Page 51

Journal for Effective Schools

Volume 11, Number 1

place of NCLB. To eliminate the 2014 “proficiency for all” mandate and the achievement gap closure timeline, and avoid sanctions, states would need to maintain a high-stakes assessment framework and develop new annual measurable objective goals based on their own metrics (Muskal, 2012; NSBA, 2012). Additionally, states would also be required to develop college or career readiness standards for all students graduating from high school. While these developments have changed the breadth of the NCLB’s implementation in its original form, fundamental elements of effective schools criteria continue: a clearly stated and focused mission which sets achievement goals for all students, a commitment to high expectations for all, instructional leadership, and frequent monitoring of student achievement. For states that have not sought nor been granted this waiver, the consequences associated with a failure to meet AYP – and its school achievement goals – remain; the distribution of additional resources to the school or a requirement that it write or modify a school improvement plan (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). Even without NCLB and AYP, however, the highstakes nature of school and student accountability persists as a school reform focus. Given the reciprocal relationship between student achievement and efficacy and the relationship of efficacy to teacher commitment, this prompts the question, “Do the consequences of a failure to meet NCLB AYP impact teacher commitment?” Research Questions Multiple factors have been found to impact teacher commitment: teachers’ efficacy beliefs, principals’ efficacy beliefs and their engagement in the school’s operation. A reciprocal relationship between teacher commitment and student achievement has been demonstrated, and teacher commitment has been shown to impact organizational commitment. These relationships were revealed in research without considering NCLB’s high stakes, test-based accountability. In our analysis, we sought to determine, for the early years of NCLB implementation: 1. To what extent does meeting, or failing to meet NCLB expectations impact teacher commitment? 2. Do teacher efficacy beliefs relative to enlisting administrative direction, influencing decision making, and enacting classroom management positively influence teacher commitment? 3. Do principal efficacy beliefs impact teacher commitment independent of their interaction with teacher efficacy beliefs? 4. Do principal efficacy beliefs impact teacher commitment through their influence on teacher efficacy beliefs? 5. When coupled with principal efficacy beliefs, how do the multiple forms of rewards and punishment affect teacher commitment through the interaction of rewards or punishments and principal efficacy beliefs with teacher efficacy beliefs? 41

Journal for Effective Schools - Spring 2013  

Vol. 11, #1

Advertisement