296 K-12 LEADERSHIP PRACTICES
Assessment
The ineffective use of assessments to monitor student learning and adjust instruction
through formative and summative evaluations emerged as a second theme. There was little
evidence that multiple measures of assessment, or the implementation of performance
assessments, were used to report student mastery. For example, in the Student Performance
sub-section of the Instruction and Program DPR, the district received 0 points of a possible 64
(NJQSAC, DPR Instruction & Program, Section A1-15). The disconnects were obvious: both
curriculum and assessments needed to be aligned to NJCCCS in order to boost student
achievement, and assessments used regularly to monitor student progress. Further, multiple
measures of assessment and full implementation of performance assessments were needed.
The use of multiple assessment measures in the 14 other districts fared slightly better at
53% with 40% consistently monitoring student progress. Similarly, the other districts reported
that 60% of their assessments were aligned to the NJCCCS with only 47% of all performance
assessments adequately assessing student mastery.
Professional Development
Professional development was largely hit-and-miss. Classroom observations confirmed an
over-reliance on whole group instruction and textbook-driven lecture-style teaching indicating
a district-wide need for capacity building in differentiated instruction. Building capacity
involves “new knowledge and competencies, new and enhanced resources, and new and
deeper motivation and commitment to improve things” (Fullan, 2006, p. 28). In addition,
interviews and observations revealed a need for targeted and sustained professional
development for training all teachers in authentic assessment; conducting gap analysis; using
data analysis to modify instruction and assessments; and to differentiate instruction, and
address multiple intelligences (MI), and learning styles.
Staffing classrooms with Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) added yet another challenge in
a district where most new hires largely emerged from alternative preparation programs.
District administrators complained that these novices were not adequately prepared to teach in
inner-city schools, however, no one could explain why the district did not adopt practices
likely to result in “better hires.” While the absence of leadership at central office, the district’s
poor reputation, timing of the hiring process, and low pay for starting professionals
contributed to this dilemma, most believed that more professional development would “do the
trick,” and help retain new teachers. District personnel believed that state-required post-
degree mentoring programs were often hit-and-miss sessions lacking adequate teacher input.
Quite predictably, there were no points earned in either the Licensed Personnel sub-section
(NJQSAC, DPR Personnel, Section A1-3), or the Professional Development sub-section
(NJQSAC, DPR Personnel, Section C1-5). There was a possible total of 84 points in these
two sections.
Absence of Leadership
The district had recently undergone multiple state-required audits to reconcile its
enormous debt. Facilities were clearly in disrepair and desperately in need of major work.
Media headlines reported conflicts between and among board members. Student violence
frequently made the evening news. Early on in the monitoring process, the team recognized
that little had been done to provide direction that built professional capacity among central