The article discusses a leadership preparation program developed at the University of Memphis in response to the need for effective school leaders amidst ongoing reform movements. It emphasizes a comprehensive approach that includes core competencies, dispositions, and a rigorous selection process to prepare aspiring principals, aiming to enhance educational leadership and improve student achievements. The program integrates theoretical knowledge with practical experiences and emphasizes the importance of collaboration, accountability, and ongoing assessments for future school leaders.

1. NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL
VOLUME 26, NUMBERS 1 & 2, 2013
3
AResponse to the Call for Effective Leadership in Today’s Schools:
Three Essentials - Preparation, Competency, and Dispositions
Reginald Leon Green, EdD
Professor
University of Memphis
______________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
In response to the latest reform movement and to address the seriousness of the issue regarding
the need for school leadership preparation programs to develop highly qualified principals, this
article advances the results of fifteen (15) years of research on effective leadership in schools.
The research was conducted in the College of Education, Department of Leadership, at the
University of Memphis, in partnership with area school districts.Professors re-conceptualized
school leadership and placed arenewed vision for the preparation of school leaders into action.
Embedded in the program are core competencies and dispositions that have proven to be
essential for effective leadership in today’s schools. These competencies and dispositions are
also discussed in the article.
Keywords: leadership preparation programs; core competencies; dispositions of school
leaders
______________________________________________________________________________
During the first decade of the 21st
century, a national debate has again raised fundamental
questions about schools and the individuals who lead them, ushering in another reform effort.
This time, the focus is onthe role and effectiveness of principals (Levine, 2005; Martin & Papa,
2008; Spence& Bottoms, 2007). Advocates of the movement voice a deep-rooted belief that
leadership is critical to improving schools and enhancing student achievement (Darling-
Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr, & Cohen, 2007).In general, they focus on the role of the
principal in placing an effective teacher in every classroom, one who implementsproven program
plans for school improvement (Dufour, 1999; Lashway, 2002; Murphy &Datnow, 2003; Riley,
2002). Specifically, researchers and scholars are calling for the design and implementation of
principal preparation programs that prepare highly effective principals who can lead schools in a
manner that addresses the needs ofall students, regardless of their personal characteristics or
social backgrounds (Bottoms & O’Neill, 2001; Levine, 2005; Spence& Bottoms, 2007).
In response to this latest reform movement and to address the seriousness of the
issueregarding the need for preparation programs that develop highly qualified principals, this
articleadvances the results of fifteen (15) years of research on effective leadership in schools.
The research was conducted in the College of Education, Department of Leadership, atthe
University of Memphis, in partnership with area school districts.Professorsre-conceptualized
school leadership and placed arenewed vision for the preparation of school leaders into action. A
program was developedthat answered the call for a replacement of traditional principal

2. REGINALD LEON GREEN
4
preparation programs with ones that develop highly effective principals. Principals who
completed the conceptualized programs are certified, meet established standards, are highly
competent, and adhere to dispositions that render an individual capable of leading today’s
modern schools.
Having synthesized the results of twenty-five years of research on schooling and
leadership in schools,a preparation program that placed major emphasis on theory, practice,
instructional leadership, and authentic experiences in schools and the world of business was
designed.The program is a well-defined, systemic approach to developing school leaders who are
dedicated to understanding self and others, understanding the complexity of organizational life,
building bridges through relationships, and engaging in leadership best practices for the purpose
of implementing instructional programs that enhance the academic achievement of all students.
Thisinnovativeapproach to preparing effective school leaders can be placed into three (3)
categories: 1) progressing through an effective preparation program; 2) mastering a series of core
competencies, and 3) acquiring adisposition grounded in the philosophical belief that all students
can acquire a quality education. These three categorieswere found to be essential foreffective
principal leadership in today’s schools.Consequently, the research conducted and the practices
implemented in each of these three categories are reported in this article.
Characteristic of an Effective Leadership Preparation Programs
In the year 2000, a search was begun for an answer to the question, ―What do school
leaders need to know and be able to do in order to effectively lead twenty–first century
schools?‖In essence, how does a leadership preparation program need to be conceptualized,
designed, and implemented to prepare aspiring school leaders to meet the challenges of
enhancing the academic achievement of all students who attend today’s schools.Exploration of
the literature, visitation,and close observationsin twenty schools, as well as discussions with
practicing school leaders, revealed the answers. In order to lead today’s schools, principals have
to have the capacity to lead, and that capacity consist ofcompetence in everything from
accountability to instructional leadership and teacher effectiveness (Hess & Kelly, 2005). To
insure that participants in the preparation program had the previously articulated capacity, the
preparation program was designed with a major focus on competence and dispositions.
Consequently, university staff embarked upon a bold, innovative leadership preparation initiative
designed to build leadership capacity. The program addressed standards, competencies, and
accountability measures with a mission of preparingaspiring principals to become educational
leaders who were not only certified, but qualifiedto lead schools in a changing society.
The new principal preparation program initiative was heavily embedded in research that
transformed into practice what the literature advocated regarding what school leaders needed to
know and be able to do in order to enhance student achievement, leaving no child behind.
Specifically, it was evident that exiting the program, graduates would need to be
visionary,learning-centered leaders, astute in instructional design and implementation, skilled in
analyzing data, and capable of building professional learning communities wherein leadership
roles could be distributed (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPoint, &Meyerson, 2005;Dufour, 1999;
Lashway, 2002;Murphy &Datnow, 2003;Riley, 2002). Consequently, entry into the program
could not be a form of self-selection by candidates; rather, participants had to be nominated and

3. REGINALD LEON GREEN
5
then selected through a rigorous assessment process. They had to be among the brightest
individuals in the area with proven track records and high aspirations of becoming principals.
The Selection Process
The rigorous selection process consisted of five phases:1) nomination by a practicing
school leader;2) submission of a comprehensive application; 3) completion of an essay at the
university;4) participation in a personal interview with the selection committee, and 5)
participation in a series of simulated activities.
Nomination by a Practicing School Leader
To be considered as a candidate for the program, an individual had to be nominated by a
practicing school leader or district administratorwith knowledge of the candidate’s potential as a
school leader. Once nominated, the individual had to demonstrate that he or she was a highly
productive individual with demonstrated strengths in curriculum and instruction. The nominee
also had to show evidence of having used professional development activities, student
achievement data, and technology to improve teaching. Finally, he or she had to demonstrate the
ability to collaborate with others to improve school and classroom practices.
Submission of a Comprehensive Application Packet
Each aspiring school leader had to submit an application packet. The packet consisted of
a letter of application explaining why the individual was interested in school leadership, his or
her growth through professional development activities, and why and how participation in this
program would improve his or her leadership ability. The application packet also had to contain a
resume that describedthe individual’s past accomplishments. Finally, three letters of
recommendation from current and/or previous supervisors who weredifferent from the
nominating person were required.A selection committee consisting of university professors,
practicing administrators, and community leaders used a rubric scale toscore each item in the
application packet and award each candidate a score.
Completion of an Essay
The third phase of the selection process involved the candidate writing an essay onsite.
Having successfully progressed through the first two phases of the process,each candidate was
invited to campus for the purpose of developing a three-to-five (3-5) page essay reviewing what
leaders of today’s schools need to know and be able to do in order to function effectively in
addressing the needs of all students. A university professor supervised the writing of the essay.
The selection committeescored each essay using a rubric scale designed for that purpose.
The candidates were ranked based on their composite score from the three (3)
activities(nomination letter, application materials, and essay) which was compiled from the
ratings of each selection committee member. The thirty (30) highest ranking nominees were
invited for a personal interview with the selection committee.

4. REGINALD LEON GREEN
6
Participation in a Personal Interview with the Selection Committee
The interview was designed to assess the candidate’s past accomplishments, his or her
understanding of school and classroom policies and practices, learning theory, and the processes
and procedures he or she would use to make a difference in improving student
achievement.Aninterview score was awarded a candidate by each selection committee member.
Participation in a Series of Simulated Activities
During the final phase of the selection process,each candidate participatedin a series of
simulated school-related activities allowing him or her to exhibit his or her potential to develop
the skills and attributes that are advocated for effective leaders of today’s schools.
The scores awarded a candidate by each selection committee member were compiled, and
the total wasadded to his or her composite score from the initial screening. The fifteen (15)
highest ranking nominees were invited to participate in the program.After being selected,
participants committed themselves to an ambitious schedule of meetings, seminars, readings, and
school experiences that were integrated into the following program components.
Orientation Program
After being invited to participate in the program, participantsattended acelebratory
reception. During the reception,participants were introduced to the community as individuals
posed to become exemplary school leaders. Following the reception, participants were engaged
in a 4-day, problem-based team building experiential activity, an extensive observation/self-
assessment experience, and the completion of a 360º instrument.Data from these activities were
used to assess the strengths and weaknesses of participants and to inform decisions regarding the
development of individual profiles and the assignment of program mentors and coaches.
Assessed Strengths and Weaknesses
The individual profile.A profile was developed for each individual selected for program
participation. The profile consisted of the assessed strengths and weaknesses of the individual.
To determine the strengths and weaknesses of an individual, critical information was extracted
from the selection materials; a Leadership Inventory (based on the Interstate School Leader
Licensure Consortium Standards) was administered; the 360º assessment instrument was
analyzed; structured observation notes taken during the 4-day, problem-based team building
experiential activity were analyzed, and a self-assessment document prepared by each participant
was assessed.
The profile was used to plan and implement a focused instructional program plan for each
individual.The planspecified the experiences that a participant would needin order to become an
effective 21st
century school leader. The focus of the plan was on four essential elements: 1) the
dispositions, competencies, and styles of effective leaders; 2) the leaders’ ability to understand
the complexity of school organizations and distribute leadership throughout the organization; 3)
the leaders’ knowledge of proven instructional practices and processes for implementing those
practices, and 4) the leaders’ ability to influence stakeholders to share responsibilities for school
goal attainment.

5. REGINALD LEON GREEN
7
Business coaches.Business coaches were unique and integral components of the
program. The coaching component was designed to give participants an opportunity to observe
first-hand how decisions are made and problems are solved in the business world. In most cases,
the coaches were women and men who were leaders of key businesses in the community.
Program participants spent different amounts of time with their business coaches. However,
without exception, members from the business community gladly participated in the program.
Program coaches and mentors.Highlysuccessful principals and administrators in area
school districts served as mentors and program coaches. Each month, a participant would spend
two days in the school led by his or her mentor, observing and participating in the practical
operation of the school. Participants would visit different schools at different levels, elementary,
middle, and secondary, each month of the program. This concept allowed program participants to
observe different leadership styles, as well as develop an understanding of the articulation that
occurs between grade levels.
Mentors also served as role models and sponsors—counseling, coaching, and guiding
participants with the primary objective of helping them better understand the principalship from
a practical perspective. Program coaches who were university professors conducted coursework
and seminars. Working cooperatively with practicing school leaders,university professors
blended leadership theory with the practical aspects of school leadership.In addition to focusing
on how schools operate, they focused on how students learn.
Community organization mentor.Each participant was also matched with the leader of
a community-based family/youth learning organization. Visiting these organizations and working
with their leaders, participants were able to learn about programs that were available to schools
and challenges encountered when schools collaborated with community organizations as
partners.
A Multifaceted Integrated Curriculum
The curriculum was grounded in standards, competencies, and accountability measures.
The content of the courses was informed by the Four Dimensions of Principal Leadership; the six
Interstate School Leader Licensure Consortium standards (ISLLC); thirteen core leadership
competencies, and characteristics of facilitative school leaders. Instructionwas delivered in
twelve (12) three (3) hour courses offered in 6-hour blocks.Thirteen (13) core competencies and
selected dispositions of effective school leaders were identified and embedded in the curriculum.
A concerted effort was undertaken to strategically integrate all state standards.
Instructional Delivery
Aligned with state and national standards, the program offered intensive, case-based and
problem-based coursework that focused on instructional leadership, organizational management,
school law and finances, leadership core competencies, and ―facilitative principled leadership.‖
Seminars were designed around focus areas and supported with scholarly works grounded in
contemporary leadership issues. During these seminars, participants addressed interpersonal

6. REGINALD LEON GREEN
8
relations; the complexity of school culture and climate; building relationships, and utilizing best
practices related to change, communication, decision making, and conflict management.
Participants also jig sawed such books as Built on Trust, …And Dignity for All, The Tipping
Point, Practicing the Art of Leadership: A Problem-Based Approach to Implementing the ISLLC
Standards, Navigating Change, and a number of others. National experts joined faculty coaches
in addressing the contents of these books and other contemporary educational leadership topics.
Additionally, each participant became a member of a seven or eight member team that was given
school-related problems to solve. The problems addressed issues that were occurring in a school,
or school district, andsolutionsthat school leaders could use to enhance student achievement were
offered. The teams worked on their assigned project for five months and produced a written
report, including recommendations that were presented at the end of the program during the
closing conference.
Participant Assessment
Ongoing General Assessments
Participant assessment was a four-fold structured process conducted by the mentor
principal, university professors, program coaches, and the participants themselves. During school
visits, mentor principals used a structured instrument to assess the skills, attributes, competence,
and performance of participants. Assessments made by mentor principals at the school level were
compiled and recorded bythe university professor who served as Lead Mentor. Participants’ self-
evaluations from each school visit were also collected and compiled by the university professor
who served as Lead Mentor. During seminar sessions, each of three (3) program mentors
recorded observation notes on each participant describing the participant’s performance based on
the extent to which the core competencies of the program were being addressed, assessed
strengths were being utilized and enhanced, and weaknesses were being eliminated.
Specific Assignments
Throughout the program, assignments were formulated based on the participant’s
individual profile and his or her assessed strengths and weaknesses. From these assessments,
performance evaluations were conducted by program coaches and mentors and reported to the
university professor who served as Lead Mentor. Using these performance evaluations to inform
the discussions, individual conferences were held with participants, and feedback was provided.
In some instances, additional readings were encouraged; mentors and/or program coaches were
changed, and exposure to school mentors (principals) displaying a particular leadership style was
made available through special school assignments.
Program Review
At the end of each semester, program coaches collaborated with program mentors,
reviewed the status of each participant, discussed strengths and weaknesses of each participant,
and refined program activities. Using data from these sessions, program coaches held an interim
evaluation session with each participant, provided evaluative comments, and offered follow-up

7. REGINALD LEON GREEN
9
suggestions.
Final Assessment
Each semester, the assessment of participants continued, using the same processes and
procedures. At program completion, after consulting with school mentors and program
coaches,university professors compiled a performance status on each participant and made
recommendations to the superintendent of the partnering school district.
The Exit Conference
At the conclusion of the program, coaches conducted an exit conference with each
participant. During the conference, participant’s questions were addressed and follow-up
activities suggested.
Core Competencies of Effective Leaders
Embedded in the curriculum of the preparation program were 13 core competencies. Five
years of research at the University of Memphis surfaced these competencies,revealing what
school leaders need to master. The competencies which are aligned with the Interstate School
Leader Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards informed specific instructional leadership skills
needed to enhance teaching and learning in schools. They describe both the expectations for and
responsibilities of leaders of today’s schools.
Major support for the use of these competencies was derived from Davis et al.(2005) who
advocated that attributes of effective school leaders influence student achievement; Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, (2005). who identified 21 responsibilities that positively affect student
achievement and the specific behaviors and characteristics associated with those responsibilities;
Leithwood,Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom(2004) who outlined practices that school leaders
should implement, and a number of others too numerous to mention in this publication.
Quite clearly, the literature offers that as leadership ability increases, so does student
achievement(Bottoms & O’Neill, 2001;Davis, et al., 2005;Levine, 2005; Spence& Bottoms,
2007).Consequently, the 13 core competencies that should inform the behavior of effective
school leaders were identified and embedded in the curriculum of the preparation program
(Green, 2001). The competencies are:
Visionary Leadership: Effective leaders demonstrate energy, commitment, and an
entrepreneurial spirit; communicate values and a conviction that all children will learn at
high levels, and inspire others with that vision.
Unity of Purpose: Effective leaders collect and utilize data to develop and clarify a
purpose that focuses on student learning; praise teachers’ efforts; convey high
expectations for teacher and student performance; actively involve teachers in decision
making, and provide teachers with the autonomy to try creative approaches.
Learning Community: Effective leaders demonstrate a dedication and a willingness to
assist teachers in improving their instructional skills by furnishing needed resources to

8. REGINALD LEON GREEN
10
teachers; creating a climate wherein the primary focus is on teaching and learning;
placing emphasis on instruction, and viewing parents as partners in their children’s
education.
Instructional Leadership: Effective leaders facilitate the application of current
knowledge in learning and human development; use data to make instructional program
decisions that meet the needs of all students.
Curriculum and Instruction: Effective leaders keep school personnel focused on
student learning and are able to put curriculum that contains research-based strategies to
meet the needs of all students into practice.
Professional Development: Effective leaders demonstrate commitment to their own
professional development and the professional development of others.
Organizational Management: Effective leaders skillfully implement procedures and
processes to govern the workflow; establish clearly defined, school-wide academic and
behavioral standards to promote high expectations; hold teachers and students
accountable for learning.
Assessment: Effective leaders conduct assessments and identify needs of students, as
well as strengths and weaknesses of teachers.
Reflection: Effective leaders set aside time to think about their professional practices and
decisions with a focus on improvement.
Collaboration: Effective leaders engage teachers in dialogue about instructional
strategies and student performance; allow teachers and other stakeholders to participate in
decision-making.
Diversity: Effective leaders create an environment in which the ethical and moral
imperatives of schooling are valued; recognize and eliminate unfair treatment and
inequalities.
Inquiry: Effective leaders conduct inquiry into effective research; acquire a deep
understanding of change and how to initiate, lead, and sustain the change; examine
current research to identify leadership best practices; align their actions with the goals
and vision of the school.
Professionalism: Effective leaders are diligent in implementing ethical standards of the
education profession through their daily activities.
When program participants mastered these 13 core competencies, they could enter the
principalship with the knowledge of skills possessed and behaviors exhibited by effective school
leaders.They had an understanding of the importance of the leadership role in creating the type of
environment wherein teaching and learning is maximized. In addition, they were equipped to

9. REGINALD LEON GREEN
11
build relationships, make data-driven decisions, utilize best instructional practices, engage in
change with minimum conflict, and distribute leadership throughout the school
organization(Green, 2001; Farmer, 2010; Fee, 2008; Crane, 2012).
Dispositions of Effective School Leaders
For a number of years at the University of Memphis, researchers have conducted studies
in the area of school leadership. These studies evaluated the behavior of both school leaders and
followers and the effects of their behavior on the academic achievement of students (Brown,
2012; Farmer, 2010; Green, 2001; Green, 2010; Hunter-Heaston, 2010: Williams-Griffin, 2012).
The results of these studies revealed that school leadership occurs in four dimensions: (a)
understanding self and others, (b) understanding the complexity of organizational life; (c)
building bridges through relationships, and (d) engaging in leadership best practices (Farmer,
2010; Fee, (2008); Green, 2001; Green, 2010; Hunter-Heaston, 2010; Williams-Griffin, 2012).
Collectively, the four dimensions can be used as a theoretical framework to design programs to
transform underperforming schools into high performing schools (Williams-Griffin, 2012).
The first dimension, characterized as understanding self and others, speaks to the depth of
knowledge that leaders must acquire about themselves and their followers. It is theorized that the
effectiveness of leaders is determined by the extent to which they understand their beliefs and
values, as well as the beliefs and values of their followers (Green, 2010). These beliefs and
values are known as dispositions (Wasicsko, 2000). They enhance the effectiveness of leaders by
providing them an understanding of how their behavior influences the behavior of followers and
how the behavior of their followers influences their own behavior (Green, 2013). The basic
assumption is (a) what one believes and values influences behavior; (b) the behavior of the
leader influences the behavior of the followers, and the behavior of followers influences the
behavior of leaders (Green, 2013).
If we accept the position of Wasicsko (2000) who offers that dispositions are personal
qualities or characteristics that are possessed by individuals, then the concept that the
dispositions of the leader contribute to his or her effectiveness is an acceptable one. Williams-
Griffin (2012) reported that, to a large extent, it was her disposition informed by dimension one
of The Four Dimensions of Principal Leadership that enabledher to determine the behavior that
she used to transform an underperforming middle school into a high performing one. One of the
characteristics that separate one leader from another is his or her disposition, and the leader’s
disposition determines, to some extent, his or her influence on the academic achievement of the
school (Collinson, Killeavy, & Stephenson, 1999; Combs, 1974). What remains elusive is an
identification of the dispositions that effective leaders possess.
It is important for leaders of today’s schools to attach a high priority to characteristics
that influence school effectiveness. An extensive review of the literature surfaced the 49
dispositions listed in Table 1 (Green, 2013). They reflect the qualities that characterize effective
leaders andare embedded in the Interstate School Leader Licensure Consortium Standards
(ISLLC) offered by the Council of Chief State School Officers(2008) ; transformational
leadership as described by Bass(1998); moral leadership defined by Sergiovanni(2006); servant
leadership as characterized by Greenleaf(2002); and distributive leadership defined by
Spillane(2005). Collins (2001) also offers a description of effective leadership that contained a
number of these dispositions.

10. REGINALD LEON GREEN
12
The aforementioned researchers and writers reason how effective leaders lead and how
they should craft their beliefs, values, and attitudes if their behavior is to influence a faculty to
perform effectively in schools. From among the 49 dispositions offered by Green, (2013),
aspiring school leaders in the principal preparation program selected those that they believed to
be most crucialfor them to exhibit if they were to effectivelylead a school.
Table 1
Dispositions Found in the Descriptions of Effective Leaders
_____ Compassion _____ Imagination _____ Openness
_____ Persuasion _____ Accuracy _____ Equity
_____ Insight _____ Influence _____ Adaptability
_____ Sensitivity _____ Trust _____ Honesty
_____ Respect _____ Knowledge _____ Humility
_____ Creativity _____ Vision _____ Decisiveness
_____ Rapport _____ Management _____ Tenacity
_____ Credibility _____ Dignity _____ Commitment
_____ Organization _____ Consistency _____Intelligence
_____ Morality _____ Fairness _____ Tact
_____ Support _____ Diversity _____ Ethics
_____ Reasoning _____ Planning _____ Charisma
_____ Reliability _____ Timeliness _____ Diplomacy
_____ Integrity _____ Accountability _____ Predictability
_____ Character _____ Judgment _____ Courage
_____ Fortitude _____ Logic
_____ Passion _____ Communication
This researcher concurs with Sergiovanni (2006). He advocates that an individual seeking
to lead one of today’s schools needs to have a sense of what he or she believes and values. In

11. REGINALD LEON GREEN
13
essence, this encompassesa belief about children, the purpose of schooling, and people in
general. Additionally, they should have an in-depth understanding of their values and knowledge
of how their beliefs and values influence their behavior (Green, 2013). The literature is clear;
leaders of today’s schools need to be servants with moral and ethical standards, using a
transformational style to distribute leadership throughout the school organization (Bass, 1998;
Collins, 2001; Greenleaf, 2002; ISLLC, 2008; Sergiovanni, 2006; Spillane, 2005). Accepting the
assumption that the literature is accurate and the premise that using a single set of dispositions to
characterize effective leadership is problematic, individuals seeking to become effective school
leaders should identify the dispositions that they believe are most important for them to exhibit if
they are to lead a school effectively. We contend that there is enough evidence in the literature to
warrant such action.
Conclusions
Preparation, competencies, and dispositions enhance effective leadership. Therefore,
effectiveness must begin with a quality preparation program, one that offers an opportunity for
participants to understand theory, as well as experience the practical aspects of leading a school.
There is no substitute for the experience one can acquire functioning in the schoolhouse. When
aspiring school leaders complete a preparation program where theory is linked with actual
experiences in the schoolhouse and paired with quality coaching and mentoring, the first step to
effective leadership has been taken. However, during those experiences, the aspiring school
leader must seek to develop the skills and attributes necessary to be competent in the areas of
communication, decision making, conflict management, and change. Once competence in these
areas has been acquired, he or she must develop the type of disposition that is advocated for
effective leaders of 21st
century schools.
Brown (2012)who studied the practices, processes, and procedures of 172 national blue
ribbon award-winning school leaders reported that the behavior of these leaders was a
contributing factor to their success in turning around underperforming schools. They understood
their roles and responsibilities and established the types of relationships that enabled them to
facilitate change in the organization. They structured the school day to encourage collaboration
between teachers, students, parents, and community stakeholders.
Leadership greatness is beginning something that does not end with the leader. Using
practices described in the three (3) components discussed in this article, professors at the
University of Memphis have prepared school leaders who are leading some of the most
challenging schools in our service area. They are also serving in central office position. These
individuals havebecome proficient at implementing practices, processes, and procedures that
enable them to transform schools into organizations that enhance the academic achievement of
students at all levels. They took off their blinders and looked for opportunities to assist in the
education of all students. They realized that the best way to succeed in the future was to create it.
Leadership is all about focused action in the direction of a worthy purpose. It is about realizing
that the impossible is generally untried. Leadership is not about position; it is about action
embedded in the leader’s skills and dispositions (Hrebeniuk, 2011). In the final analysis, school
leaders seeking effectiveness must ask themselves:Am I competentand does my disposition
foster the creation of a climate in the school wherein a difference can be made in improving the
academic achievement and social and emotional well-being of students(Tirozzi, 2001)?

12. REGINALD LEON GREEN
14
References
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bottoms, G.,& O’Neill, K. (2001).Leading school improvement what research says: A
review of the literature. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
Brown, A. (2012). Turnaround schools: Practices used by nationally recognized principals to
improve student achievement in high poverty schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.
Crane, D. N. (2012). The relationship between leadership behavior, the thirteen core
competencies, and teacher job satisfaction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap… and other don’t. New
York, NY: HarperCollins.
Collinson, V., Killeavy, M.,& Stephenson, H. (1999, October). Exemplary teachers: Practices
and ethics of care in England, Ireland, and the United States. Journal for a Just and
Caring Education, 5(4), 340-66.
Combs, A. W. (1974). Humanistic goals of education in educational accountability: A
humanistic perspective. San Francisco, CA: Shields.
Council of Chief State School Officers.(2008). Performance expectations and indicators for
education leaders: ISLLC-based models for education leadership. Retrieved
fromwww.ccsso.org/publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=367
Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr. M. T., & Cohen, C. (2007).
Preparing School Leaders for a Changing World: Lessons from Exemplary Leadership
Development Programs.Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational
Leadership Institute.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPoint, M.A., &Meyerson, D. (2005). Developing
successful principals.Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
DuFour, R. (1999). Changing role: Playing the part of the principal stretches one’s talent.
Journal of Staff Development, 20(4), 62-63.
DuFour, R. (2003). Building a professional learning community.The School Administrator,60
(5), 13-18.
Farmer, E. (2010). The perception of teachers and principals on leader’s behavior informed by
thirteen core competencies and its relationship to teacher motivation (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.
Fee, C. (2008).Teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of leader behavior: A discrepancy study
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation).University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.
Green, R.L. (2001). Practicing the art of leadership: A problem-based approach to implemented
the ISLLC Standards.Boston: MA: Pearson.
Green, R.L. (2010). The four dimensions of principal leadership: A framework for leading 21st
century schools. Boston: MA: Pearson.
Green, R.L. (2013). Practicing the art of leadership: A problem-based approach to implemented
the ISLLC standards (4th ed.). Boston: MA: Pearson.
Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and

13. REGINALD LEON GREEN
15
greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.
Hess, F. M.,& Kelly, A. P. (2005).Learning to lead?: What gets taught in principal preparation
programs. Retrieved from
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg/PDFPapers/Hess_Kelly_Learning_to_Lead_
PEPG05.02.pdf
Hrebeniuk, M. (2011).Leadership Skills Inventory-Self. Retrieved from
http://www.articlealley.com/article_1482387_15.thml
Hunter-Heaston, T. ( 2010). The voices of four principles: An exploration of the four dimensions
of leadership as used by middle school leaders in transforming low performing schools
that meet and exceed local, state, and national standards (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation).University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.
Lashway, L. (2002). Developing instructional leaders. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Educational Management.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., &Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences
student learning. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Applied Research and Educational
Improvement, University of Minnesota; Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the
University of Ontario; and the Wallace Foundation.
Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington DC: The Education Schools Project.
Martin, G. E.,& Papa, R. (2008).Redesigning a principal preparation program: A continuous
improvement model.NASSP Bulletin, 84(617), 23-28.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T.,& McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Murphy, J. (2006).Preparing school leaders: An agenda for research and action. Lanham, MD:
Rowman& Littlefield.
Murphy, J., &Datnow, A. (2003).Leadership lessons from comprehensive school reform
designs. In J.Murphy & A.Datnow (Eds.),Leadership lessons from comprehensive school
reforms (pp. 263-278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Riley, R. (2002). Educational reform through standards and partnerships, 1993-2000.
Phi Delta Kappan, 83(9), 700.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2006). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Slavin, R. E., &Fashola, O. S., (1998).Show me the evidence! Proven and promising
programs for Americas schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Spence, D.& Bottoms, G. (October, 2007). How states can build leadership systems.
Education Week, 27(15)46-39.
Spillane, J. (2005).Distributed leadership: The educational forum. Retrieved
fromwww.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4013/is_200501/ai_n947825
Terozzi, G.N. (2001). The artistry of leadership, the evolving role of the secondary school
principal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 434-439.
Wasicsko, M. M. (2000).The disposition to teach (Unpublished manuscript). Retrieved from
http://www.educatordispositions.orgdispositions/The%20Dispositions%20to%20Teach.
pdf

14. REGINALD LEON GREEN
16
Williams-Griffin, S. (2012).The transformation of a low performing middle school into a high
performing middle school: An autoethnography(Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.
Author
Reginald Leon Green is Professor of Educational Leadership in the College of Education at the
University of Memphis. Dr. Green teaches courses in educational leadership with a focus on
instructional leadership, school reform, and models for turning around low performing schools.
His research interests include school leadership, team building for effective teaching and
learning, superintendent/board relations, school district restructuring, and the effects of nurturing
characteristics on the academic achievement of students.