Open Access Peer-reviewed Research Article

Problem matter differences of private elementary school principals by school size: An analysis

Article Sidebar

Frequencies and percentages of problems
Download PDF
Submitted   Nov 22, 2019
Published   Mar 24, 2020
Issue    Vol 1 No 2 (2020)
DOI   10.25082/AERE.2020.02.001

Views

2612

Downloads

1446

Citations

PlumX Metrics

Main Article Content

Rosemary Ustinoff-Brumbelow
Esprit International School, USA
John R Slate corresponding author
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, USA
George W Moore
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, USA
Frederick C Lunenburg
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, USA

Abstract

In this investigation, the degree to which differences were present between private elementary school principals at Small-size schools (i.e., less than 250 students) and private elementary school principals at Large-size schools (i.e., 250 or more students) in problem matters that occurred on their school campus was addressed.  Data were acquired from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Class of 2010-2011 Principal Survey.  Statistically significant differences were revealed in four of the eight areas private elementary school principals rated in frequency as a problem matter that occurred on their school campus.  Principals of Large-size schools emphasized statistically significant more problem matters in children bringing in or using illegal drugs, vandalism of school property, student bullying, and class cutting than principals of Small-size schools.  Suggestions for future research and implications for policy and practice were made.

Keywords
ECLS-K, student enrollment, small-size schools, large-size schools, problem matters

Article Details

How to Cite
Ustinoff-Brumbelow, R., Slate, J., Moore, G., & Lunenburg, F. (2020). Problem matter differences of private elementary school principals by school size: An analysis. Advances in Educational Research and Evaluation, 1(2), 54-62. https://doi.org/10.25082/AERE.2020.02.001
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Bandura A. Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press. 1977.
  2. Lee T, Cornell D, Gregory A, et al. High suspension schools and dropout rates for Black and White students. Education and Treatment of Children, 2011, 34: 167-192. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2011.0014
  3. Payton J, Weissberg RP, Durlak JA, et al. The positive impact of social and emotional learning for kindergarten to eighth-grade students: Findings from three scientific reviews. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. 2008.
  4. Wang MT, Selman RL, Dishion TJ, et al. A tobit regression analysis of the covariation between middle school students’ perceived school climate and behavioral problems. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 2010, 20: 274-286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00648.x
  5. Catalano RF, Oesterle S, Fleming CB, et al. The importance of bonding to school for healthy development: Findings from the social development research group. Journal of School Health, 2004, 74: 252-261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08281.x
  6. National Center for Education Statistics. Characteristics of private schools in the United States: Results from the 2015- 2016 Private School Universe Survey. 2017a. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017073.pdf
  7. Almulla MB. An investigation of teachers’ perceptions of the effects of class size on teaching. International Education Studies, 2005, 12: 33-42. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n12p33
  8. Leithwood K and Jantzi D. A review of empirical evidence about school size effects: A policy perspective. Review of Educational Research, 2009, 79: 464-490. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326158
  9. Musu-Gillette L, Zhang A, Wang K, et al. Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2017. 2018. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/iscs17.pdf
  10. Executive Office of the President. National Goals for Education. Washington, DC. ED319143. 1990.
  11. U.S. Department of Education. Every Student Succeeds Act. 2015. https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn
  12. Blase J, Blase J and Phillips DY. Handbook of school improvement: How high-performing principals create highperforming schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 2010. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483350349
  13. Allen N, Grigsby B and Peters ML. Does leadership matter? Examining the relationship among transformational leadership, school climate, and student achievement. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 2015, 10: 1- 22.
  14. DuFour R, DuFour R and Eaker R. Revisiting professional learning communities at work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. 2009.
  15. Gershenson S and Langbein L. The effect of primary school size on academic achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2015, 37: 135-155. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373715576075
  16. Goldkind L and Farmer GL. The enduring influence of school size and school climate on parents’ engagement in the school community. School Community Journal, 2013, 23: 223-244.
  17. Lunenburg FC and Ornstein AC. Educational administration: Concepts and practices (6th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 2012.
  18. National School Climate Center. What is school climate? 2018. https://www.schoolclimate.org/about/our-approach/what-is-school-climate
  19. Stewart J. Personalized learning: Hiring educators for the 21st century. Education Canada, 2012, 51-53.
  20. Downer JT, Rimm-Kaufman SE and Pianta RC. How do classroom conditions and children’s risk for school problems contribute to children’s behavioral engagement in learning? School Psychology Review, 2007, 36: 413-432.
  21. Greenwood CR, Horton BT and Utley CA. Academic engagement: Current perspectives on research and practice. School Psychology Review, 2002, 31: 328-349.
  22. Noltemeyer AL, Ward RM and Mcloughlin C. Relationship between school suspension and student out-comes: A metaanalysis. School Psychology Review, 2015, 44: 224-240. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-14-0008.1
  23. Green RL. Practicing the art of leadership: A problem-based approach to implementing the ISLLC standards (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall. 2012.
  24. Hallinger P and Heck RH. Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management, 2010, 30: 329-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764032000122005
  25. Louis KS, Dretzke B and Wahlstrom K. How does leadership affect student achievement? Results from a national US survey. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2010, 21: 315-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2010.486586
  26. Danielson C. Teacher leadership that strengthens professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 2006.
  27. Fullan M. The development of transformational leaders for educational decentralization. Toronto, Canada: Micheal Fullan. 2006.
  28. Leithwood K, Louis KS, Anderson S, et al. How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation. 2004.
  29. Louis KS, Leithwood K, Wahlstrom K, et al. Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. The Wallace Foundation. 2010. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Investigating-the-Links-to-Improved-Student-Learning.pdf
  30. Gage NA, Scott T, Hirn R, et al. The relationship between teachers’ implementation of classroom management practices and student behavior in elementary school. Behavioral Disorders, 2017, 43: 302-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742917714809
  31. Korpershoek H, Harms T, Boer H, et al. A meta-analysis of the effects of classroom management strategies and classroom management programs on students’ academic, behavioral, emotional, and motivational outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 2016, 86: 643-680. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626799
  32. Oliver R, Wehby J and Reschly D. Teacher classroom management practices: Effects on disruptive or aggressive student behavior. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2011, 4: 1- 55. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2011.4
  33. Pianta RC, Hamre BK and Allen JP. Teacher-student relationships and engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 365-386). New York, NY: Springer. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_17
  34. Williford AP, Maier MF, Downer JT, et al. Understanding how children’s engagement and teachers’ interactions combine to predict school readiness. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2013, 34: 299-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2013.05.002
  35. Kern L and Clemens NH. Antecedent strategies to promote appropriate classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 2007, 44: 65-75. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20206
  36. MacSuga-Gage AS and Gage NS. Student-level effects of increased teacher-directed opportunities to respond. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2015, 24: 273-288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-015-9223-2
  37. Hattie J. Visible learning: A synthesis of 800 meta-analysis relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge. 2009. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332
  38. Johnson RB and Christensen L. Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA; Sage. 2014.
  39. Johnston SL. Improving the school environment to reduce school violence: A review of the literature. Journal of School Health, 2009, 79: 451-465. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00435.x
  40. Leung A and Ferris JS. School size and youth violence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2008, 65: 318- 333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2005.10.001
  41. Coleman JS. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 1988, 94: S95-S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943
  42. Gottfredson DC and DiPietro SM. School size, social capacity, and student victimization. Sociology of Education, 2011, 84: 69-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040710392718
  43. Akerlof GA and Kranton RE. Identity and schooling: Some lessons for the economics of education. Journal of Economic Literature, 2002, 40: 1167-1201. https://doi.org/10.1257/.40.4.1167
  44. Boccardo J, Schwartz AE, Stiefel L, et al. Beyond academics: Do small schools have better learning environments? Presentation at the APPAM 2012 Fall Conference, Baltimore, MD. 2012.
  45. Creswell JW. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2014. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.12.1.82.s2
  46. National Center for Education Statistics. Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten class of 2010-2011. 2017b. http://www.nces.ed.gov/ecls
  47. Slate JR and Rojas-LeBouef A. Calculating basic statistical procedures in SPSS: A self-help and practical guide to preparing theses, dissertations, and manuscripts. Ypsilanti, MI: NCPEA Press. 2011.
  48. Vogt WP. Dictionary of statistics and methodology: A nontechnical guide for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2005.
  49. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1988.