan to save current English electives for seniors:

“We are going to try and maintain our current elective programs for grade 12,
but pushed out the requirements of 12th grade English into those electives
because they have been very popular and rigorous classes.”
iii. In an effort to ensure that students are prepared for the MME, many principals

changed the traditional sequence of course offerings. For example,

85

Government was previously taught in 12th grade; it has now become an 11th
grade class.
iv. The alignment of high school curriculum with middle school curriculum is now

more important than ever. In order to meet all the science expectations, many
high school principals moved earth science to 8th grade. One school leader in
the study even moved Algebra I to 8th grade so that all incoming freshmen
begin with Geometry. One principal pointed out a conflict in aligning the high
school curriculum, which focuses on the MME, with the middle school
curriculum, which focuses on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program
(MEAP) test:
We are getting killed on the 75 multiple choice grammar questions. It's forced
us, in a positive way, to go back to the statewide curriculum and say okay
where is this taught. Oh, it's taught in middle school. Okay, go to the middle
school and meet with them only to find out they don't do that [grammar]
because the MEAP doesn't test it. The MEAP tests the creativity in their
[students] writing so they do not teach grammar and punctuation at the middle
school. So now we have to pick it up at the high school and try to fit it into the
curriculum someplace, where there really isn't room for it.
Actions involving scheduling accounted for 8% of the Course and Curriculum
Change actions taken by building leaders in response to concerns with MME and MMC.
Actions taken within this category ranged from minor adjustments such as the sequence
of science classes to “we are looking at [l have implemented] geometry for all kids in
grade 9 regardless of how you do in eighth grade algebra.” The remaining three actions
centered around test preparation for the Michigan Merit Exam. Two of the three actions
involved the creation of an ACT (part of the MME) test preparation class.

86

Interventions
Twenty percent of the actions taken in response to the Michigan Merit Curriculum
and the Michigan Merit Exam involved “Intervention” actions. Specifically there were 22
actions identified in this study. See Table 4.8 for the complete analysis
Six actions (27%) addressed extending the school day either before or after the
normal day. Two approaches are used with the extended day. The first approach is
optional -- to extend the day by adding a “zero hour” and/or a seventh hour for students
who want to “sign up”. The other approach is mandatory -- “we are going to do it after
school, and they are mandated to do [it], which will basically go 10 weeks. We

Table 4.8
Breakdown of Intervention Actions for the Michigan Merit Curriculum

Description of Action

Number of Occurrences

Number of participants
that took these actions

Extended Day

6

3

Online Learning Requirement

4

3

Looping

3

2

Raise Awareness

2

1

Targeted Assistance

2

2

Credit Recovery During
School Day

1

1

Develop Some Program

1

1

Proficiency Testing

1

1

Remediation

1

1

Tutoring

1

1

87

struggled a little bit with that.” Whichever method is utilized, these five principals have
concluded that increasing student learning and credit recovery is their responsibility.
“The seven hour option did force us to do something we should have been doing
anyway, which was to offer some seventh hour options to kids. But it doesn't change the
whole structure of your day.”
Creating online opportunities for students was identified in four actions. Three
unique strategies were discussed. Two schools have incorporated online learning within
the school day. One school utilized the online program as the primary means of
instruction, “I've recycled kids into a do-over algebra online [class] this semester. We’re
just turning on the computers like yesterday”. Another school blended the online
instruction with traditional instruction: “We have incorporated a new [program]. It's called
Apenjia learning, so the students will go to the library computer lab two days a week to
remediate their skills and get direct instruction three days a week.” Another technologybased approach is to allow students to complete the classes on their own time with the
school paying for it. “Credit recovery using Plato has turned math into what I call Math
Plato… We probably recover anywhere from 30 to 50 credits a year using it the way that
we use it. Just last year we had probably 15 or 16 kids that were able to walk and
graduate on time because of Plato.”
There were three instances where the action involved placing the students
immediately back into the course they failed without making them wait an entire year to
do so. One interview discussed what this entailed for him:
Next year, we are going to actually put some relooping in, which I think is one of
the strong points of a trimester, where you have that built in already. With
semesters, I am going to have to schedule classes with no students in them. I am
going to be looking at my failure rates, for all of my freshman/sophomore classes,

88

and, if I've got X number this year and last year and the year before, I'm going to
say well, my nine sections are going to become 8 second semester and I am
going to have a first semester class. We have not done that before and we are
going to look at doing that.
This approach to scheduling is problematic, since, if the number of students and
sections do not work out as anticipated, it leads to costly overages (paying teachers to
teach on their preparation time). It can also require major changes to student schedules,
a task which generally necessitates hand scheduling students during the year and
figuring out what to have the teachers teach in order to fill their schedules.
Targeted student assistance actions presented a dichotomy of new and old
ideas. Some principals lamented having to cease actions that were helpful:
If you took the MME [sic High School MEAP] in the spring of your junior year and
you didn't pass it, then as a senior, in the fall, we would actually take a look at
those kids that were close to passing and ask teachers if they knew the student,
to take them under their wing and kind of mentor them, and do some extra things
to encourage them. We gained a lot of ground from the spring testing to the fall
senior retakes. Now that those [retake examinations] are eliminated, we are not
doing that.
Other principals speculated about actions that they would like to take such as: “what I
hope to do is based on PLAN (a pre-ACT test) results this year. I am going to identify
tenth graders based on their results that we can target for some extra help. I haven't
figured out exactly how we are going to do it.”

Organizational Structure and Management
The Organizational Structure and Management category had 19 actions in it
associated with the Michigan Merit Curriculum and Michigan Merit Exam. These actions
are shown in Table 4.9.

89

Table 4.9
Organizational Structure and Management Actions for the MMC and MME

Number of Occurrences

Number of participants
that took these actions

Scheduling Issues

6

3

Creating Procedures

5

4

Graduation Requirements

3

1

Staffing Shifts

3

1

Attendance Issues

2

1

Description of Action

Six organizational structure and management actions involved scheduling issues,
which covered a broad range of topics. Two participants noted a change from
semesters to trimesters: A school was coming from a block schedule to a trimester
schedule; and the other school was on a traditional semester schedule moving to a
trimester schedule. While these changes were arguably the most significant in terms of
changing the school structure, they did not constitute the bulk of actions in this category.
Other actions included having 8th graders come to the high school to take algebra;
creating one larger high school as a result of closing an alternative high school;
mandating all juniors take economics; and creating equity in teaching schedules by not
having any one person teach all of the high or low level classes.
Five of the organizational structure and management actions centered on
creating procedures. These procedures covered issues such as personal curriculum
(modifying the Michigan Merit Curriculum for an individual student as allowed by law),
proficiency testing (state law forcing schools to grant credit to any student who can

90

obtain a grade of C+ or better on an end of course assessment regardless of any other
factor), and collecting lesson plans. Regarding the lesson plans, this principal explains
his rationale as follows:
…While I haven't been much on collecting lesson plans, for the last year or two
I’ve required them to turn in their act lesson plans and I log it. If I don't have it I email them and say, 'I need it. Where is it?' It kind of puts some pressure and
makes sure they are holding up their end of the bargain.
The implementation of math support classes has appeared previously in the
analysis of actions taken in response to concerns with the AYP. Math support reappears
with the discussion of concerns with the MMC and MME and organizational structure
and management actions. This time the emphasis is on the procedures surrounding the
support class rather than on course creation. One school leader explained:
I have actually approached my assistant superintendent and asked about the
possibility of actually building some type of math support class into our master
schedule; so that the kids that are in eighth grade this year and take the Explore
[a pre ACT assessment], if they score low in the area of math, that we can
actually remove an elective from their freshman year and put them into a math
support class, in order to help get them through algebra.
The three actions labeled graduation requirements are mundane. While it is true
that prior to the MMC, Michigan as a state only required a course in government for
graduation, the MMC required graduation requirements more rigorous than in many
high schools in Genesee County. Most of the actions related to graduation requirements
accounted for the dramatic increase in math credits including Algebra, Geometry,
Algebra II, and a fourth year math course. One school leader noted he reduced the
physical education requirement from one credit to a half credit due to the increased total
number of credits and eliminated the option of sports counting for a PE credit. This
principal explained, “There were waivers for PE if students participated in marching

91

band or sports. We’ve gotten rid of those since they didn’t touch on all of the standards
and benchmarks [for physical education].”
Three staff shifts actions centered on the need for additional highly qualified
teachers to meet the demands of the new curriculum. One principal discussed a staff
issue that arose from the new highly qualified teacher requirements. He made the
decision (based on a lack of highly qualified special education teacher in the core
content areas) to move special education students out of the resource room and into the
general education setting utilizing a co-teaching approach:
I've done scheduling this year since we were going to all inclusion and building
my entire master schedule around the co-teachers. I have three teachers working
in science with one special education teacher. I made sure they all had the same
prep so they had the ability to plan together. It sounds simple, but it screwed up a
lot of things.

Remaining Categories
Together the remaining three categories, “Developing Teachers”, “Instructional
Targeting, Development, and Assessment”, and “Leadership,” contain only 29 actions.
Both of the Leadership actions involved increasing the principals’ knowledge regarding
the two accountability systems, state (MME) and federal (NCLB).

Instructional Targeting, Development, and Assessment
Actions taken in response to concerns with the Michigan Merit Exam that were
classified as “Instructional Targeting, Development, and Assessment” primarily focused
on test preparation. The remaining actions were diffuse, covering a range of topics.
Table 4.10 provides a more detailed analysis of these actions.

92

Table 4.10
Instructional Targeting, Development, and Assessment for the MME

Description of Action

Number of Occurrences

Number of participants
that took these actions

Test Preparation

7

3

Common Assessments

3

2

Grammar Instruction

2

1

Identifying Power Standards

2

2

Differentiating Instruction

1

1

Specific Outside Curriculum

1

1

Seven of the 16 Instructional Development and Assessment actions involved test
preparation. These actions included: class warm-up activities involving ACT
preparation, specific ACT preparation lesson plans, and after-school tutoring on test
preparation strategies. The following are test preparation strategies from two principals:
Just before the window closes on saying the word ACT out loud in public, we are
pulling the kids out - all the juniors are being pulled out over a four-day period to
hit math, English, science and social studies
and
each department has kind of developed their own prep type things. For instance,
in math they do ten ACT questions in 10 minutes and they do that every Friday,
probably starting in October/November just to get the kids used to the timing.
The remaining nine actions were spread over five categories: grammar, power
standards (identifying standards most significant and likely to be tested), common
assessments, differentiated instruction, and using a specific curriculum (such as the
Kent County Curriculum which was written to address the MMC and MME).

93

Developing Teachers
There were 12 actions that resulted from concerns with the MMC and MME that
involved Developing Teachers. These strategies ranged from fairly general approaches
of “going through our curriculum with the teachers” to more intensive ones such as “we
had a lady from the Red Cedar Writing Project at Michigan State come in and in-service
our staff specifically on ACT writing”. These actions are further detailed in Table 4.11.
Two principals discussed the following strategy. Following data analysis,
teachers shared best practices with each other: “One teacher said, ‘I do this lab; it helps
the kids understand this,' and the other teachers said, 'This is good; we need to do
that'”; and “they broke into different departments and talked about test prep”.

Brief Summary of Patterns in AYP and MME and MMC Analysis
High school principals’ concerns with AYP, MME, and MMC resulted in more
actions in Course and Curriculum Changes than in any other area. Building leaders,

Table 4.11
Developing Teachers Actions for the MMC

Description of Action

Number of Occurrences

Number of participants
that took these actions

Curriculum Professional
Development

4

3

Self Evaluation

3

2

Data Analysis

2

2

Test Preparation

2

2

Sharing Best Practices

1

1

94

who had concerns with adequate yearly progress, focused their actions predominately
on issues of Instructional Targeting Development and Assessment; (32%), Course and
Curriculum Changes (22%); and Organizational Structure and Management (20%).
Additionally, the data showed that building leaders who had concerns with the MME and
MMC focused on Curriculum Change and Development (36%); Organizational Structure
and Management (17%); and Interventions (20%). This effectively means that building
leaders focused their efforts on aligning the courses they offer in their buildings with
Michigan’s standards. The previous sections revealed the range of building leaders’
efforts and strategies, which combined short term strategies with compliance with the
law.
Analyses of the principal concerns and actions data revealed that across AYP or
MME/MMC driven concerns, actions categorized as Developing Teachers and
Leadership accounted for the fewest number of actions: 21 or 12%.
At this point, it is clear that high school principals in Genesee County have not
focused their efforts at changing the quality of instruction in the classroom. This was an
unexpected finding given the research on the effects of quality classroom instruction on
student assessment.

Mid-Level and School Level Concerns
The participants in this study identified four mid-level concerns: Highly Qualified
Staff, Graduation Rate, School Improvement and Education, Yes! To continue
illustrating patterns of concerns and actions among principals, this section briefly
summarizes and displays this data here.

95

Five interviewees had concerns regarding highly qualified teachers, which
account for nine percent of the overall concerns identified in this study. According to
NCLB requirements, secondary teachers must have either a major in the area(s) they
teach or a minor and have passed an assessment demonstrating competency in the
field. In some situations, teachers certified by the state of Michigan were no longer
eligible to teach courses that they had taught for years, given the more stringent
requirements of NCLB. This was particularly true for secondary special education
teachers, most of whom did not have majors and/or minors with appropriate testing for
the core content classes they had been teaching.
Graduation rates are also a factor in meeting the requirements for NCLB’s
Adequate Yearly Progress and are measured and reported on the Michigan’s
Education, Yes! School Report Card. In both systems, high schools need to graduate at
least 80% of each freshman class in a four-year period. Four principals identified
concerns with graduation rate, accounting for 7% of the concerns identified by
participants in this study.
Three school leaders identified school improvement as a concern. For the 200708 school year, the North Central Accreditation Association (NCA) came out with a new
model for school accreditation. The new NCA model aligns with the State of Michigan’s
accreditation process. Schools may now have a NCA site visit called a Quality
Assurance Review. During the two school years, 2008-09 and 2007-08, some schools
have entered into this new and not well understood process.
The final mid-level concern is related to Michigan’s accountability system,
Education, Yes! Four interviews listed Education Yes! as a concern, which accounts for

96

7% of the overall concerns listed. There are 12 actions associated with concerns with
Education, Yes! Table 4.12 shows the frequency of concerns, and Table 4.13 shows the
disparate nature of these actions through summary descriptions.

Table 4.12
Frequency of Mid-Level Concerns
Number of principals with
concern

Number of actions
taken

Highly Qualified

5

17

Graduation Rate

4

17

School Improvement

3

11

Education Yes!

3

12

Concern

School Level Concerns
Ten principals in this study shared concerns that were either unique to that
individual or only were shared by one other building leader. The four concerns:
curriculum alignment; finance; personal curriculum; and staff issues were each identified
by two participants in this study. It is interesting to note that these four concerns
encompass six of the thirteen schools. Table 4.14 provides an analysis of the actions
taken in response to these four concerns.
During the course of the interviews, five unique concerns were identified by five
principals. These concerns were: (1) Michigan’s interpretation of NCLB standards;
(2) staffs’ understanding of all the accountability measures and how these measures

97

Table 4.13
Display of Categorized Actions Taken by Building Leaders in Response to Mid-Level
Concerns
Highly
Qualified
Instructional
Targeting and
Alignment

Grad Rates
Worked on
differentiating
instruction
Looked at
Response to
Intervention

School
Improvement
Had students
take some
practice ACT
tests
Allowed
teachers and
students to
use scantrons
on tests to get
used to that
format

Ed Yes
Implemented
common
assessments
Had very specific
test preparation
strategies
Implemented a test
prep class for
targeted students
Held Saturday test
preparation for
students who
wanted to come and
pay for it

Course and
Curriculum
changes

Eliminated a
class
because
school did not
have anyone
HQ to teach
it.
Eliminated
basic
general
education
math classes.

Org Structure
and
Management

Created
portfolio
system to get
teachers HQ.

Used Title I
dollars to
implement
reading and
math
intervention
classes and
have parent
groups.

Familiarized
myself with
the laws
regarding
special
education

98

Got rid of remedial
math classes and
adding math support
classes to be taken
concurrently

Left if out of
my building
leadership
function

Had staff look at
what we are doing
Staff filled out self
assessment

Table 4.13 (Continued)

Changed
teaching
schedules

Created
personal
curriculums

Documented
decision
making.

Changed
focus on
hiring
decisions (x3)

Implemented
positive
behavior
support

Decided on
whether or not
to stay in NCA

Created a
record
keeping
system

Tried to
remain in
position of
principal

Let go a
teacher who
could not
become HQ

Tried to keep
school open

Used the data
received from
the MME
Set goals for
school
improvement
Created subcommittees of
teachers to
work on goals

Restricted the
students who
can take
math with
special
education
teacher

Was more
conscious of
how we are
trying to tie
things
together

Moved
towards a
team
teaching
approach
with special
education
teachers (x2)
Built
schedule
around
teachers’ HQ
areas (union
issue)

99

Table 4.13 (Continued)

Found quality
teachers who
are also HQ
and willing to
work in this
school
Had to do
demeaning
things to
good
professionals
who chose a
different path
Sent letter to
parents
informing
them that
their child’s
teacher is not
HQ
Interventions

Online credit
recovery
Set up an
alternative
high school
Individualized
student
support from
teachers
Online credit
recovery

100

Taped curriculum
night to share DVD
with parents who
were unable to
attend
Parent staff
electronic interface
to exchange
information.

Table 4.13 (Continued)

Implemented
a freshman
academy that
included two
hours of
reading daily
Academic
support for
freshman
Held kids in
8th grade at
ms alternative
site and have
them work on
9th grade
curriculum
Earlier
identification
of students
who need
help
Leadership

Teacher
Development

Purposefully
did nothing
As a result of
PLC time
teachers
were able to
use HOUSE
option of 90
professional
development
hours to
become HQ
(negative
implication
from
principal)

Have
professional
learning
communities

Talking about
how to help
subgroups of
students

Use indicators to
educate staff of
expectations
Use self
assessment to build
consensus of
strengths and
weakness.
Discussed the
indicators

101

will affect the school; (3) providing a safe and orderly environment; (4) attendance and
proficiency; and (5) accountability at the subgroup level, particularly as it relates to
“fairness,” as the number of subgroups varies across schools and school districts. Table
4.14 also provides an analysis of the actions related to these unique concerns.

Summary of Patterns
When considering the current school accountability measures building leaders
faced, AYP and MME and MMC were not only the main concerns, but were also the
focus of the most actions. That is, principals in this study took the most actions in
response to these frequently shared concerns. AYP accounted for 65 actions and these
actions were fairly well distributed over the identified categories. The combined
concerns of MME and MMC accounted for a combination of 106 actions. Mid-level
concerns (56 actions) and building-level concerns (54 actions) accounted for the
remaining 110 reported actions.
In contrast to leading concerns, actions taken in response to mid-level and
school-specific concerns tended to involve a smaller number of actions, and these
actions clustered heavily into the Organizational Structure and Management category.
Forty-eight percent of all actions taken in response to mid-level concerns and 44% all
actions taken in response to building-level concerns fell into this category (as compared
to only 18% of top concerns).
On the positive side, this may suggest that complex concerns related to teaching
and learning may now dominate principals' attention, while managerial concerns are
starting to take a secondary place. As another phenomenon of this, Course and

102

Table 4.14
Actions Taken for Unique Building-Level Concerns
Org
Instructional
Structure
Targeting Course and
and
Teacher
and
Curriculum Manage- Interven- Leader- DevelopAlignment
changes
ment
tions
ship
ment
Curriculum
alignment

XXXXXX

Finances

XX

XXX

X

XXXXXX
XXXX

X

Personal
Curriculums

XXXX

Staff Issues

XX

State’s
Interpretation of
NCLB Standards

X

XX

X

XX

Staffs’
XX
understanding of
what this all
means and how
to apply it

X

Providing a safe
and orderly
environment

XX

XXXX

XXX

Attendance and
proficiency

XXXXX

Subgroups

X

Note: Each X represents one action.

103

X

Curriculum Change actions accounted for 30% of primary concern actions, but only 7
mid-level and building-level concerns.
In all, the basic distribution study data provide one small view of principals'
concerns and actions as they relate to multiple accountability policies. Elements of
policies that carry the greatest risk and weight are consuming a greater and greater
amount of principals' attention and driving them to implement multiple actions and
changes in the hope of achieving improved outcomes.
An interesting theme emerged concerning building-level concerns. Principals in
this study who identified concerns that were either unique to their school or shared with
only one other school, tended to focus their actions in predominantly one area. The data
did not reveal actions that applied to multiple areas. Perhaps issues of local concern do
not have the same pressures on them so they do not drive as many actions by building
leaders.
While some patterns emerge from this picture, it also presents a rather noisy
collection of actions that are seemingly rational, but not clearly part of some sort of
coherent plan or process. Chapter 5 considers this and other possible interpretations of
this data.

104

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS

Data analyses in this chapter consider patterns among actions taken and not
taken by school leaders. The chapter begins with summative displays of actions taken
by building leaders and the distribution of actions by types of schools. Initial analyses
consider possible meanings or implications of these distributions for principals’ thinking
about developing the performance of their schools.
A second section considers the implications of less represented actions in the
data. Themes in this section speak to observations of a heavy emphasis by leaders on
largely structural, technical approaches to improving the instructional core, weak
evidence of clear, diagnostic thinking on the part of school leaders and disconnections
between actions and long-term planning. Also considered are intersections of data
suggesting a certain cautiousness in leader actions on one hand, but expectations
about the speed or rate of changes on the other.
In all, the study argues that high schools leaders confronted with new
accountability demands are responding to them by making many rational, technical
changes to their organizations, but appear to do so absent much careful diagnosis of
underlying problems or a systemic approach to school improvement.

Analytic Overview of the Data
A large majority of actions taken across the sample of school leaders addressed
a small set of concerns shared by almost all building leaders. That is, 82% of the
actions taken by school leaders where taken in response to top or mid-level concerns.
Concerns that were specific to one or only a few schools accounted for only 18% of the
105

overall actions identified. Table 5.1 shows the percentage of actions taken by action
category.
In general, the accountability policies enacted by NCLB and Education Yes!
elicited fairly logical, aligned actions. For example, concerns over AYP led schools to
review instruction and target efforts and interventions to perceived areas of weakness.
Responses to concerns with the MMC focused in large part, on course and curriculum
changes such as the elimination of courses that did not align with the new requirements
and rewriting elective course content to incorporate the new expectations in an effort to
save the course. One principal pointed out “we are going to try and maintain our current

Table 5.1
Percentage of Actions Taken by Building Leaders in Response to Top or Mid-Level
Concerns, Separated by Categories

AYP

MME

MMC

HQ

Grad
Rates

22

29

41

12

6

5

17

5

6

6

Instructional Targeting,
Development, and
Assessment

32

27

5

12

Interventions

14

13

26

47

8

0

2

Organizational Structure
and Management

20

15

21

82

29

64

17

26

Total Actions (n)

65

48

61

17

17

11

12

231

Course and Curriculum
Change
Developing Teachers

Leadership

106

SI

Ed
Yes

Total
Actions

8

25

9

25

9

18

33

19

17

18

9

3

elective program for grade 12 but push out the requirements of 12th grade English into
those elective courses. Those elective courses have been very popular and rigorous
classes. Some of the electives will have to incorporate some of those pieces of 12th
grade English in order to survive.” Responses to concerns with graduation rate evoked
an emphasis on interventions such as online credit recovery and/or placement into
alternative programs. One participant utilizes both options with his/her students. “We
basically have two routes [for students behind in credits] from now on. One of them is
after-school credit recovery using Plato [online learning]. The other option is our
alternative school.”
No single category of action emerged as significantly more prevalent than all
others, but changes in organizational structure and management lead the list. This
pattern echoes many observations of school reform and improvement efforts that argue
that structural changes to school often dominate change efforts, even though they have
a relatively weak record of success at altering the instructional core of schooling
(Cuban, 1984; Elmore, 1996; Tyack & Tobin, 1994). The three other leading categories
of actions -- course and curriculum change; instructional targeting, development and
assessment, and interventions – were reasonably distributed across concerns.

Distribution of Actions by Types of School
Exposure to deductive disclosure places limitations on some disaggregation of
the data that might be informative. Still, it is possible to look at a few patterns by
subgroups. For example, analyses considered differences between schools that did and
did not make AYP and by Michigan School Report Card Grades. Table 5.2 shows the

107

distribution of actions, by percentage, of schools that did and did not make AYP in the
year prior to the study.
The six schools that did not make AYP accounted for 101 actions compared to
the 128 for the seven schools that made AYP. The largest differences in action patterns
appear in the areas of course curriculum change, and instructional targeting,
development, and assessment. Schools that did not make AYP focused 33.7% of their
top actions on course curriculum and change compared to 18.0% for schools that made
AYP. Conversely, schools that made AYP spent 22.7% of their top actions focusing on
instructional targeting, development, and assessment compared to 15.8% for schools
not making AYP. Schools not making AYP were doing more with scheduling and adding
courses to better prepare kids for the current standards; schools making AYP were
doing more with targeted types of student interventions.

Table 5.2
Percentage of Actions by Schools Making and Not Making AYP
Not Making AYP
(6 schools)

Making AYP
(7 schools)

34

18

7

11

Instructional Targeting, Development,
& Assessment

16

23

Interventions

15

19

3

2

26

27

101

128

Course and Curriculum Change
Developing Teachers

Leadership
Organizational Structure and
Management
Total Actions (n)
108

One of the policy aims of NCLB and resulting state policy was to leverage change in
schools that are failing students academically (Kim, Orfield, & Sunderman, 2005). The
Center on Education Policy published a paper in years immediately following the
implementation of NCLB indicating that while it was not possible to identify strategies
that were most effective at improving schools’ academic performance, schools
implementing more than four strategies for improvement over a two-year time span
were more likely to meet AYP compared to those who implemented less (Scott, Kober,
Rentner, and Jennings, 2005). The data in this study neither confirms nor disputes the
Center of Education Policy’s findings. Principals from schools not making AYP averaged
16.8 actions compared to principals from schools making AYP who averaged 18.3
actions. The next logical inquiry would consider any differences in the actions taken
based upon the schools’ Michigan School Report Card grade. Table 5.3 illustrates the
percentage of actions taken in each category for schools by grade.
Perhaps the most interesting finding is that schools obtaining a Michigan School
Report Card grade of B averaged the largest number of actions, 24.2 actions per
school, compared to those earning an A (11.5 actions), C (15 actions), or D (12.5
actions).
To understand the implication of the number of actions taken as a function of
Michigan School Report card grades, one must take into consideration the impact of
AYP on Michigan School Report Card Grades. Failing to make AYP lowers a school’s
grade by one level (MDE, 2010b). Additionally, any school not making AYP cannot

109

Table 5.3
Percentage of Actions by Schools in Response to Michigan School Report Card Grade

A
Course and Curriculum Change

Report Card Grade
B
C

D

39

26

18

24

0

12

8

4

Instructional Targeting, Development, &
Assessment

26

17

30

4

Interventions

13

22

12

12

4

0

3

12

Organizational Structure and Management

17

23

28

44

Total Actions (n)

23

121

60

25

Developing Teachers

Leadership

obtain an overall grade of A ,whereas any school making AYP cannot receive a grade of
D. This study points out that schools obtaining an overall grade of a B are taking twice
as many actions compared to other possible grades. These schools either made AYP
and understand if they do not continue to do so they will fall to a C the following year, or
they did not make AYP and know that if they do so they will earn an A the following
year.
Principals from schools earning an overall school grade of D while taking slightly
more actions than their counterparts in schools earning overall grades of A have
focused their efforts in different areas. Principals in schools with an overall grade of a D
have focused their actions on organizational structure and management (44%) and
course and curriculum change (24%). Schools obtaining an overall A grade have

110

focused their actions on course and curriculum changes (39%) and instructional
targeting, development, and assessment (26%). Unfortunately, the schools needing to
make the largest gains in student achievement are relying on structural changes that
research has shown to be the least promising (Cuban, 1984; Elmore, 1996).
This study points out that policy can create a situation where some building
leaders are more prone than other leaders are to taking action. This situation involves
the combined elements of AYP, Michigan School Report Card Grades, and NCLB’s
requirement of public reporting. Unfortunately, this combination of policy does not
encourage the lowest performing schools to take increased actions to improve.

Summary of Data
This study suggests that the concerns and actions taken by high school
principals corresponded with policy elements that carried the highest stakes for their
schools. Stated areas of concern were backed up with a variety of actions aimed at
addressing each concern. Out of the 284 actions identified in this study, principals
identified 16 instances where the actions they were taking conflicted with their
personally beliefs about education, 26 instances where the actions were deemed critical
improvements, and 33 instances where the actions were considered strategic
gamesmanship. AYP (5 actions) and MMC (6 actions) accounted for the bulk of actions
that conflicted with participants' personal beliefs. Personal conflicts with actions
concerning AYP included actions emphasizing test scores as a measure of success and
special education subgroup issues. Principals’ personal conflict with MMC actions
centered around whether the increased requirements are actually best for all students.
Actions that were deemed critical improvements included those that targeted students

111

for additional help. Seven out of the thirteen principals interviewed specifically noted at
least one critical improvement in the area of their primary concern. Only one participant
claimed to be making critical improvements in all five areas of his concerns. The 33
identified issues of gamesmanship covered 26 areas of concern. Seven out of the
thirteen principals in this study acknowledged strategic game playing in the area of their
primary concern. The two highest areas of gamesmanship involved test preparation and
issues with teachers' highly qualified status. Most principals noted that these actions
were an unfortunate necessity of addressing their concerns.
Accountability policies were effective at stimulating action in schools, but,
ironically, they appear to stimulate as much action, if not more, in schools with lower
risks and perceived pressures. It appears that the pressure of state sanctions is less
salient than community or internal school pressure to maintain a Michigan School
Report Card Grade of a B or better. This finding contradicts Hanushek and Raymond’s
(2004) finding that while reporting overall results had minimal impact on school
performance, the “force” of accountability policy comes from attaching monetary awards
or threats of takeover to school performance. The implication is that school
accountability policy that engages community and/or school expectations to remain
above a set criteria is more effective than the threat of sanctions.
This finding answers the research question concerning the prioritizing of
pressures from multiple accountability policies. Michigan’s Education Yes! is having a
greater impact on high school principals in Genesee County than NCLB’s AYP
requirement. It should be noted that NCLB calls for the creation and reporting of school
report cards but leaves the implementation up to individual states. This study finds that

112

the top concerns of high school principals -- AYP, MME, and MMC – account for the
greatest number of actions. Additionally, only slightly more actions are being taken by
schools not making AYP compared to schools making AYP. A relatively uniform number
of actions were taken by school obtaining school report card grades of A’s, C’s, and D’s
while a notable increases in actions is being taken by high school principals whose
schools earned B grades. Concerns with Michigan School Report Card Grades, for
school obtaining a grade of B, are having the greatest influence on actions taken in high
schools.

Interpreting Patterns of Action and Inaction
Piecemeal versus Systemic Action
While leaders' actions could be described as logical and aligned, data collected
and analyzed from the study did not provide much evidence that leaders were working
from a careful diagnosis of underlying sources of low performance or some vision for
long-term systemic improvement. Rather, they appeared to be responding as quickly as
possible to readily measured symptoms. For example, there is little to no mention of
actions to better understand what was occurring at the instructional core of their school
or to develop a systemic plan of improvement. As discussed below, leaders appeared to
enact multiple changes across their organizations that rationally matched to
accountability pressures. They appeared to do so, however, without any guiding theory
or strategy about long-term school improvement. Additionally, principals did not often
seem secure or confident that their actions would work, either alone or in combination.
Only 26 out of the 284 actions identified in this study were labeled as critical

113

improvements by building leaders. Conversely, 33 actions were highlighted as strategic
game playing on their part. One principal shared this sentiment while discussing AYP:
It’s more rhetoric than anything because nothing is perfect and we are never
going to get there. So although it might be a laudable goal it doesn’t make sense
realistically that the standards set by the state for everybody are going to be met.
Taken altogether, it appears that principals are taking actions that “look good” but which
they honestly do not believe will make significant changes.

Effecting Change to the Instructional Core
The top concerns of building leaders -- Adequate Yearly Progress, Michigan
Merit Curriculum, and the Michigan Merit Exam -- strongly suggest that the study
participants saw improved student achievement (as measured by test scores) as their
primary task. One principal summed up the sentiment with the comment: “Everything
that we do with our programs: curriculum, instruction, and professional development is
geared around improving test scores.” But, research on how best to teach students at
the high school level is considered weak by many (Center on Instruction, 2010;
Schoenfeld, 2006; Single, 1991). Moreover, existing research is often not readily
familiar or available to building leaders. In this light, it is not surprising that the evidence
collected here suggested that the predominant strategy for improving student
achievement was a fairly technocratic one, mainly to modify and align course offerings
and course curricula to new tests and learning standards. For example, the majority of
Course and Curriculum Change actions centered on aligning course offerings and
standards to the Michigan Merit Curriculum. Eleven out of thirteen principals reported
implementing new courses or programs in the year prior to or during the study. The
same number of principals reported eliminating programs and courses during this time.

114

Of the 59 actions categorized as Course and Curriculum Change in Chapter 4, 39
actions were taken by ten principals in response to concerns with the Michigan Merit
Curriculum and Exam. One principal pointed out they “had to retool our chemistry
program to actual create dual programs that resulted in a college bound chemistry and
non-college bound…chemistry light”. Another participant pointed out “we have had to
redo all of our curriculum writing and assessment writing to make sure all of the
standards and content expectations of the MMC are addressed in the classroom.”
Beyond alignment, another prevalent action was the addition of support classes
for at-risk students, An example is a supplemental, online math support class that
targeted students took concurrently with their required math class. The online program
identified weaknesses and created individualized lessons for each student, who spent
part of the course online, and part of it with a math teacher. This strategy highlights
concerns identified by scholars over the narrowing of the curriculum for some students
(Siskin, 2003; Wood, 2004). Seven principals in this study identified supplemental
classes that they have added to their schools course offerings.
Less frequent than actions redesigning course and curriculum but still prevalent
were decisions by leaders to press teachers to develop and use common classroom
assessments. This action was typically cited in reference to ensuring that the students
were being taught the same material. One principal pointed out:
We have common assessments. I am always assessing the cumulative GPA of
[teacher’s] classes versus their scores on the exam…To be honest some of them
are just lazy. It is easier to get this far, then quit [as opposed to covering the
content identified by the school or department as essential].
At the same time, only one principal shared an example of using the data collected from
common assessments to drive changes in classroom instruction or to press teachers to

115

examine the effectiveness of instructional strategies in use (though one interviewee
mentioned a desire to have teachers study their common assessment outcomes to
consider weak areas in their teaching). Overall, the focus of common assessment was
alignment to standards, but the use of common assessments as a teacher and
instructional development tools was not voiced or discussed by any of the interviewed
leaders.
Changes to curriculum and course assessments were far more prevalent in the
data than references to changes to instruction. On the surface, the number of actions
coded as Instructional Targeting, Development and Assessment came close to the
number coded as Course and Curriculum Changes 50 and 59 respectively. A dig into
the data shows, however, that 80% of these actions involved Targeting and Assessment
tactics such as beginning each class with a warm-up activity that focuses on ACT
review, holding a one- hour review session covering some portion of the MME for the
past two weeks, requiring teachers to turn in ACT test preparation lesson plans, and
requiring ACT test preparation classes. These actions might certainly assist students,
but they suggest little direct challenge to core instructional strategies and practices of
teachers. Only 10 of the 50 actions focused directly on Instructional Development.
These actions included providing extra training for our algebra teachers to differentiate
instruction, identification of power standards, and having ISD curriculum coordinator
work with teachers to understand MME scores.
It was also noted that, when talking about instruction, the actions mentioned by
school leaders were fairly vague. For example, one school leader reported that “we are
working on differentiated instruction” and “…looking at our response to intervention”.

116

One leader’s lone reference to actions connected to instruction was a request: “We’ve
asked teachers to change or tweak some of their teaching styles”. Even comments that
seemed more thoughtful about developing teachers’ instructional capabilities often
drifted from the core issue. For example, speaking to his/her primary concerns, one
leader shared: “We have had to do a lot more professional development so that our
students are prepared, because the only way you can affect AYP is to affect the quality
of the student that is sitting down to take the test.”
Enhancing classroom instruction and changing teacher behaviors is a difficult
and time consuming task that often frustrates and stymies leaders (Elmore, 1996)
Several principals’ comments about improving instruction included comments about
conflicts with teachers unions. One principal talked about the human cost of having to
tell a teacher, who had been successfully teaching for 20+ years, that he had to change
the content of his course.
In all, the data suggest that while leaders recognize improved student
achievement as their most important task, they leaned on largely structural actions to
bring about improvements to the instructional core. While research suggests that these
actions are often a key part of any comprehensive effort to improve a school's
instructional program and outcomes, they are not known to have large effects on their
own (Cuban, 1990; Tyack & Cuban, 1995; Tyack & Tobin, 1994). Thus, many of the
actions taken do not suggest changes that would substantially challenge and influence
standards of teachers’ instructional practices.
As has much previous research (Bevoise, 1984; DuFour, 2002; Elmore, 2000)
the study suggests that high school leaders feel uncertain of themselves as instructional

117

leaders and unclear about how to confront complex teaching and learning challenges.
They are comfortable taking actions they see and hear around them, but still do not
seemed certain that they work. Said one, “We’ve had our teachers go through
professional development. We are doing Marazano training; we’ve got Monica
Verplank…But we do it and then they go back in the classroom and they don’t utilize or
implement anything.”

Thinking and Acting Diagnostically
An analysis of the data also raises questions about the degree to which the
interviewed high school principals were thinking and acting in a particularly diagnostic
manner about the roots of weak performance outcomes. For example, there is little in
the study data suggesting increased data analysis routines in the schools. One possible
reason for this may be the lack of information that Michigan High Schools receive
regarding student performance on the MME. The state provides information on how
many students were proficient and even how close students are to becoming proficient,
but the MME does not provide much useful information on individual student strengths
and weaknesses. It was somewhat surprising that no building leader discussed the
need for an assessment program that would allow teachers to analyze student
achievement at a level from which specific instructional interventions can be made.
It is important to understand the difference between insufficient data analysis
presented here and the abundant instructional targeting actions previously examined.
The point I am making is that principals are taking actions absent a true diagnostic
sense of the problem. Using mathematics as an example, principals understand that
their students are not doing well. Principals' targeted actions involve identifying students

118

who perform poorly on tests for increased numbers of required mathematics courses.
The notion of providing additional time for students who have demonstrated poor
performance is the target intervention. This differs greatly from understanding, for
example, that students at a high school have demonstrated a tendency to not
understand the point-slope form of a line and working with the teacher(s) to insure that
the concept is being taught correctly and reinforced throughout the curriculum. Absent a
deep diagnostic sense of the problems, principals are limited to general actions.
Another example of building leaders not advancing more strategic use of data
was evidence in discussions concerning common assessments Many principals brought
up common assessments when discussing curriculum alignment. Only one principal in
the study discussed tracking student responses as a means of gathering information on
which standards students had mastered or needed additional instruction on. If high
school principals were pursuing improvements efforts form a deep diagnostic sense,
common assessments would be used for understanding deficiencies in student learning
rather than teacher compliance in following the curriculum. In theory, a principal or
teacher, after analyzing results from common assessments, could identify areas where
content was not mastered and provided immediate specific re-teaching or reinforcement
of key concepts. Absent this analytical data, it is difficult for building leaders to develop
stronger understandings of the sources of unsatisfactory instruction and student
achievement.

Unclear Connections to Planning Processes
Throughout the study, one striking finding has been the sheer number of actions
that building leaders were taking and the seemingly loose connections to any

119

coordinated long-term improvement plan. While the interview protocol used in the study
did not expressly ask principals to describe their school improvement planning priorities
and processes, at no time did they connect the actions they described to formal
improvement plan requirements. School improvement plans, required by the State of
Michigan, are supposed to identify areas in need of improvement and include strategies
for improvement. Presumably there would be strong overlap between the concerns
identified by leaders and their improvement plans. But references to plans were, oddly,
never made in this context. The intimation here is that many of the actions displayed in
Chapter 4 were more often implemented (or abandoned) in a piecemeal fashion than as
part of a plan for sustained school improvement active in leaders' minds. The three
building leaders that did reference school improvement plans did not allude to
improvement and accountability concerns as much as the role of formal improvement
plans in NCA accreditation process. Moreover, two of the three references to NCA and
school improvement plans described dysfunctional conditions of school improvement
planning despite the state law requiring it. (The third leader’s concerns centered on
uncertainty of participating for the first time in the NCA Quality Assurance Review.)
Further analysis of the interview data showed six leaders making references to
other types of planning. For example, one principal spoke about the critical
improvement of curricular planning to ensure that pacing is set to include their identified
educational strategies. Other references were from five building leaders discussing
either NCA or finances. Of the two principals who discussed NCA, the first principal
cited past NCA plans as a justification for his school’s current focus on writing, pointing
out that writing has been part of the school’s NCA plans for the past 20 years. The other

120

principal expressed his displeasure with NCA’s current initiative to align with both state
and federal accountability measures.
Formal school improvement plans required by the State of Michigan are not
being used to guide action in schools in this study. No principal in this study made
concrete connections from the school improvement plan to the actions they were taking.
Aside from specific concerns with the process, one principal justified the continued
emphasis on writing since it has been an area of emphasis for twenty years on the
school improvement plan. The limited number of references to formal school
improvement plans and processes in the interviews again underscores questions about
the piecemeal versus systemic qualities of leaders’ efforts to address concerns raised
by new accountability pressures.

Uncertainty About Efficacy and Effectiveness
Another form of data supporting an interpretation that Genesee County’s high
school principals were struggling to respond to new accountability pressures more
systemically was the seemingly viral yet random use or abandonment of particular
actions or interventions. For example, data from this study shows instances where
programs implemented in one school were similar to the programs being abandoned in
others nearby. Required after-school classes, utilization of alternative education
programs, and mandated support/remedial classes are three examples where at least
one school has adopted a program that another school deemed ineffective. Moreover,
many of the programs being implemented have little or no basis in research and lack
much, if any, track record of success. Most of the programs cited in this study have not
been implemented long enough to adequately determine their effectiveness. Programs

121

are being implemented, modified, and eliminated before anyone can ascertain their true
affect. These patterns also suggest that, while well intentioned, many of these leaders
seem to lack a very solid sense of the nature of their student performance programs or
the types of action that would have the greatest positive effect upon them. Instead,
many seemed to take actions that were circulating among other schools, even if or
when they were being eliminated in others.
The speed with which many programs and actions were both implemented and
abandoned was a unsettling finding of this study. While discussing his concerns with
graduation rates, one principal noted recent changes at his school. During the previous
school year, his English teachers created a freshman transition academy that, in effect,
created an opportunity for an intensive two- period block for reading (9th grade English
already had an emphasis on reading). When it “became evident that they didn’t need
the second hour of reading”, these students were placed in an online credit recovery
program during the second hour (which was the freshman transition academy). While
he mentioned that other academic support was integrated into the freshman academy,
he did not state what became of that academic support once the course was eliminated
mid-year. This same principal is already proposing how next year he intends to target a
select group of low performing eighth graders and retain these students in eighth grade
while allowing the students to begin work on the ninth grade standards.
Another principal, while discussing his concerns with the Michigan Merit
Curriculum, talked about the various transformations his targeted support program has
taken. When students were allowed to retake the state exam required of all 11 th grade
students, students who did not score at a proficient level were “re-looped into a class as

122

a senior” to master the skills they failed to demonstrate. The principal admitted that this
program did not work. The following year this same principal implemented a mandatory
8-10 week after-school program for students who failed to demonstrate proficiency on
the state exam. Numerous problems such as transportation and attendance arose that
necessitated dropping the after-school program. As a result the after-school program
was replaced with a required on-line program offered during the school day. For next
year, this principal is switching from the on-line program in favor of a looping approach
with a teacher in the building. He also is developing a freshman “skills” class that will
focus on intensive reading skills as a “last effort to get their reading level up one or two
grade levels”.
A third principal discussed changes to his remediation program, citing differences
in philology from his predecessor who was “always trying to find a way around the
system”. He eliminated required courses for students who did not demonstrate
proficiency on the state test. In its place, supplemental classes were added for targeted
students to take concurrently with required classes. Mandatory in-school test
preparation review sessions were eliminated, while required test preparation classes
were instituted for students scoring below a set level on ACT PLAN test. Optional
weekend ACT preparation sessions were held. This school also opened an alternative
high school (to move low performing students from the traditional high school's testing
roster). All of this occurred within a two year time span.

Cautious Follower Approach
Included in the NLCB legislation was a call to develop scientifically based
research that is proven to be effective. The results of these proven studies are housed

123

at a United States Department of Education website titled What Works Clearing House.
Unfortunately, only three studies have been approved for inclusion in this data base for
academic achievement (USDOE, 2011). The three studies deal with character and thus
do not provide guidance for high school principals implementing changes to their entire
school. Subject area research is primarily limited to specific commercial programs.
Mathematics has 32 studies that have been approved for inclusion. Only two programs
are related to high school mathematics with both having a negative improvement index.
Out of the 24 studies for reading and writing, not one is focused on high school
students. High school principals faced with a mandate to improve student achievement
are left to themselves to identify what they believe is the best solution for their school. In
this study it is evident that high school principals are observing what their peers do and
picking which practices they believe show the most promise.
In analyzing the interview transcripts, there emerged, alongside evidence of rapid
but uncertain actions, a sense of principals waiting to watch what other schools did first
and then react based on perceived success. It should be pointed out that lacking
specific research indicating best practices (Scott, Kober, Rentner and Jennings, 2004;
USDOE, 2011) principals are acting from their perceptions of successful programs
despite changes or elimination of the original programs they might be emulating. It was
very much a “you go first and if I like it I may try it” approach. A stand-out example of a
'followership' approach came from a principal discussing personal curriculum. Personal
curriculum is the vehicle that the Michigan Department of Education developed for
students who want or need to deviate from state mandated courses. While
implementing personal curriculum was a concern for this principal, his strategy was

124

“First I have to see what policy or procedure that [a neighboring principal] has”. This
principal has no intention of developing a plan for implementing personal curriculums.
Instead, he is waiting for a higher performing school to develop its plan and then he will
seek to emulate it.
In another example highlighting both the followership approach and perceived
success despite changes in the original program(s), a principal from one of the top
performing schools in the county adopted strategies learned from three other principals
to address his concerns with remaining a top achieving school in the county. Despite
the fact his school out-performed these other schools, after observing these changes for
a year he perceived that these other schools implemented changes in regards to the
Michigan Merit Curriculum that would benefit his school. His school implemented an
algebra “shadow class” (a class that provides additional support for algebra class)
modeled on one used at a nearby high school, a freshman support class modeled on
that of another high school, and a MME test preparation class modeled on a class in a
third school. At the same time, this principal chose to hold the algebra shadow class
after school, even though a required after-school math support class was found to be
ineffective by another school in the county. This lack of opportunity for systemic learning
in the county forces building leaders to repeat mistakes rather than learning from others’
mistakes.

Not-Very-Effective Approaches
Three key themes emerge from a review of the data. Principals in this study
relied heavily on structural changes. While the actions taken by these principals in
response to their concerns with current school accountability measures was coded into

125

categories indicating the target of those actions, the actions themselves predominately
failed to address the underlying issue of improved instruction. This is consistent with
research by Larry Cuban (1984) and Richard Elmore (1996) highlighting the propensity
of school leaders to utilize structural changes instead of getting at deeper issues. The
second theme that emerged was a lack of systemic long-term planning. Participants in
this study did not cite plans for the multiple actions they took. The implication of this
finding is that high school principals in Genesee County are not using the school
improvement plans required under Michigan law to guide the actions they took. Actions
are being taken in a piecemeal fashion rather than being part of a cohesive plan for
improvement. The final major theme that emerged was uncertainty concerning the
effectiveness of the actions taken. Given the paucity of research on effective high
school instruction, principals in this study utilized their own judgment concerning actions
being taken by neighboring districts. Principals in this study implemented programs they
deemed successful in neighboring districts despite fully understanding the long-term
effectiveness of the programs in the school that originally implemented the program.
The discussion concerning uncertainty and both the speed of change and the
use of a cautious followership approach furthers my claim that these building leaders
are acting without a systemic plan for improvement, as a direct result of not having a
diagnostic sense of what the underlying problem is. If Genesee County high school
principals had a firm grasp on the real problems, I would expect to see a resolve for
some core programs and strategies. When the top performing schools in the county
initiate fundamental changes in their approach to helping lower achieving students that

126

parallels approaches used by some of the lower achieving schools, it is clear that no
one has a firm grasp on how best to help all students.

Illustrative Case #1: Trimester Scheduling: An Illustrative Case of Key Themes
One of the most common changes driven by new state accountability policies
was a move to trimester scheduling as a means of coping with the MMC standards.
Three out of the 13 principals in the study had already implemented trimesters in their
buildings. Four additional building leaders were looking into trimesters, with two of them
attempting to implement some aspects of trimesters into their traditional schedule.
Under the trimester system, the school year was divided into three sections
instead of the typical two semesters. Schools on trimesters offer five periods a day
instead of six, thus offsetting the loss in number of days by increasing the daily time
allocated to each course. A student who attends a school on semesters has 12
opportunities to schedule classes (2x6), whereas a student who attends a school on
trimesters has 15 (3x5).
One advantage of this schedule is that it allows a student who fails the first part
of a course to retake this part during the second trimester and still complete the course
in a given academic year. It also allows some courses to be spread over the entire
school year, thus gaining additional instructional time. Within increased scheduling
opportunities, two of the three schools in this study utilizing trimesters developed an
ACT preparation class that is required for all students in a certain grade. A
disadvantage of this structure is that many teachers believe that all the core courses
need to be taught for the entire school year (3 trimesters). It also creates the situation

127

where some students will take the first part of a course in the fall, not have it during the
winter, and finish the course in the spring.
This approach to dealing with problems is, however, emblematic of many
responses:
(a) This structural change was made even though there was not a strong
research base supporting it. Very little empirical research has been conducted on the
consequences of alternative schedules (McCreary & Hausman, 2001). Structural
changes alone have weak potential to impact student learning (Newmann & Wehlage,
1996). Richard Elmore, citing Larry Cubban’s work concludes “we’ve become very good
at changing the overarching structure of the education system without really changing
anything.” (Johnson & Blair, 1999, p. 1). Despite the weak basis in research, principals
in Genesee County are pursuing trimester scheduling as a solution to their concerns.
(b) This study did not produce data that showed that a transition to the trimester
system took place to address a substantive issue surrounding instruction. The limited
research on alternative scheduling concludes that the outcome depends on how
teachers make use of the schedule change (McCreary & Hausman, 2001). In this study,
principals did not discuss any comprehensive plans for improvement coupled with the
schedule change. Instead, the transition allowed for easily accommodating the Michigan
Merit Curriculum along with traditional electives such as band and foreign language.
The increased scheduling opportunities frequently come at the expense of instructional
time, approximately 23 hours in core classes. As a result, the ability to maintain
electives – one of the major goals of a trimester schedule is offset by the need to
provide mandatory support classes and test preparation classes.

128

(c) Actions taken were often modeled after actions happening in other county
schools. In this instance, building leaders see the immediate benefits of the change, i.e.,
remediation of failing students, inclusion of support classes taken concurrently with core
classes, and requirement of ACT preparation classes, without a thorough understanding
about the effectiveness of these strategies. The changes enacted focus on changing the
structure of the courses, not necessarily the content and delivery. Previously, I
discussed the cautious approach being utilized by high school principals in Genesee
County. It should be noted, however, that while two or three schools in this study have
delved further into trimesters, most of the remaining schools took a more cautious
approach and implemented, to the extent possible, some of the trimester strategies in
their buildings.

Illustrative Case #2: Little Leveraging of New Instructional Technologies
It is somewhat surprising that despite the rise in online education and blended
instruction – containing both a traditional seat time component and an online component
– observed nationally at the post secondary level, this study revealed only one
innovation of this sort that targeted a small group of students. Where technology
applications were noted, it predominately centered on credit recovery and test
preparation applications. Although the question was not specifically asked, 6 of the 13
principals interviewed mentioned that they are using some form of online education with
their students. How this service is provided ranges from allowing students to complete
courses entirely from home to assigning an online course within the school day, which
students complete in a supervised computer lab.

129

When technology was discussed further, the focus of the interviews was on credit
recovery, not student learning. Some principals felt that the online content is easier than
the analogous courses offered in their schools. One principal is using an online
provider, Plato, for students to progress in mathematics to such an extent that he is
referring to it as “Math Plato.” For these principals, online courses are a way to meet the
requirements of the Michigan Merit Curriculum but perhaps not the spirit, which is
increased student learning. This is not surprising since credit recovery has become
somewhat problematic during the NCLB era. Building leaders can no longer offer an
after-school or summer school generic course, i.e., summer school math, to students
who have fallen behind. Instead, students now need the specific courses, i.e. Algebra I
and Algebra II, required by the Michigan Merit Curriculum and taught by a highly
qualified teacher. The aforementioned generic math credit will no longer “count” toward
graduation.
Several building leaders mentioned using on-line test preparation programs to
get students better prepared for the Michigan Merit Exam. Since the ACT is a major
component of the test, numerous on-line opportunities exist to help students prepare. In
many instances, students are taking multiple practice ACT tests prior to taking the one
that counts.
Genesee County high schools remain unchanged despite new technologies
which could be blended into their current structure to enhance the learning of students.
Genesee County principals’ use of technology as a structural change is likely the
combined result of not having a comprehensive plan for technology use and instead
relying on replication of programs in neighboring school districts.

130

(a) Technology innovations are being used primarily as a structural change.
Online course are being used instead of teacher led courses. The implication is that
students who failed a class the first time can earn credit on their own without the
assistance of a teacher at their school. Blended instruction was only mentioned by one
principal in this study. Principals in this study are not seeking to utilize online instruction
to supplement classroom instruction taking place in their building.
(b) Principals in this study did not cite comprehensive plans for utilizing
technology to address instructional issues. Instead, technology is being used at best to
sporadically address concerns with credit recovery and at worst to circumnavigate
issues of having a highly qualified teacher. High school principals in Genesee County
would be well served to develop plans for the effective integration of technology within
their buildings.
(c) Of the online course providers mentioned in this study, Plato was the provider
of choice for five of the six Genesee County high school principals utilizing online
instruction. This is in large part due to the fact that Plato offers the cheapest course of
any online provider (Gen-Net personal communication, 2009). While the What Works
Clearinghouse does not have a study addressing Plato’s high school content it does
have one focusing on middle school. The study analyzing the effectiveness of Plato’s
middle school math program indicates a negative improvement index (USDOE, 2011).
Despite the lack of research showing the effectiveness of the Plato program, high
school principals in this study continue to utilize it for credit recovery.
(d) Absent research pointing principals in a different direction, principals in this
study are once again using a followership approach implementing online programs used

131

by other districts in the county. Besides Plato, only one other online provider was
mentioned in this study: Apangea learning was being used by one building principal.

Conclusion
This study confirms that accountability policies are effective at provoking action
from high school principals. Unfortunately, this study also shows that the actions taken
by high school principals have not focused on increasing the quality of classroom
instruction that high school students receive.
This study suggests that concerns of and actions taken by high school principals
corresponded with policy elements that carried the highest stakes for their schools. AYP
emerged as the policy with the greatest number of concerns from participants, followed
by the MMC and MME. Taken together these three concerns also accounted for the
most number of actions taken by building leaders in this study. A more detailed analysis
of actions taken relative to AYP and Michigan School Report Card status revealed that
schools obtaining an overall grade of “B” accounted for nearly twice as many actions as
any other grade. This makes sense, given that the Michigan School Report Card Grade
– while encompassing AYP, MME, and MMC – is not in and of itself something a
principal can directly target without first impacting AYP, MME, or MMC. Accountability
policies were effective at stimulating action in schools, but, ironically, they appear to
stimulate as much action, if not more, in schools with lower risks and perceived
pressures. It appears that the pressure of state sanctions is less relevant than
community or internal school pressure to maintain a Michigan School Report Card
Grade of a B or better.

132

The actions taken by building leaders in this study centered on organization
structure and management, course and curriculum change, and instructional
development and targeting. Within the original construct of the data analysis principals
in schools earning the lowest Michigan School Report Card grades focused their action
on issues of organization structure and management. Principals in higher performing
schools, on the other hand, focused their actions more heavily on course and curriculum
changes. Further data analysis revealed three key findings:
1. The vast majority of all actions taken in this study could be classified as
structural changes because they fail to get at the essence of improved
teaching or learning. It is clear that principals in this study are not acting from
a deep diagnostic knowledge of the problem.
2. Principals in this study are utilizing a piecemeal approach to implement
change in their buildings, as opposed to a long-term systemic plan. Despite
Michigan law requiring school improvement plans, principals in this study are
not utilizing them to drive the changes they are implementing.
3. Principals are uncertain about the effectiveness of the actions they are taking.
This is observed in both the strong reliance on adopting programs or taking
actions that are occurring in neighboring schools as well as the speed in
which programs are implemented and eliminated.
As noted in Chapter 1, a gap exists in current research concerning the effects of
school accountability policy. Existing research either deals with large state-level data
sets or is small case studies of individual schools. This study highlights the effect of
federal and state school accountability policy on a County- wide scale. While the study

133

confirms that policy is effective at prompting action from high school principals, it also
identified policy conditions that are causing the most action from building principals.

Implications for Accountability Policy
Current accountability measures, while intended to increase student knowledge,
have not been designed to drive an increase in knowledge concerning the development
of new systems, approaches, and capabilities for educating high school students. This
study highlighted both the lack of deep diagnostic understanding for lack of student
learning and a lack of actions centered on teacher development. This lack of diagnostic
understanding was universal among the group of 13 principals. Future accountability
policies must call for the development of a quality data management system to readily
identify specific areas of weakness for students. Once principals understand specific
deficiencies in student learning, they can work to improve teachers’ skills to address the
problem.
This study pointed out a specific set of circumstances that resulted in nearly
twice as many actions being taken. Having a Michigan School Report Card Grade of a
“B” prompted more action than any other, even though the principals acknowledged that
the goal of 100% proficiency was unobtainable. As mentioned previously, the combined
effect of community expectations and school expectations is likely a motivating factor for
these principals. Policy should seek to better understand these circumstances
prompting action in some schools. Ideally, policy could be changed to engage these
same factors in schools at the lower end of student achievement. One option would be
to create separate grading scales for schools with multiple subgroups. Instead of having
a system that places the lowest performing schools on the same scale as the highest,

134

policy could place the lower performing schools together. By creating a pool of similar
low performing schools together and adjusting the grading criteria, it may be possible to
increase the number of improvement strategies a school implements and thus its overall
change for success.

Implications for School Leaders
This study indicated that high school principals lack a diagnostic sense of why
their students are not learning at the level they desire. The general implication of this
study’s research is that building leaders have not clearly defined the problem(s) they
have. It is apparent that high school principals, at least in this study, believe the main
issue is making AYP, not improving student learning. Using this lens, their decisions to
focus on courses, testing, and organizational issues makes more sense. If building
leaders clearly stated that their problems were student achievement in the areas of
reading and mathematics, we would see a different set of actions.
Change by school leaders needs to be purposeful. High school principals need to
have a clear plan addressing both the short- and long-term actions they are taking to
address their concerns. To a much greater extent than observed in this study, building
leaders need to implement changes for longer periods of time and to truly evaluate the
effectiveness of all changes. Only after these two approaches are taken will high school
principals begin to build a knowledge base of not only the most effective approaches but
also the underlying reasons for success or failure of programs.
It is evident in this study that while the participating principals are educated, well
intending individuals, they are universally lacking in either the skill set or desire to use
certain strategies. The universal exclusion of systemic plans for change in this study is

135

disturbing. Equally troubling is the lack of opportunities for schools to learn from the
successes or mistakes of one another. Principals, for the most part, are not being
pressured by their communities to take actions to improve student learning. This is
consistent with the 2010 Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll showing that 77% of people give
the school their child attends an A or B compared to 18% for public schools as a whole
(Bushaw & Lopez, 2010). Principals in this study estimated that 44% of time the
community is uninformed about the actions the principals are taking. Participants
estimated that 14% of the time the community was opposed to the actions taken, while
only 13% of the time the community supported the actions they were taking. Taken
together the data point out that the communities that hired these principals are happy
with their local schools. Aside from the specific circumstance noted previously, not only
are communities not pressuring schools to change, but they also appear to be an
obstacle to change based on their satisfaction with the status quo. Presumably the
combined effect of rigorous federal and state policy mandating increased student
performance, coupled with local communities' desire for not changing, has resulted in
high turnover in the principalship. The University Council for Educational Administration
(2008) found that the three-year turnover rate for high school principals was 60.7% and
the five-year turnover rate was 76.4%.

Implications for Future Research
Broadly defined, the vast majority of actions taken by high school principals in
this study can be classified as structural changes. Even actions coded as focusing on
curriculum or instruction relied on changing what was taught instead of the deeper issue
of how it is taught. This notion is consistent with the lack of approved research focusing

136

on high schools in the USDOE What Works Clearinghouse. Michigan will soon be
poised to be a site for this research with the implantation of a tracking system for high
school teachers’ student results on the MME. With this data, effectiveness of teachers
meeting the standards can be identified and research can seek to understand what they
are doing in their classroom. One could either analyze lesson plans or have select
teachers keep daily logs of how instructional time is used. The information for the most
effective and least effective teachers, given similar school characteristics, could be
compared to identify instructional practices having the most likelihood of success at the
high school level. While this research may or may not meet the rigorous standards for
inclusion in the What Works Clearinghouse, it is an important step forward for high
school principals in Michigan. Once principals understand what is or is not effective,
they can work with their teachers to produce more of the desirable strategies.
Another area for future research would include the analysis of school
improvement plans. Despite the state law requiring school improvement plans, high
school principals are not utilizing them to drive change in their buildings. A logical study
would seek to understand both what is being included in these plans and how they are
being used. This study indicates that while principals are presumably meeting the letter
of the law, they are not effectively utilizing the required plans. Large policy implications
exist. Once this relationship is better understood, the Department of Education and/or
legislators could modify the existing requirements to ensure that high school principals
are engaged in purposeful planning, both for the immediate future and for the long term.

137

APPENDICES

138

APPENDIX A

Research Participant Information and Consent Form

139

Research Participant Information and Consent Form
You are being asked to participate in a research project. Researchers are required to provide a consent
form to inform you about the study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits
of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to ask the
researchers any questions you may have.
Study Title: High school principals’ decisions under NCLB
Researcher and Title: BetsAnn Smith, Associate Professor
Co researcher: Keith Smith, Principal Clio Area High School & Graduate Student MSU
Department and Institution: K-12 school administration, Michigan State University
Address and Contact Information:
BetsAnn Smith: 409 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824, bas@msu.edu, (517) 353-8646
Keith Smith: 13144 Grant Cir. Clio, MI 48420, knsmith@admin.clio.k12.mi.us, or (810) 591-1358
1. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH:
You are being asked to participate in a research study of traditional high school principals in Genesee
County Michigan. You have been selected as a possible participant in this study because of your
employment as a traditional high school principal within Genesee County. From this study, the
researchers hope to learn (1) the decisions high school principals have made in response NCLB and (2)
the rationale and ramifications of those decisions. In the entire study, 23 people are being asked to
participate. Your participation in this study will take about one hour.
2. WHAT YOU WILL DO:
You are being asked to participate in interview. The interview will consist of three main questions: What
leadership decisions have you made in response to NCLB in the areas of curriculum, instructional
strategies, assessment programs and data analysis, and school management? What are the ramifications of
the decisions that you have made? Why did you make these decisions? Questions will be asked of you in
each of the above mentioned areas. A series of pre-determined prompts will guide us through this
interview. The interview, once completed, will be transcribed. The transcribed interview will be used to
create data for the purpose of answering the research questions. You will be provided with the
transcription of this interview. You will be asked to review the transcript for accuracy. Following the
conclusion of the study, you will be provided a copy of the analysis of all the interviews.
3. POTENTIAL BENEFITS:
While the potential exists for you to benefit from taking part in this study through, gaining a better
understanding of what high school's in the county as a whole are doing in response to NCLB. It is more
likely, you will not directly benefit from your participation in this study. However, your participation in
this study may contribute to the understanding of high school principals responses to NCLB, the
ramifications of their decisions, and the justifications for their decisions.
4. POTENTIAL RISKS:
The potential risk of participating in this study are loss of anonymity. While there are several procedures
in place to safeguard your identity from being disclosed it is not possible to absolutely guarantee
anonymity. Participation in the study could lead to adverse affects on your employment and or reputation
through the unintended release of information.

140

5. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY:
Points to include:
The data collected for this research project will be kept confidential. Following the interview names will
be removed and demographic information substituted. Analysis will not point out a particular school.
Instead groups will be created based on criteria such as: like response, number of interventions, etc.
Information about you will be kept confidential to the maximum extent allowable by law once the data
analysis is complete, the data will be stored on a CD. The stored data will not contain readily verifiable
information such as name and school district. The data will be kept for a period of seven years. The only
individuals that will have access to the data are: the researchers involved in the study, the institutional
review board at Michigan State as required by university policy or law, and anyone else who has legal
authority to access this data that is considered confidential. Your specific interview data will not be
shared with anyone affiliated with your school district.
You understand that as previously mentioned this interview will be recorded. The purpose of the
recording is to generate data used in the analysis of the study. Upon transcription of the interview, the
audio recording will be destroyed. The transcribed interview will not contain readily as a viable
information such as name and school district.
I agree to allow audiotaping/videotaping of the interview.
Yes
No
Initials____________
6. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW
Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You have the right to say no. You may
change your mind at any time and withdraw. You may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop
participating at any time.
7. COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY:
You will not incur any costs as a result of participating in the study. Nor will you receive any
compensation for participation in the study.
8. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS

)

If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to
report an injury, please contact BetsAnn Smith, 409 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824,
bas@msu.edu, (517) 353-8646.
If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain
information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact,
anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East
Lansing, MI 48824.
9. DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT.
Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study.
________________________________________
Signature

___________________
Date

You will be given a copy of this form to keep.

141

APPENDIX B

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

142

Interview Questions:
Part 1: Professional Profile, Demographic
•

(Dl) How many years have you been employed, in any capacity, in a school setting?

•

(D2) How many years have you been employed in school administration?

•

(D3) How many years have you been employed at this school as a:
Teacher ________
AP
Principal
_______________________

_______________________

Part 2: Most Pressing Performance and Accountability Concerns
I would like to establish a list of what you feel are the S most pressing performance and
accountability matters you face.
Among all the state and federal performance demands and accountability measures
you now confront, what issue concerns you the most- your top concern (i.e. what is
your most pressing issue, where do you feel most challenged or vulnerable?)
•

Can you think across other top issues of concern and share them with me. Our goal
is to establish what you feel are your 5 top concerns where performance demands
and accountability measures are concerned.

(Develop a list of their top 5 concerns)
Part 3. Response to Concerns
Now, I’d like to query you a bit about how you and the school have responded to these
top concerns:
Concern #1 ______________________ __________
What measure drives this concern: NCLB? Edyes? MME? Combination? What
decisions and actions have you taken in response to this concern?
• In taking these actions did you feel that you were making critical
improvements
or did you feel that you were forced to game the system?

143

Have these decisions and actions created conflicts in your school community? Have
these decisions and actions conflicted with some of
• Your beliefs as an educator
• Your beliefs about what this community needs for its students

Concern #2
•
•

•

_________________________________

What measure drives this concern: NCLB? EdYes? MME? Combination
What decisions and actions have you taken in response to this concern?
• In taking these actions did you feel that you were making critical
improvements or did you feel that you were forced to game the system?
Have these decisions and actions created conflicts in your school community?
Have these decisions and actions conflicted with some of
• Your beliefs as an educator
• Your beliefs about what this community needs for its students

Concern #3 ___________________________________
•
•
•
•

What measure drives this concern: NCLB? EdYes? MME? Combination
What decisions and actions have you taken in response to this concern?
• In taking these actions did you feel that you were making critical
improvements or did you feel that you were forced to game the system?
Have these decisions and actions created conflicts in your school community?
Have these decisions and actions conflicted with some of
• Your beliefs as an educator
• Your beliefs about what this community needs for its students

Concern #4
•
•
•
•

_______________________________

What measure drives this concern: NCLB? EdYes? MME? Combination
What decisions and actions have you taken in response to this concern?
• In taking these actions did you feel that you were making critical
improvements or did you feel that you were forced to game the system?
Have these decisions and actions created conflicts in your school community?
Have these decisions and actions conflicted with some of
• Your beliefs as an educator
• Your beliefs about what this community needs for its students

144

Concern #5 _________________________________
•
•
•
•

What measure drives this concern: NCLB? EdYes? MME? Combination
What decisions and actions have you taken in response to this concern?
• In taking these actions did you feel that you were making critical
improvements or did you feel that you were forced to game the system?
Have these decisions and actions created conflicts in your school community?
Have these decisions and actions conflicted with some of
• Your beliefs as an educator
• Your beliefs about what this community needs for its students

Part 4: Policy Clutter and Conflict
•

In responding to the above concerns, have you run into conflicts between the
various state and federal policies you have to respond to,
• Are there winners and losers in these conflicts?

Part 5: Overall Reflections
•

What do you think about the changes you are implementing, overall?

•

Are there aspects to leading a high school under these conditions that you do not
feel policy makers or other just do not understand?
Is there anything that you have thought of that either you did not get a chance to say
or I did not ask you about that you wish to have included?

Thank you very much for your time.

145

APPENDIX C

IRB APPROVAL

146

TITLE
IRB# PI
BetsAnn High School
08Principals
1074 Smith

REVIEW
RECENT
LEVEL
APPROVAL
EXPEDITED 1/20/2009

EXPIRATION STATUS
DATE
Archived
1/19/2010

Decisions under
NCLB: A Study of
23 County High
Schools

IRB HISTORY
APP#

APPLICATION DATE
DATE
DATE
TYPE
STARTED SUBMITTED APPROVED

i031865

11/4/2008 11/4/2008
INITIAL
APPLICATION

r032140

6/24/2010
CLOSED

147

1/20/2009

REFERENCES

148

REFERENCES

Almy, S. and Theokas, C. (2010). Not prepared for class: High poverty schools continue
to have fewer in-field teachers. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
Associated Press. (2011). Math scores up, Reading down on MEAP tests. Retrieved
April 1, 2011, from http://record-eagle.com/ statenews/ x598324615/Math-scoresup-reading-down-on-MEAP-tests
Barnett, D. (2004). School leadership preparation programs: Are they preparing
tomorrow’s leaders? Education, 125(1), 121-129.
Becker, H. S. (1990). Generalizing from case studies. In E. W. Eisner & A. Peshkin
(Eds.), Qualitative research in education: The continuing debate (pp. 233-242).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Bennett, J. (2007). Conflicts of interest in the school progress reports. Retrieved July
10, 2008, from http://edwize.org/conflicts-of-interest-in-the-high-school-progressreports
Bevoise, W. D. (1984). Synthesis of research on the principal as instructional leader.
Educational Leadership, 41(5), 14-20.
Carnoy, M. and Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes?
A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305331.
Cascadden, D. S. (1998). Principals as managers and leaders: A qualitative study of the
perspectives of selected elementary school principals. Journal of School
Leadership, 8(2), 137-169.
Center on Instruction. (2010). Current and ongoing research on academic literacy in a
secondary RTI context. In Academic Literacy Community of Practice Webinar #5.
Retrieved March 15, 2011, from www.centeroninstruction.org
Chan, T. C. and Pool, H. (2002) Principals' priorities versus their realities: Reducing the
gap. 18 pages. ED 465 230.
Chudowsky, N. & Chudowsky, V. (2005). Identifying school districts for improvement
and corrective action under the No Child Left Behind act. Washington, DC:
Center on Education Policy.
Common Core State Standards Initiative, (2011) In the states. Retrieved March 9, 2011,
from http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states

149

Cooley, V. and Shen, J. (2003) School accountability and professional job
responsibilities: A perspective from secondary principals. NASSP Bulletin,
87(634), 10-25.
Courter, C. V. (1926). The principal as a manager. NASSP Bulletin, 10(11), 174-178.
Cremin, L. (1970). American education: The colonial experience 1607-1783. New York:
Harper & Row.
Cuban, L. (1984). How teacher’s taught: Constancy and change in American
classrooms. New York, Longman.
Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 313.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of
state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, Retrieved January 6,
2011, from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). The collision of new standards and old inequities. In
behind: How the no child left behind act is damaging our children and our
schools. Boston: Beacon Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Evaluating No Child Left Behind. The Nation. Retrieved
March 25, 2009, from http://www.thenation.com/article/evaluating-no-child-leftbehind
Dee, T. S. and Jacob, B. (2009). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student
achievement. Retrieved March 3, 2011, from
http://www.ukcpr.org/SeminarSeries/brianjacob.pdf
Dennis, R. (2000). The role of the federal government in public education in the United
States. Retrieved March 28, 2011, from
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/edu/ed370/federal.html
Dilley, P. (2000). Conducting successful interviews: Tips for intrepid research. Theory
Into Practice, 39(3), 131-137.
DiPaola, M. F. and Hoy, W. K. (2008). Principals improving instruction: Supervision,
evaluation, and professional development. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
DuFour, R. (2002). Beyond instructional leadership: The learning-centered principal.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 59(8), 12-15.

150

Dunbar, C. and Plank, D. N. (2004). False starts in Michigan: The early implementation
of federal No Child Left Behind Act (Working Paper #13). East Lansing, MI:
Educational Policy Center.
Education Week. (2004). Adequate yearly progress. Retrieved February 4, 2011, from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/adequate-yearly-progress/
Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practices. Harvard
Educational Review, 66(1), 1-26.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC:
The Albert Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R. F. and Rothman, R. (1999). Testing, teaching, and learning: A guide for
states and school districts. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Faber, F. F. (1990). Local control of schools: Is local governance a viable option?
Charleston, WV: Policy and Planning Center Appalachia Educational Laboratory.
Fredericks, J. and Brown, S. (1993). A look at the literature: School effectiveness and
principal productivity. NASSP Bulletin, 77(556), 9-16.
Garcia, D. R., Mathis, W. J., and Wiley, E. W. (2005). The impact of the Great Lakes
region. (EPSL-0509-109-EPRU). Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Studies
Laboratory.
Genesee Intermediate School District. (2009a). 2008-09 Statistical summary report.
Retrieved March 26, 2011, from http://www.geneseeisd.org/index.aspx?NID=167
Genesee Intermediate School District. (2009b). Enrollment comparisons. Retrieved
March 25, 2011, from http://www.geneseeisd.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=69
Goertz, M. and Duffy, M. (2003). Mapping the landscape of high-stakes testing and
accountability programs. Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 4-11.
Goodwin, R. H, Cunningham, M. L., and Childress, R. (2003). The changing role of the
secondary principal. NASSP Bulletin, 87(634), 26-42.
Gross, B. and Supovitz, J. A. (2005). State accountability policy and our special focus
on policies. In B. Gross and M. E. Goertz (Eds.), CPRE Research Report Series
RR-056. University of Pennsylvania.
Hall, D. (2007) Graduation matters: Improving accountability for high school graduation.
Washington, DC: The Education Trust.

151

Hamilton, L. S. (2011). Testing what has been taught: Helpful, high-quality assessments
start with a strong curriculum. American Educator, 34(4), 47-52.
Hanushek, E. A. and Raymond, M. E. (2003). The effects of school accountability
systems on the level and distribution of student achievement. Journal of the
European Economic Association, 2(2-3), 406-415.
Hanushek, E. A. and Raymond, M. E. (2004). Does school accountability lead to
improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,
24(2), 297-327.
Haycock, K. and Peske, H. (2006). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority students
are shortchanged on teacher quality. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
Hess, F. M. (2010). Weighing the case for school boards: Today and tomorrow. Phi
Delta Kappan, 91(6), 15-19.
Ivers, K. M. (2008). The role of nontraditional public school administrators in Michigan
(Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 2008). UMI No. 1889019831.
Jennings, J. (2002). Stricter federal demands, bigger state role: What to expect from the
No Child Left Behind Act. Center on Education Policy. Retrieved June, 18, 2006,
from www.cep-dc.org/nclb/
Johnson, K. and Blair, L. (1999). At the heart of the matter: Improving teaching and
learning through professional development. SEDLetter, 11(2), 3-7.
Kim, J. S., Orfield, G., and Sunderman, G. L. (2005). NCLB meets school realities:
Lessons from the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
King, D. (2002). The changing face of leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 61-63.
Kober, N., Chudowsky, N., & Chudowsky, V. (2010). Slow and uneven progress in
narrowing gaps. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
Koski, W. S. (2011). Courthouse vs. statehouse? Michigan Law Review, 109: 923-942.
Ladd, H. F. (2001). School-based educational accountability systems: The promise and
pitfalls. National Tax Journal, 54(2), 385-400.
Lecher, W. C. (2005, March). Center on Education Policy reports hopeful sign and
warning sign for NCLB. National Access Network. Retrieved October 8, 2006,
from www.schoolfunding.info/news/federal/3-12-05cepreport. php3
Leopold, W. (2011). Study finds No Child Left Behind raises math achievement.
Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.

152

Leung, R. (2004).The ‘Texas Miracle’: 60 Minutes investigates claims that Houston
schools falsified dropout rates. CBS News. Retrieved April 4, 2011, from
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/06/60II/main591676.shtml
Linn, R. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16.
Linn, R. L. (2001). Assessments and accountability. Practical Assessment, Research
and Evaluation, 7(11). Retrieved March 29, 2011, from
http//PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=11
Linn, R. L. (2005) Test-based educational accountability in the era of No Child Left
Behind. Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation Report 651.
Loeb, S. (2000, November). Teacher quality: Its enhancement and potential for
improving pupil achievement. Paper presented at the National Invitational
Conference, Improving Educational Productivity: Lessons from Economics,
Washington, DC.
March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York:
The Free Press.
Mathews, J. (2003). Inside the No Child Left Behind Law. Retrieved April 4, 2011, from
http://www.susanohanian.org/show_nclb_stories.html?id=69
Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard
Educational Review, 62(3), 279-300.
McCreary, J. and Hausman, C. (2001). Differences in student outcomes between block,
semester, and trimester schedules. Salt Lake City: University of Utah (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED457590).
Meier, D. (2004). NCLB and democracy. In D. Meier, A. Kohn, L. Darling-Hammond, T.
Sizer, and G. Wood (Eds.) Many children left behind: How the No Child Left
Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools (pp. 66-78). Boston:
Beacon Press.
Meier, D., Kohn, A., Darling-Hammond, L., Sizer, T. R., and Wood, G. (Eds.) (2004).
Many children left behind. How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our
children and our schools. Boston: Beacon Press.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals. (2008). New school accreditation
system expected for 2009-10. Retrieved December 10, 2008, from
www.mymassp.com

153

Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals, (2009). MDE memo-MI-SAS.
Message posted to MASSP electronic mailing list, Retrieved January 10, 2011,
from http://mymassp.com/content/mde_memo_misas
Michigan Department of Education. (2003). Standards for accreditation: Education Yes!
A yardstick for excellent schools. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Final_Revised_ed_Yes!_50938_7.pdf
Michigan Department of Education. (2006). Department of Education announces 163
schools off NCLB sanctions list. Retrieved October 8, 2006, from
www.michigan.gov/printerFriendly/0,1687,7-40--149862--,00.html (b?)
Michigan Department of Education. (2007). Michigan Merit Curriculum high school
graduation requirements. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/faq4_178596_7.pdf
Michigan Department of Education. (2008a). Michigan Merit high school graduation
requirements frequently asked questions. Retrieved December 10, 2008, from
http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-140-38924---,00.html
Michigan Department of Education. (2008b). What’s new in the 2008 Michigan school
report cards. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://www.chsd.
us/admin/reports/ReadingMichiganSchoolReportCards.pdf
Michigan Department of Education. (2010a). Michigan Merit Curriculum high school
graduation requirements: Oh, that explains it. Retrieved March 8, 2011, from
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/111706-finalhsfaq_
178578_7.pdf
Michigan Department of Education. (2010b). What’s new in the 2010 Michigan school
report cards. Retrieved January 6, 2011 from
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Guide_to_Reading_2008_
Michigan_School_Report_Cards_241543_7.pdf
Michigan Department of Education. (2011). State school aid update. 19(5), 2.
Mitzell, H. (2003). NCLB conspiracy, compliance, or creativity. Retrieved December 9,
2005, from www.middleweb.com/HMnclb.html
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Characteristics of the 100 largest public
elementary and secondary school districts in the United States: 1999-2000.
Retrieved October 10, 2007,
fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/100_largest/tableAB2.asp

154

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Neill, M., Grisbond, L. and Schaeffer, B. (2004). Failing our children: How No Child Left
Behind undermines quality and equity in education. Cambridge, MA: Fair Test.
Newmann, F. M., and Wehlage, G. L. (1996). Successful school restructuring. Madison:
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Center on Organization and Restructuring of
Schools.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1450 (2002a).
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1457 (2002b).
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1458 (2002c).
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1459 (2002d).
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1483 (2002e).
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2003). Critical issue: NCLB optionChoosing to change schools. Retrieved October 8, 2006, from
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/famncomm/pa600.htm
Pascopella, A. (2005). Inside the law: Analyzing, debating, and explaining No Child Left
Behind. District Administration, 41(4), 19.
Petersen, G., and Young, M. D. (2004). No Child Left Behind Act and its influence on
current and future district leaders. Journal of Law and Education, 33(3), 343.
Peterson, D. (1989). Parent-involvement in the educational process. Eugene, OR: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ED312776).
Portin, B. S., Alejano, C. R., Knapp, M. S., and Marzolf, E. (2006). Redefining roles,
responsibilities, and authority of school leaders. Seattle, WA: The University of
Washington Center for Teaching and Policy and The Wallace Foundation.
Revised School Code Act 451 of 1976, MCL 380.1278a, (2006).
Ricciardi, D., and Petrosko, J. (2001). A role paradox for new administrators:
Challenges of daily practice and demands for Reform. Planning and Changing,
32(1), 24-45. EJ 652 018.

155

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2006). What doesn’t work: The challenge and failure of the what
works clearing house to conduct meaningful reviews of studies of math curricula.
Educational Researcher, 35(2), 13-21.
Scott, C., Kober, N., Rentner, D., & Jennings, J. (2004). Makeovers, facelifts, or
reconstructive surgery: An early look at NCLB restructuring in Michigan.
Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
Scott, C., Kober, N., Rentner, D., & Jennings, J. (2005). Hope but no miracle cures:
Michigan’s early restructuring lessons. Washington, DC: Center on Education
Policy.
Sheldon, K. M. and Biddle, B. J. (1998). Standards, accountability, and school reform:
Perils and pitfalls. Teacher College Record, 100(1), 164-180.
Singh, H., and Isely, P. (2009). GVSU economists see silver lining in dark clouds. The
Grand Rapids Press, Retrieved April 13, 2011, from
http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2009 /01/gvsu_
economists_see_silver_lin.html#incart_mrt
Single, N. A. (1991). A summary of research-based principles of effective teaching,
update. Applications of Research in Music Education, 9(2) 3-10.
Siskin, L. S. (2003). When an irresistible force meets an immovable object. In M.
Carnoty, R. Elmore, & L. A. Sisking (Eds.), The new accountability (pp.175-194).
New York: Routledge Falmer.
Slavin, R.E. (2006). Evidence-Based Reform and No Child Left Behind: Next time, use
what works. Teachers College Record, ID # 112887.
Spring, J. (2001). The American school 1642-2000. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Steptoe, S. (2006). Building a new student in Michigan. TIME, December 12, 2006.
Retrieved March 25, 2011, from
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1568853,00.html
Sunderman, G. L. (2009). The federal role in education: From the Reagan to the Obama
administration. Voices in Urban Education. Summer, 6-14.
Sunderman, G. L. and Kim, J. (2004a). Does NCLB provide good choices for students
in low performing schools? The Civil Rights Project, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University.
Sunderman, G. L. and Kim, J. (2004b). Large mandates and limited resources: State
response to No Child Left Behind Act and implications for accountability. The
Civil Rights Project, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

156

Sunderman, G. L. and Kim, J. S. (2005). The expansion of federal power and the
politics of implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. Teachers College Record,
Retrieved December 9, 2005, from www. tcrecord.org ID Number 12227.
Sunderman, G. L., Kim, J. S., and Orfield, G. (2005). NCLB meets school realities:
Lessons from the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Sunderman, G. L. and Orfield, G. (2007). Massive responsibilities and limited resources:
The state response to NCLB. In G. L. Sunderman (Ed.), Holding NCLB
accountable: Achieving accountability, equity, and school reform. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report, Retrieved Feb 15,
2010, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/tellis1.html
Thorne, B. (2011, January 29). Several Genesee County school districts increased fund
balance in recent years: Amount still down more than $25 million. Flint Journal.
Retrieved April 13, 2011, from http://www.mlive.com/
news/flint/index.ssf/2011/01/several_genesee_county_school_1.html
Turner, K. (2011, February 4). Flint one of the top 10 metropolitan areas to record
highest unemployment decrease in country. The Flint Journal. Retrieved March
8, 2011, from http://www.mlive.com/business/midmichigan/index.ssf/2011/02/flint_one_of_top_10_metropolit.html
Tyack, D. and Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering towards Utopia: A century of public school
reform. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Tyack, D. and Tobin, W. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard
to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31, 453-479.
Ubben, G. C. and Hughes, L. W. (1997). The principalship: Creative leadership for
effective schools. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
United States Census Bureau. (2000). Census Profiles. Retrieved April 4, 2011, from
http://www.co.genesee.mi.us/gcmpc-plan/census_profiles.htm
United States Census Bureau. (2002). Profiles of general demographic characteristics:
2000. Retrieved March 26, 2011, from http://co.genesee.mi.us/gcmpcplan/census_profiles.htm
United States Department of Education. (2002). Highly qualified teachers and
paraprofessionals. Retrieved November 19, 2008, from
http://www.ed.gov/admins/tchrqual/learn/hqt/edlite-index.html

157

United States Department of Education. (2004). Evaluation of Title I accountability
systems and school improvement efforts: First year findings. Retrieved January
10, 2009, from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/tassie1/tassie-short.pdf
United States Department of Education. (2005). Supplemental educational services
non-regulatory guidance. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/suppsvcsguid.doc
United States Department of Education, (2006). No Child Left Behind is working.
Retrieved March 3, 2011, from
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/importance/nclbworking.html
United States Department of Education. (2010a). Race to the top fund. Retrieved March
29, 2011, from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html
United States Department of Education. (2010b). Statement on national governors
association and state education chiefs common core standards. Retrieved
August 21, 2010, from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/statementnational-governors-association-and-state-education-chiefs-common-coreUnited States Department of Education. (2011). What works clearing house: Find what
works. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
Vitaska, S. (2008). Strong leaders, strong schools: 2007 state laws. Denver, CO:
National Conference of State Legislatures.
Wayne, A. J. and Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement
gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73, 89-122.
Weiss, A. (2008). Proposal A: Dynamic change in school funding. East Lansing:
Michigan State University, Department of Political Science: Michigan Policy
Network.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publishing.

158