TEACHERS’, PARENTS’, AND STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF EFFECTIVE SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS OF TWO TEXAS URBAN EXEMPLARY OPEN-ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOLS

by
DeEADRA ALBERT-GREEN

The primary purpose of this study was to examine how teachers, parents, and students viewed their charter school as effective when effectiveness was defined by the following 11 characteristics: (a) instructional leadership, (b) clear mission, (c) safe and orderly environment, (d) positive school climate, (e) high expectations, (f) frequent monitoring, (g) basic skills, (h) opportunities for learning, (i) parent and community
involvement, (j) professional development and (k) teacher involvement.
Two exemplary open-enrollment charter schools in Texas were used in this study. All 24 teacher, parent, and student participants completed a questionnaire that
addressed characteristics analyzed for each group. The 72 participants in this quantitative study were randomly chosen to respond to items on the School Effectiveness Questionnaire developed by Baldwin, Freeman, Coney, Fading, and Thomas. Data from the completed questionnaires were reported using descriptive
statistics and frequency data. Major research findings for the study were as follows: 1. There was agreement among teachers, parents, and students regarding 5 characteristics. These characteristics were: (a) safe and orderly environment, (b) positive school climate, (c) high student expectations, (d) frequent student assessment, and (e) monitoring of achievement and basic skills. 2. Teachers and parents agreed their school demonstrated effective instructional leadership, a clear and focused mission, and a maximized opportunity for learning. On the other hand, students were uncertain their school provided maximum opportunities for learning. 3. Only parents and students were in agreement concerning the parental involvement in their school. In contrast, teachers were uncertain their school provided parent and community involvement. 4. Teachers were also uncertain their school provided strong professional development and included them in the decision-making process for the school.

Strong Leadership: The Starting Place for Effective Schooling

Leadership is considered to be vital to the functioning of many aspects of a school. To illustrate, the list below depicts only a few of the aspects of schooling that have been linked to leadership in a school building:
● Whether a school has a clear mission and goals (Bamburg & Andrews, 1990; Duke, 1982).
● The overall climate of the school and the climate in individual classrooms
(Brookover, Schweitzer, Schneider, Beady, Flood, & Wisenbaker, 1978; Brookover, Beady, Flood, Schweitzer, & Wisenbaker, 1979; Brookover & Lezotte, 1979;Griffith, 2000; Villani, 1996).
● The attitudes of teachers (Brookover & Lezotte, 1979; Oakes, 1989; Purkey &Smith, 1983; Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston, & Smith, 1979).
● The classroom practices of teachers (Brookover et al., 1978; Brookover &
Lezotte, 1979; McDill, Rigsby, & Myers, 1969; Miller & Sayre, 1986).
● The organization of curriculum and instruction (Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, & Lee, 1982; Cohen & Miller, 1980; Eberts & Stone, 1988; Glasman & Binianimov, 1981; Oakes, 1989).
● Students’ opportunity to learn (Duke & Canady, 1991; Dwyer, 1986; Murphy & Hallinger, 1989).
Given the perceived importance of leadership, it is no wonder that an effective principal is thought to be a necessary precondition for an effective school. A 1970 U.S. Senate Committee Report on Equal Educational Opportunity (U.S. Congress, 1970) identified the principal as the single most influential person in a school. Regardless of the perceived importance of principal leadership, the research base supporting it has been deemed equivocal. For example, at least one meta-analytic study (Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003) reported that the relationship between principal leadership and student achievement is nonexistent. As a result of their analyses of 37 studies conducted internationally on the relationship between building leadership and student achievement, Witziers et al. (2003) reported an average correlation of 0.02. Taken at face value, the findings from the Witziers et al. study would lead one to conclude that little
effort should be put into developing leaders at the school building level.
Even some of those who believe that principal leadership has a causal link with student achievement assert that the research provides little practical guidance. For example,Donmoyer (1985) noted: Recent studies of schools invariably identify the principal’s leadership as a significant
factor in school’s success. Unfortunately these studies provide only limited
insight into how principals contribute to their school’s achievements. (p. 31)
The perspective articulated above is in sharp contrast to that offered by Marzano,Waters, and McNulty (2005). After analyzing 69 studies representing research over the last 35 years, they computed an average correlation of 0.25 between principal leadership behavior and student academic achievement. This finding is quite discrepant from 598 Marzano