role in the pre-referral intervention process. The principal ensured the pre-referral
intervention process was being implemented in the school. He also ensured collaboration and communication occurred between staff, provided teachers guidance and professional learning, and helped foster relationships between the school and families.
Researchers have suggested that school administration has a critical role in the pre-referral intervention process. In this study, the principal was heavily involved in the first two stages of the pre-referral intervention process. In a study on principals and RTI, Castro-Villarreal, Rodriguez, and Moore (2014) found successful implementation of RTI included the presence of administrative support. Kovaleski (2002) was more specific in outlining the role of administrative support in the pre-referral intervention process. The author believed that the principal needs to demonstrate tangible support by attending pre- referral team meetings, articulating an expectation of instructional improvement, and fostering a collaborative atmosphere among the teaching and professional staff. The author (2002) believed that principals need to be the lead person in articulating the pre- referral process to the entire school. This is consistent with findings in this study. The principal at Pike described his role as ensuring the pre-referral intervention process was
being implemented. During the study, the principal was continuing to develop and refine the intervention framework at Pike Elementary, too.
Kovaleski (2002) also suggested that the focal point of the principal in the pre- referral intervention process was to develop collaborative relationships between staff and oversee the entire process. This is consistent with what Hamlett (2005) found when studying the principals’ perceptions of their own roles in the pre-referral intervention process. The author concluded that, “Campus administrators in general have a role in the pre-referral processes, specifically in providing resources for teachers and utilizing resources in the pre-referral process” and “the importance of the campus administrator having the knowledge and skills in the area of special education to administer an effective pre-referral process” (Hamlett 2005, p. 216). Hamlett’s study findings were consistent with the views of the principal at Pike. The principal described his role as being a supportive resource and providing counsel and advice to teachers.
One example of the “squeaky wheels” that Ryan, the psychologist, described was leading the SAT team meeting. At Pike Elementary, the principal was the facilitator of the SAT team meetings. Studies (e.g. Doll et al., 2005; Hampton, 2004) have found that having a clear facilitator in team meetings is essential. Nellis (2012) presented that characteristics of quality team facilitators include being respected by colleagues, assertive in their role, focused, comfortable in the facilitator role, and flexible. In addition, the author (2012) shared leaders need facilitation skills, including the ability and willingness to redirect the team, when necessary, to maintain focus and time limits.
Staff described the principal as collaborative and supportive and examples were cited to reflect that other members of the SAT team had a voice within the meeting and an active role in supporting students. The principal fostered the leadership of others within the SAT team, which some scholars have argued is critical in developing teacher leaders. Chamberland (2009) observed that, “Even when a team shares a common purpose and is given the autonomy to make decisions, the principal needs to make a continual effort to encourage the leadership of others” (p. 104). Gigante and Firestone (2008) stated, “They [teacher leaders] want to know that administrators understand the teacher leader role and find it important” (p. 323).
The Pike principal fostered collaboration and trust at Pike. The illustration offered by Hallam et al., (2015) demonstrated the role of the principal in fostering conditions that yielded trust and collaboration within a school. Forsyth, Adams, and Hoy (2011)
presented an overview of the history of the empirical-research on school trust that began in 1985. The authors (2011) noted that one of three clusters of the examination of school trust were noted in regular publications through 1998 (Hoy & Kupersmith, 1985; Hoy, Sabo & Barnes, 1996; Hoy, Tarter, & Wiskowskie, 1992; Tarter, Bliss, & Hoy, 1989b; Tarter, Sabo, & Hoy, 1995; and Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998). This on-going study found the general finding of faculty trust in the principal was related to faculty trust in colleagues and faculty trust in schools. A school principal’s behavior has been shown to influence teacher motivation, teacher job satisfaction, teacher learning, and school wide collaboration—all of which are linked to trust among school participants (Leithwood et al., 2008; Tschannen-Moran, 2001).
The Pike principal also fostered teacher and informal leadership. Informal leaders had critical roles in stages one and two in the pre-referral intervention process. Gigante & Firestone (2008) found that a key to teacher leader success was administrative support; alternatively, Wenner and Campbell (2017) found poor relationships with administrators or colleagues were a factor that inhibited teacher leadership. The authors (2017) go on to cite multiple studies, noting that when principals are unsupportive, teacher leaders are often unable to fulfill their duties, either because (a) there are not structures or resources in place to assist the teacher leaders (Klinker, Watson, Furgerson, Halsey, & Janisch, 2010), (b) the principal does not allow the teacher leaders the authority or autonomy to complete their work (Friedman, 2011), (c) the teacher leaders do not feel appreciated or recognized for the work they do (Sanders, 2006), or (d) the faculty as a whole does not feel compelled to attend to the work of the teacher leaders (Margolis & Doring, 2012). Nevertheless, the roles of teacher leaders are seldom effective without the support and encouragement of their administrators (Birky, Shelton, & Headley, 2006). To foster a vision of a school improvement culture through teacher leaders, principals and teachers need to work together, creating a rich culture of trust and collaboration between the two leadership positions (Andrews & Crowther, 2002).
The Pike principal offered a poignant vignette at the end of Chapter Six regarding the importance of, in his experience, building partnerships with families, particularly families of color. The literature has noted the importance of building school and family partnerships. Parental involvement is an important indicator of student success in school (Pattnaik & Sriram, 2010). Studies (e.g. Epstein et al., 2009; Henderson, Mapp, Johnson,
& Davies, 2007; Ingram, Wolfe, & Leiberman, 2007; Matuszny, Banda, & Coleman, 2007; Reeves, 2005; Sirvani, 2007) have found that as the relationship between parents and schools become more connected, student achievement increases. Scholars (e.g. Auerbach, 2010) have argued that parent involvement has been critically shaped by race, class, gender, culture, and language, and influenced by a school’s response to diverse families.
Studies have shown that families living below the poverty level are more likely to have little contact with educators, support education indirectly behind the scenes, receive a “generic” education for their children, and challenge the status quo to advocate for their children (Cooper, 2009; Lareau, 1989; López & Stoelting, 2010; Mehan, Villanueva, Hubbard, & Lintz, 1996). Minority families continue to experience power differences and conflicts in their relationships with school personnel (Reynolds, 2010). The principal is a key stakeholder in creating partnerships between school and family and this is a role the principal at Pike took seriously. School leaders must convince teachers, students, parents, and community members of the value of working together for the benefit of the school and the students it serves (Epstein & Rodriguez-Jansorn, 2004).