Instructional Leadership Relationships for Learning:
Voices of Teachers of At-risk Students

Warren Aller,
WesternWashingtonUniversity

E. Jane Irons
LamarUniversity

Introduction and Background

     In the past 5 years, principals' and teachers' instructional responsibilities have shifted. With national and state pressure to comply with school reforms mandated by the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), principals assumed an instructional leadership role and teachers assumed added responsibility for improving the achievement of educationally at-risk children. Educationally at-risk children include those from disadvantaged backgrounds, those eligible for special education services, children whose native language is not English, and those with behavior problems (Barr & Parrett, 2001). Under NCLB both federal and state governments require governors, superintendents, and principals to show that education dollars are being effectively used to increase learning for all students. All states are now required to have accountability systems that include high-stakes testing to measure student learning outcomes. These tests determine rewards and sanctions for schools, teachers, and students so that teachers and principals have a vested interest in student learning (Lederman & Burnstein, 2006).
     Implementation of the NCLB requirement of teaching at-risk children in inclusive settings has been problematic for some teachers. Foster (2004) suggests that improving and sustaining the achievement of educationally at-risk students depends upon the teacher's ability to utilize effective teaching strategies and to develop and maintain productive relationships with students and school administrators. Butzin (2004) suggests that teachers have not changed the way they teach to meet the needs of specific subgroups, particularly those identified with disabilities, those who are English language learners, those with low socioeconomic backgrounds, and those exhibiting behavior problems.
     Under NCLB, it has become the responsibility of the principal to assist teachers in helping all learners reach levels of skill and competence once thought only within reach of a few able students (National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996, p. 8). Essex (2006) found that new views of learning and teaching have precipitated different understandings of school leadership because NCLB has redirected the role of school leadership toward the enhancement of student achievement although some may argue semantic variation. Barr and Parrett (2001) implied that the crisis for our nation's educationally at-risk learners focuses on school-age youth. Youth leaving school without adequate skills for survival in today's world reflect negatively upon school leadership and teaching. Fideler and Haselkorn (1999) found that many teachers do not receive sufficient instructional support or assistance from school administrators, particularly during their first few years of teaching. Over 15 years ago Davis and McCaul (1990) of the Institute for the Study of At-risk Students at the University of Maine grouped risk factors into issues of society and those at the school environment. The area of school environment is of interest for this study, particularly relationships which impact student learning like those between teachers and students and principals and teachers.

Review of Literature

              This review of literature focuses upon relationships, e.g., interactions between teachers and students and teachers and administrators with respect to at-risk learners.
Relationships with At-risk Students
     Relationships are important in teaching at-risk learners. How teachers connect with their students directly influences both learning and classroom management. Teachers who have little knowledge about how their own culture, race, class, and gender affects interpersonal relationships may have difficulty connecting with students with backgrounds different from their own (Rasool & Curtis, 2000). Because the majority of teachers are monolingual English speaking, many are likely to experience some stress in communicating with English language learning (ELL) students (Kitchen, Velasquez, & Myers, 2000). Marshall (2002) suggests that districts in which teacher competence and accountability are judged by student achievement on state tests are stressful for teachers who may fear that the presence of ELL and special education students in general classrooms will negatively impact class test averages. Ultimately, it is the relationships teachers establish with students and the way they deal with their discomforts that most significantly impact the success of at-risk students (Marshall, 2002).
Student-Teacher Interactional Relationship
     Cultural continuity for students refers to the extent that school culture compliments the background students bring to school (Marshall, 2002). In general, Hispanic and Black students tend to be more teacher dependent than their white peers and these students may be uncomfortable with only formal task-oriented student-teacher interactions. In contrast, Marshall found Asian American and native American students are more comfortable with social distance between themselves and teachers. These students are not inclined to initiate interaction with teachers by asking questions or participating in class discussions.
     Marshall (2002) suggested that teachers initiate interactions with males more frequently although such interaction may have been negative reprimands for misbehavior. Males were more often encouraged to use and were rewarded for using complex cognitive skills like problem solving in math (Marshall, 2002). Marshall suggested that females were commonly rewarded for following directions or conforming to rules. Weiss (1990) found that teachers initiated more frequent and varied interactions with students from middle- and upper-class backgrounds than with those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
     Rasool and Curtis (2000) suggest that social class has consequences for how students are perceived and treated in classrooms. Teachers expect less of children from lower socioeconomic class even if IQ and achievement are similar (p. 40). Cultural discontinuity and low teacher expectations appear consistently cited in the literature as factors contributing to high levels of underachievement and school dropout (Kitchen, Velasquez, & Meyers, 2000; Masten, Plata, Wenglar, & Tedford, 1999).
Educationally At-risk Students
     It has been estimated that approximately one million youth per year leave school without completing basic educational requirements. A majority of at-risk youth leave without essential literacy skills as well as other basic abilities that would render them employable. Additionally, it is estimated that 700,000 students graduate with skills as deficient as those of students who drop out. Others have estimated that 80% of those who graduate leave school with inadequate writing skills and no ability to carry out complex tasks (Barr & Parrett, 2001, p. 14).
     During the past two decades, the number of students classified as learning disabled for purposes of special education has doubled. As schools tend to classify students they have trouble dealing with as learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, or as having an attention deficit disorder (McPartland & Slavin, 1990).
     Although most teachers agree that all children can learn, too many teachers are unprepared to teach in high-need schools with many at-risk learners. Many teachers have little training or experience to work with poor students from diverse backgrounds or students deemed difficult to teach (Foster, 2004). Foster found that the process of teachers observing an experienced teacher working with at-risk learners than trying those strategies in their own classrooms and discussing results with the experienced teacher yielded significant changes in the teacher's attitudes toward working with at-risk students.
Behavior and Discipline Issues
     Drake and Roe (2003) defined discipline as a process that involves learning to adjust and cope successfully with society and to interact with other individuals of various ages and backgrounds. These authors suggest that discipline involves all students, is a major focus of all teachers, and a major emphasis of principals. Principals within the school and teachers within the classroom have the right and obligation to determine reasonable practices governing student conduct, not only to maintain the proper education climate but also for school safety. Teachers tend to have stronger reactions to behavioral transgressions than academic difficulties or other failures to meet their expectations (Friend & Cook, 2003). Most of the severe disciplinary problems are caused by a very small percentage of students (Ubben, Hughes, & Norris, 2007).
     Specific discipline provisions placed in both the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) balance student's interest in education against the interests of other students and professionals to learn and teach in a safe environment. The concept of a manifest determination is important in the discipline of students with disabilities. The manifest determination is a process to examine a student's disability. The functional basis for the behavior, a behavior plan if one exists, the specific inappropriate behavior, and the student's program to determine if the behavior was caused by or was strongly linked to the student's disability (Turnbull, Stowe, & Huerta, 2007). Friend and Cook (2003) suggest that teachers need to emphasize building positive student relationships by encouraging students to ask for their assistance when stumped on assignments or encouraging students to monitor their own behavior through use of a star chart or other forms where they receive positive reinforcement for their behavior. Effective schools research supports a strong principal leadership role in student discipline management that supports teachers through delegation of discipline authority (Duke, 1989; Short, 1988). Results of selected annual Gallup polls of public attitudes toward education showed that discipline issues in public schools remained a major public concern (Elam, Rose, & Gallup, 1996; Rose & Gallup, 2003).
Testing and Accountability Issues
     In the mid-1970s Americans were convinced that public education was in trouble through media reports of lax discipline, drug abuse, low standards, and incompetent teachers. This concern precipitated the back to basics and testing frenzy that exists today (Newman, 2007). Educators have collected performance data on students for years in the form of norm-referenced achievement tests such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills at the elementary level or the Scholastic Aptitude test at the high school level. These tests equated the performance of students relative to a normal comparison group, but results were not specifically linked to a set of identified goals that were being taught. Additionally, there was no common assessment battery and districts selected their own evaluations so that student performance across a state or the entire nation was not comparable (Vornberg, 2004). The trend for school accountability has precipitated policy changes on the national, state, and local levels. Beginning in the academic year 2002-2003, all states have been required to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) every two years. This federal requirement was intended to serve as a check and balance process for individual state assessment systems. Currently testing programs have become the major impetus behind yearly educational performance of states, districts, and local campuses (deCasal & McGhee, 2004). All student groups must be tested to include those with disabilities, ELL students, disadvantaged students, and all other educationally at-risk groups. Data from tests must be disaggregated to allow state and federal officials to evaluate student progress against state adopted standards (deCasal & McGhee, 2004).
     The state assessments that carry the highest stakes for individual students are promotion tests and high school graduation examinations. States must show that they have tested at least 95% of the students in all groups. States are required to provide special assistance to teachers and remediation for students with low test scores. If scores do not improve after a two-year period, state sanctions can be imposed that range from reconstituting the school with new faculty to closing the school (Newman, 2007). Educators perceive state mandated testing negatively suggesting use of a single test to judge the quality of a school is unfair. Teachers have expressed concern about public support for using student test scores as a factor in both teacher evaluation and merit pay (Newman, 2007).
     Trubowitz (2000) suggested that negative experiences associated with large-scale change efforts such as state accountability requirements and low test results led to educator apathy. Hamilton and Stecher (2004) suggested that higher test scores did not necessarily reflect real student learning gains because of familiarity with test items, narrowing of the curriculum, and the focus on test preparation referred to as score inflation. Similarly Schroeder and Pryor (2004) suggested that teachers focus on state accountability testing at the expense of curriculum depth. Irons, Carlson, and Mask (2006) identified testing as a major concern of teachers who perceived testing negatively because of the time entailed and the narrow range of content tested.
Relationships with School Administrators
     Alvy and Robbins (2005) found that principals who build trusting relationships with teachers established a healthy school culture. According to Barth (2006), relationships among educators at school define all relationships within that school's culture. For example, if the relationship between administrators and teachers is a trusting and supportive one, then relationships between teachers and students, between students and students, and between teachers and parents are more likely to be trusting and supportive. Some authors recognized that principals were the primary instructional leader on campus who provided support for both teacher and student learning (Fink & Resnick, 2001; Southworth, 2002). Principals who took time to build relationships by talking to teachers and who promoted teacher professional development were found to positively influence student learning (Bottoms & O'Neill, 2001). Copeland and Boatright (2004) suggested that principals who shared decision-making and leadership activities with teachers sustained change for longer time periods.
     Wiggins and McTighe (2006, p. 29) suggested that school leaders become model learners who demanded learning from both teachers and students. If learning principals are valid, they should apply not only to strident learning but also to professional development of all educators. Alvy and Robbins (2005, p. 52) found a major difficulty faced by new principals was caused by leading while they are still learning to lead.
     Administrators face unique challenges when they are participating in collaborative efforts at their schools because they have a dual role. They are colleagues and peers in collaboration, but they also are teacher supervisors responsible for evaluating teacher performance and making personnel decisions (Terry, 1999). Because of the administrative supervisory relationship teachers may abdicate their collaborative responsibility for shared decision making in site-based meetings such as an IEP meeting by failing to speak up or disagree with the administrator (Terry, 1999). Friend and Cook (2003, p. 282) stated that IDEA has made collaboration a required part of special education services. In some schools an administrator's absence during crucial IEP meetings is a chronic issue denoting a real lack of administrative support.
     Friend and Cook (2003) suggest that when teachers work with school administrators it is important to ascertain whether the interaction is intended to be collaborative, advisory, or informative. Recent efforts to address perceived problems in the nation's schools have identified management as the source of difficulty, although Cohen (2006, p. 459) reminds us that schooling is primarily about relationships and the nature of teaching, not structure and governance.

Purpose and Research Questions

     The purpose of this study was to investigate teacher perceptions in three areas: (a) problematic students in classrooms, (b) the source of pedagogical and professional support for teachers, and (c) the perceived impact of high stakes testing on curriculum and student learning. The specific research questions investigated were:

1. What group of at-risk students are considered most problematic by teachers?
2. Are there differences among elementary, middle school, and high school teacher perceptions concerning administrative instructional support for teachers?
3. What impact do teachers perceive high stakes testing has on curriculum?
4. What are teachers' perceptions of NCLB high stakes testing and accountability requirements for schools?

Methodology

Research Design and Instrument Development
     This research study utilized survey methodology. A survey instrument was developed to address the research questions of interest. Face validity was established through a panel of educational professionals comprised of 11 teachers and 8 administrative interns. The instrument contained three different sections. Section I elicited demographic characteristics of the respondents. Section II contained 13 questions for rating responses on a Likert 5-point scale with 1 being "very negative" and 5 being "very positive." Sample questions included: (a) reporting test scores to the media has made the following impact on school performance, and (b) please rate the subgroups of students who are the most educationally problematic in your classes. Students with limited English proficiency and students who have ability, but who refuse to complete assigned work. Participants were encouraged to elaborate regarding each question and space was provided for this. Part III contained one open-ended question requesting additional information the respondent might wish to share.
Instrument Stranding and Reliability
     A factor analysis was utilized to identify questions clustered together in content. Strand 1 addressed subgroups of at-risk students asking respondents to rate the group of students who were the most educationally problematic in their classes with 1 being "least" and 5 being "most." Internal reliability for this strand was determined with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of .57. Strand 2 questions concerned support provided by various groups such as building administrators, district administrators, the teacher union, parents, community at large, and fellow teachers. Teachers were asked to rate support with 1 being "very poor" and 5 being "excellent." The Cronbach reliability coefficient for this strand was .74. The third strand addressed high stakes testing, NCLB mandates, drop-out rates, and student failure. The reliability coefficient for strand 3 was established at .83. The overall instrument reliability coefficient was .66 which may be considered moderate (see Appendix for a copy of the instrument).
Data Collection
     Thirteen principals and assistant principals representing 6 elementary, 3 middle level, and 4 high school campuses were asked to distribute the survey instrument to their teachers. Principals asked to participate were known by the principle investigator and were from the northwestern Canadian border area of Washington state. A sample of 110 teachers returned the survey electronically to the principle investigator.
Limitations
     Limitations of this study are those commonly associated with survey research. The responses are the perceptions of the respondents, collected at one point in time. The study was one of convenience and random sample selection was not conducted. Respondents are teachers from the northwest area of Washington state so that results may not generalize to other geographic areas.

Sample Characteristics

Campus Level
     Respondents from elementary, 48 (43%) and high school, 47 (42%) comprised the majority of the sample. Sixteen respondents (14%) represented middle school campuses.
School Size
     Only two teachers reported being from campuses with 200 or less students. The majority of teacher respondents represented schools ranging in size between 201 and 600 students. Schools with between 601 and 1,500 students provided slightly over 30% of the respondents. Schools with over 1,500 students represented slightly over one-fourth of the respondents.
Years of Teaching Experience
     At the elementary level the majority of teacher respondents (61.7%) had 11 or more years of experience. The majority of middle school teachers (43.8%) had between 4 and 10 years of experience. The majority of high school teachers (44.7%) had 4 to 10 years of experience, while 40.4% had 11 or more years of experience. About one-fourth (25%) of school teachers had between 1 and 3 years experience. Only 2% of the elementary teachers were less experienced with 1 to 3 years and about 15% of the high school teachers had less experience with 1 to 3 years.

Data Analysis

     Different types of data analysis were used. Descriptive statistics in the form of percentage frequencies were used to quantify demographic information and Likert rating responses. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine differences with respect to teacher groups representing campus level, school size, and years of teaching experience across each of the three strands. Data reduction techniques were used to identify trends and issues found in qualitative responses.
ANOVA Results
     An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests. No significant differences were found when comparing responses of teachers grouped by size of schools across the three strands. Likewise, no significant differences were noted when comparing responses of teachers grouped by years of teaching experience with respect to items across the three strands. The effect of grade level was statistically significant, F (2,110) = 4.872, p = .01. Since there were more than two means involved, a Tukey multiple comparison analysis was conducted to identify specific differences with respect to teacher perceptions of support received from various groups (Kachigan, 1986). Table 1 shows Tukey multiple comparison results.
     The Tukey multiple means comparison analysis shown in Table 1 indicates that responses concerning perceived teacher support groups differed significantly between elementary teachers and high school teachers. That is, elementary teachers with a mean of 3.65 rated support provided to them significantly higher than high school teachers with a mean of 3.31.
     Descriptive statistics were used to quantify teacher ratings of questions relative to the three identified strands, groups of students considered problematic, teachers' perceptions of support, and testing and accountability. Results of descriptive statistics are presented in Table 2.
     Table 2 shows that teachers considered English language learners the least problematic group of at-risk students across all three grade levels. Half of both middle and high school teachers considered noncompliant students the most problematic while 45.5% of the elementary teaching considered students with a behavioral IEP the most problematic. In general, students with behavior problems were considered most problematic.
     Table 3 shows that teachers perceive peers as providing them the most support across all campus levels. Elementary and high school teachers rated building administrators as providing excellent support. Over one-third of the middle school respondents perceived excellent support from parents and the community while only one-fourth perceived excellent support from building administrators. About 10% of the high school teachers rated support provided by the teachers' union very poor.
     Table 4 shows that over 42% of the teachers responded negatively to the impact of assessment while 47% were neutral on this item. Although the majority (55.2%) were neutral concerning reporting test scores to the media, 40% responded negatively to this item. Most teachers (67.3%) were neutral concerning interpreting test scores to parents.
     Table 5 indicates that the majority (63.3%) of teacher respondents were neutral concerning the impact of dropout rates. Forty-two percent of the teachers responded negatively to the impact of implementation of NCLB mandates on student learning. Over 43.4% of the respondents were neutral concerning this item. When asked about failing students, over 57% were neutral. About one-fourth of the teacher respondents responded negatively to this item.
     A number of teachers commented about required testing. Some examples follow. A high school teacher commented: "Parents are much more likely to blame a teacher rather than their child for low test scores. Rarely do I encounter a parent who wonders how their child could have worked harder. Accountability is a huge problem." A middle school teacher commented: "Parents are supportive if their children are scoring well, but critical and discouraged if their children are not doing well." Elementary teachers commented: "Too much time goes into 'testing' which takes away from TEACHING." "The curriculum is narrowed down to focus on the WASL." The tests are forcing us to really examine what we are teaching. The frustration comes in the amount of time it takes and change which is hard on everyone and causes high levels of stress." "I see that we are spending much less time on social studies and the arts."

Conclusions and Implications

     Based on the results of this study it can be concluded that students with behavior disorders remain a major concern of teachers across the campus levels. Such results support the research of Barr and Parrett (2001). Drake and Roe (2003) and Friend and Cook (2003), as well as the Gallop polls. Both IDEA and NCLB mandates have recognized the necessity for effective student discipline to maintain a safe learning environment in today's schools. Implications for student-teacher relationship building, as well as teacher-principal relationship building, are significant if a school-wide discipline management system incorporates positive supports and continual learning for both educators and students. Based on the findings of this study we suggest continuing education for both principals and teachers in the areas of dispute resolution development of a school-wide discipline management system and the areas of team building and relationship building.
     Results of this study suggest that teachers feel that their fellow teachers provide them the most support of any group. Barth (2006) would explain this finding as a trusting relationship. Building administrators were viewed as providing support by about one-third of elementary and high school teachers and one-fourth of the middle school teachers. Copeland and Boatright (2004) found that shared decision-making and leadership activities with teachers enhanced principal-teacher relationships while Bottoms and O'Neill (2001) and Barth (2006) found that spending time with teachers and assisting them with professional development activities enhanced student learning through the development of a supportive and trusting principal-teacher relationship. Based on these findings we suggest that the areas of collaboration, team building and relationship building appear pertinent for principals professional development in order to better understand the support needed by teachers and the administrator's responsibility as a provider of instructional leadership.
     Teachers reacted negatively to high stakes testing and reporting test scores to the media concerning school performance. These findings are supported by Newman (2007) who suggested that teachers fear public support for use of student test scores in teacher evaluation and merit pay. Individual teacher comments expressed concern about the amount of time testing took. Narrowing of the curriculum and high teacher stress levels as a result of testing also were supported in studies by Schroeder and Pryor (2004), Hamilton and Stecher (2004), and Irons et al. (2006). Implications of these findings may be predicted teacher apathy (Trubowitz, 2000).
     The final major finding in this study concerned teacher perceived student learning resulting from NCLB implementation in the schools. Over 40% of the teacher respondents felt that students failed to learn more after NCLB was implemented. Individual teacher comments showed frustration with NCLB mandated testing and accountability requirements. One teacher stated, "I see that we are spending much less time on social studies and the arts." Trubowitz (2000) found that a major problem faced by large-scale change efforts was the pressure for immediate results. Perhaps the major implication for this finding is time. Educators have had little experience with or preparation for what lies ahead, resulting in skepticism and even hostility.

References

Alvy, H., & Robbins, P. (2005). Growing into leadership. Educational Leadership, 62(8), 50-54.
Barr, R. D., & Parrett, W. H. (2001). Hope fulfilled for at-risk and violent youth: K-12 programs that work (2nd ed.).
       Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Barth, R. S. (2006). Improving relationships within the school house. Educational Leadership,63(6), 9-13.
Bottoms, G., & O'Neill, K. (2001). Preparing a new breed of school principals. It's time for action.
       Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
Butzin, S. M. (2004). Stop the insanity! It takes a team to leave no child behind. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(4), 307-309.
Cohen, L. (2006). It's not about management. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(6), 459-461.
Copeland, M. A., & Boatright, E. E. (2004). Leading small: Eight lessons for leaders in transforming large
       comprehensive high schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(10), 762-767.
Davis, W. E., & McCaul, E. J. (1991). The emerging crisis: Current and projected status of children in the
       United States. Orono, ME: University of Maine Institute for the Study of At-risk Students.
       deBettencourt, L. U. (1999). General educator's attitudes toward students with mild disabilities and their
       use of instructional strategies: Implications for training. Remedial and Special Education, 20(1), 27-35.
deCasal, C. V., & McGhee, M. W. (2004). Meeting the needs of a diverse student population:
       Building supportive learning communities. In J. A. Vornberg (Ed.), Texas public school organization and
       administration: 2004 Texas professors of educational administration (pp. 485-526). Dubuque, IA:
       Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
Drake, T. L., & Roe, W. H. (2003). The principalship (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Duke, D. L. (1989). School organization, leadership, and student behavior. In O. C. Moles
        (Ed.), Strategies to reduce student misbehavior (pp. 31-62). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research
       and Improvement (ED 311 608).
Elam, S. M., Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (1996). The 28th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public's attitude
       toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(1), 41-59.
Essex, N. L. (2006). What every teacher should know about No Child Left Behind. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Fideler, E. F., & Haselkorn, D. (1999). Learning the ropes: Urban teacher induction programs and practices in the
      United States. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers.
Fink, E., & Resnick, L. (2001, April). Developing principals as instructional leaders.
       Phi Delta Kappan, 82(8), 67-72.
Foster, M. (2004). An innovative professional development program for urban teachers.
       Phi Delta Kappan, 85(5), 401-406.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2005). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (4th ed.).
       Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hamilton, L., & Stecher, B. (2004). Responding effectively to test-based accountability.
       Phi Delta Kappan, 85(8), 578-583.
Hock, M. F., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2001). The case for strategic tutoring.
       Educational Leadership, 58(7), 50-52.
Hollins, E. R. (2006). Transforming practice in urban schools. Educational Leadership, 63(6), 48-52.
Howard, V. F., Williams, B. F., Port, P. D., & Lepper, C. (2001). Very young children with special needs:
       A formative approach for the 21st century (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Irons, E. J., Carlson, N. L., & Mask, P. (2006, April 7). Teacher recommendations for improving Instruction:
       Implications for teachers under NCLB. Paper presented at the National Technology and Social Science
       Conference, Las Vegas, NV.
Kachigan, S. K. (1986). Statistical analysis: An interdisciplinary introduction to univariate and multivariate methods.
       New York: Radius Press.
Kitchen, R. S., Valasquez, D. T., & Meyers, J. (2000). Dropouts in New Mexico: Native American and Hispanic
       students speak out. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association,
       New Orleans. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 440 795).
Lederman, L. M., & Burnstein, R. A. (2006). Alternative approaches to high-stakes testing.
       Phi Delta Kappan, 87(6), 429-432.
Linan-Thompson, S., Vaughn, S., Hickman-Davis, P., & Kouzekanani, K. (2003). Effectiveness of supplemental
       reading instruction for second-grade English language learners with reading difficulties. Elementary School
       Journal, 103(3), 221-238.
Mamlin, N. (1999). Despite best intentions: When inclusion fails. Journal of Special Education, 33, 36-48.
Marshall, P. L. (2002). Cultural diversity in our schools. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group.
Masten, W. G., Plata, M., Wenglar, K.,& Thedford, J. (1999). Acculturation and teacher ratings of Hispanic
       and Anglo-American students. Roeper Review, 22(1), 64-65.
McPartland, J. M., & Slavin, R. E. (1990). Policy perspectives: Increasing achievement of at-risk students at
       each grade level. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's
       future (summary report). New York: Author.
Newman, J. W. (2007). America's teachers: An introduction to education (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Rasool, J. A., & Curtis, A. C. (2000). Multicultural education in middle and secondary classrooms.
       Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2003). The 35th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public's attitudes toward
       the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(1), 41-56.
Scherer, M. (2006). What teachers want. Educational Leadership, 63(6), 7.
Schroeder, F., & Pryor, S. (2001). Multiple measures: Beginning with ends. The School Administrator, 11(58), 22-25.
Short, P. M. (1988). Effectively disciplined schools: Three themes from research. NASSP Bulletin, 72(504), 1-3.
Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical evidence. School Leadership
       and Management, 22(1).
Terry, P. M. (1999). Essential skills for principals. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 29, 28-32.
Trubowitz, S. (2000). Predictable problems in achieving large-scale change. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(2), 166-168.
Turnbull, III, H. R., Stowe, M. J., & Huerta, N. E. (2007). Free appropriate public education: The law and children
       with disabilities (7th ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Ubben, G. C., Hughes, L. W., & Norris, C. J. (2007). The principal: Creative leadership for excellence in schools
       (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Vornberg, J. A. (2004). Educational accountability, standards, and systems in Texas. In J. A. Vornberg (Ed.),
       Texas public school organization and administration: 2004 Texas professors of educational administration
       (pp. 113-141). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
Weiss, C. H. (1995). The four "I's" of school reform: How interests, ideology, information, and instruction affect
       teachers and principals. Harvard Educational Review, 65(4), 571-592.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2006). Examining the teaching life. Educational Leadership, 63(6), 26-29.

Table 1
Tukey Multiple Comparison of Means

Note. * Mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

Table 2
Percent of Problematic Students by Number of Campus Level Respondents

Table 3
Campus Level Teachers' Ratings of Support Received from Groups by Percent of Responses

Table 4
Percent of Teacher Responses to Assessment Impact Items

Table 5
Percent of Teacher Responses to NCLB Compliance Items

Appendix

Respondent Information:

1. Grade level I teach:

G  Primary
G  Elementary
G  Jr. Hi/Middle School
G  High School

2. Length of time I have taught:

G  1-3 years
G  4-10 years
G  11 or more

3. Size of my school:

G  less than 200
G  201 to 600
G  601 to 1500
G  more than 1500

1.   Please rate the sub groups of students who are the most educationally problematic in your classes, with 1 being the least and 5 being the most problematic.

              A.  Students on IEPs for academic reasons:                      1           2          3           4           5
                                                                                                        G          G          G         G           G
              B.  Students on IEPs for behavioral reasons:                    1           2           3           4           5
                                                                                                        G          G          G          G           G
              C.  Students not served by special education
                    but who exhibit behavioral/anti social issues:               1            2          3           4           5
                                                                                                        G           G          G          G          G
              D.  Students with limited English proficiency:                     1           2           3           4           5
                                                                                                        G           G          G          G          G
              E.  Students who have ability but who refuse
                   to complete assigned work:                                           1           2           3           4           5
                                                                                                         G          G          G          G          G
2.  The support I receive from my building administrators is:
                           Very poor          1           2           3           4           5           Excellent
                                                    G          G          G          G          G

3.  The support I receive from district level administration and the board is:
                           Very poor          1           2           3           4           5           Excellent
                                                    G          G          G          G           G

4.  The support I receive from the teachers union is:
                           Very poor          1           2           3           4           5           Excellent
                                                    G          G          G          G          G

5.  The support I receive from parents is:
                           Very poor          1           2           3           4           5           Excellent
                                                    G          G          G          G           G

6.  The support I receive from the community at large is:
                           Very poor          1           2           3           4           5           Excellent
                                                    G          G          G          G           G
7.  The support I receive from my fellow teachers is:
                           Very poor          1           2           3           4           5           Excellent
                                                    G          G          G          G           G

8.  High stakes testing (NCLB, AYP, and WASL) has made the following impact in curricular offerings in my school, with 1 being “very negative” and 5 being “very positive.”
                                         1           2           3           4           5           Mixed [please explain]
                                         G          G          G          G          G               G
Comment: 

 

9.  Reporting test scores to the media has made the following impact on school performance, with 1 being “very negative” and 5 being “very positive.”
                                         1           2           3           4           5           Mixed [please explain]
                                         G          G          G          G           G              G
Comment: 

 

10.  Interpreting test scores to parents has the following impact on my school, with 1 being “very negative” and 5 being “very positive.”
                                         1           2           3           4           5           Mixed [please explain]
                                         G          G          G          G          G               G
Comment: 

 

11.  Student drop out rates for my school present a clear picture of what is happening to our student population, with 1 being “very negative” and 5 being “very positive.”
                                         1           2           3           4           5           Mixed [please explain]
                                         G          G          G          G          G              G
Comment: 

 

12.  As a result of the dictates of NCLB all students in my school are learning more, with 1 being “very negative” and 5 being “very positive.”
                                         1           2           3           4           5           Mixed [please explain]
                                         G          G          G          G          G              G
Comment: 

 

13.  Over the past few years, I have been encouraged not to fail students, with 1 being “very negative” and 5 being “very positive.”
                                         1           2           3           4           5           Mixed [please explain]
                                         G          G          G          G          G              G
Comment:

 

14. Any other information you wish for me to be aware of as I set upon my writing tasks.