Study of the Attributes and Behaviors of Middle School Principals in Successful Title I Schools

School leadership is being urged to change in order to meet the needs of societal and school demographics. By increasing our efforts to bridge the gap for our youth in transition between elementary and high school, we are modeling a unified system that sends the message that all youth matter (Balfanz, 2007; Ogbu, 1987). Middle school principals are now responsible for providing effective leadership in a wide variety of specific subjects. Principals today are encouraged to restructure a school by possessing and providing idealized attributes, idealized behaviors, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration, all while creating a school climate that will yield successful academic improvement. The purpose of the study was to study the attributes and behaviors of middle school principals in successful Title I schools. This study explored the leadership styles and best practices reportedly used by the principals in order to meet the diverse needs of all students and increase academic achievement. The study examined the attributes and behaviors of Middle School Principals in Title I Schools. The role of the leader in shaping and directing the school towards academic success was also examined. The leadership style and practices of a principal play an important part in student achievement. Grasping the leadership practices and the effect of the practices on middle school achievement provides a wealth of knowledge that will advance our understanding of middle school students and improve student achievement. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was used to determine strengths and areas of improvement and a face-to-face interview was conducted to explore principals’ perceptions of their leadership practices. The MLQ measures a broad range of leadership types. In this study, principal leadership seemed to play a significant role in the success of the campus. All of the principals in the study exhibited attributes and behaviors that coincide with Transformational Leaders. Idealized Influence was included in the Top 3 for all of the Title I principals. The researcher searched for commonalities and differences. The findings from this study revealed that each of the four Title I middle school participants engaged in various initiatives and actions that contributed to their campus success. The first common initiative that all of the principals implemented was the alignment of curriculum to state standards. Secondly, all of the participants were highly visible in the classrooms. The principals believed they needed to be visible to parents, teachers, and students, and consistently communicate the vision for student success. Thirdly, the principals felt strongly about creating ways to empower teachers and staff to build leadership capacity and positive relationships. Finally, principals consistently communicated their vision to all stakeholders. These common behaviors were (a) ongoing monitoring and evaluation of programs, (b) visibility, (c) building relationships, (d) building leadership capacity, and (e) shared vision. Recognizing the attributes and behaviors shared by leaders who are successful in Title I schools will help school districts to identify those who would be effective in creating a climate of success within such a challenging environment.Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Department o

Predictors, Profiles, and Policies: Analyzing Students in Special Education Across Three Studies

Special education was created to support students with disabilities in schools, yet many students are not identified with disabilities and placed in special education until after they have experienced several years of school struggle. As early as school entry in kindergarten, and before being placed in special education, many of these students could have benefited from intensive interventions that are generally offered as part of special education. Thus, the three studies in this dissertation focus on early indicators of school struggle so that schools will be able to better identify the at-risk students who could benefit from early and targeted interventions. Specifically, each study utilizes restricted data from the ECLS-K: 2011 to explore kindergarten predictors of who is placed in special education in 4th grade. While a number of studies have looked at early indicators of special education status several years later, the studies here add to the literature in that they examine how executive functioning skills and Response to Intervention programs impact the likelihood a student will be placed in special education. Overall, findings from these studies identify multiple predictors that impact the likelihood a student will be placed in special education and also describe subtypes of students in special education, both of which can inform early interventions.Study 1 (“Students Identified with Learning Disabilities: Predictors, Profiles, and Policies”) identifies variables measured in kindergarten that predict learning disability (LD) identification by 4th grade. Results show the strongest kindergarten predictors include students’ math, working memory, and “approaches to learning” skills. Results also show a number of demographic characteristics (i.e., student age, race, and family income) impact the likelihood of a student being identified with LD. In addition, Study 1 finds and describes several subtypes of students who are in special education with LD. Next, Study 2 (“Who Is in Placed in Special Education with ADHD?”) explores how students receiving special education services for ADHD differ from general education students. Results show kindergarten students’ working memory, teacher reported attentional focus, and teacher-reported conflict distinguishes these students from students who are not placed in special education with ADHD in 4th grade. Again, a number of demographic characteristics (i.e., student ethnicity, family income, and home language) impact the likelihood a student will be identified with ADHD and placed in special education. An analysis of these students’ behaviors shows these students fall into different subtypes from those typically described in clinical psychology. Finally, Study 3 (“Who is Not Placed in Special Education?”) examines students with low reading and math achievement, with and without special education placement, and describes how they differ on a number of factors. Specifically, this study analyzes a group of academically struggling students and describes their likelihood of being placed in special education in 4th grade. Results show, for students with low academic achievement, the strongest kindergarten predictor of later special education placement is their “approaches to learning” skills, and low achieving students with higher levels of these skills are less likely to be in special education. Student ethnicity, age, and gender are also shown to impact the likelihood a low achieving student is placed in special education. Taken together, these findings have important implications for early interventions for students at-risk of later special education placement. Discussions within the three studies center around the skills these early interventions could target. These kinds of interventions have the potential to not only raise the academic achievement of at-risk students, but they also have the potential to reduce disproportionate representation by race, ethnicity, and gender within special education placements. Ultimately, the findings within this dissertation can inform special education policies related to identification procedures for students with mild to moderate disabilities, like LD and ADHD

Hartmannas ir Sezemanas. Husserlio fenomenologijos kritika ir intuicijos problema

[full article and abstract in Lithuanian; abstract in English] This article deals with the problem of the relationship between intuition and construction. Nicolai Hartmann and Vasily Sesemann understand Husserl’s phenomenology as the practice of intuitive knowledge, which can be contrasted to conceptual construction. Both authors seek to join intuition and conceptual knowledge using the concept of dialectics, or the genesis of knowing. Their positions differ in valuing the relationship between intuition and construction. Hartmann emphasizes the perspective of the natural sciences as a necessary element of knowledge, and Sesemann criticizes scientific knowledge as objectifying and therefore insufficient to understand consciousness and values. Firstly, I discuss how Hartmann understands intuition and construction. Then I analyze how Sesemann explained the irrationality of givenness. Finally, I discuss how both philosophers justify the synthesis of intuition and construction.[straipsnis ir santrauka lietuvių kalba; santrauka anglų kalba] Straipsnyje nagrinėjama intuicijos ir konstravimo santykio problema pažinime. Nikolajus Hartmannas ir Vosylius Sezemanas supranta Edmundo Husserlio fenomenologiją kaip intuicija besiremiantį pažinimą, kuris yra priešingas konstravimu grindžiamam žinojimui. Abu autoriai kritikuoja Husserlio prieigą ir siūlo susieti intuiciją ir konstravimą naudojant dialektiką ir žinojimo genezės eksplikaciją. Hartmannas pabrėžia gamtos mokslų svarbą pažinime, o Sezemanas kritikuoja mokslinį pažinimą kaip nepakankamą, nes šis objektyvuoja sąmonę ir negali suprasti vertybių. Pirma, nagrinėju, kaip Hartmannas supranta intuicijos ir konstrukcijos santykį pažinime. Antra, analizuoju, kaip Sezemanas atskleidžia duoties iracionalumą. Galiausiai, aptariu, kaip abu autoriai siekia susieti intuiciją ir konstravimą

Emmanuel Mayer, Die Objektivität der Werterkenntnis bei N. Hartmann, 1952

Vancourt R. Emmanuel Mayer, Die Objektivität der Werterkenntnis bei N. Hartmann, 1952. In: Revue des Sciences Religieuses, tome 29, fascicule 4, 1955. pp. 417-418

Emmanuel Mayer, Die Objektivität der Werterkenntnis bei N. Hartmann, 1952

Vancourt R. Emmanuel Mayer, Die Objektivität der Werterkenntnis bei N. Hartmann, 1952. In: Revue des Sciences Religieuses, tome 29, fascicule 4, 1955. pp. 417-418

Hegel'e göre Tanrı'nın varlığıyla ilgili kanıtların anlamı

İnsanın Tanrı'ya tabii yükselişi, tefekkür (reflexion) yardımıyla çözümlenmesi gereken, doğrudan bir veri gibidir. Ruhun, "Mutlak"a doğru kendiliğinden yüksel­mesi, bağlanabileceğimiz ve dinî yapıyı taşıyabilecek, üstün bir bilginin kurulmasına engel midir? Pietistler, bu doğrudan verilerle yetinmemizi isterler ve Tanrı'nın varlı­ğını kanıtlamaya çalışmayı, dinsizlik gibi görürler. Spener, öğrencilerine, akıl yürüt­ menin "susuz çölleri"nde yollarını şaşırmamalarını, "ateşli iman"a ve duygunun coşkunluğuna dayanmalarını tavsiye eder1 , felsefenin, Tann'nın varlığı konusunda, zayıf kanaatlar ortaya koyabildiğini hatırlatır. Hegel aynı fikirde değildir, iman ve duygu alanında, daha ileri gidebilmenin mümkün olduğu kanaatındadır. Ona göre, diğer doğrulamalardan kendimizi muaf tutsak bile, hiç olmazsa, bulduğumuz doğ­rudan veriye güvenme hakkına sahip olduğumuza güvenmemiz gerekir. Jacobi, doğrudan bilginin değerini ispatlamaktan, ulaştığı şeyi açıklamaktan kaçınabilir mi? Bu bilginin, değerine kendinin tanık olduğunu ileri sürenler buluna­ caktır. Fakat, yine de bunu ispat etmek gerekir; yoksa akıl tatmin olmayacaktır. Akıl, yerini duyguya bırakmaya çağrıldığında, bunun neden ve hangi şartlarda olduğunu bilmek ister. Sonuç olarak, her hipotezde, doğrudan dinî verilere basit dö­nüş yetmez. Jacobi ve Schleiermacher'in bunu yeterli görmelerinin nedeni, dinî tec­rübede, "Mutlak"la bir nevi esrarlı birleşmenin olduğunu kabul etmeleridir. Hegel, "Mutlak"la birleşmeyi, düşünme-öncesi (pre-reflexive), kendiliğinden zımnî bir dü­şünce gibi gördüğünden, Tanrı'nın varlığının kanıtlarının kapsamını ve anlamını ye­niden bulacak güçtedir

Predictors, Profiles, and Policies: Analyzing Students in Special Education Across Three Studies

Special education was created to support students with disabilities in schools, yet many students are not identified with disabilities and placed in special education until after they have experienced several years of school struggle. As early as school entry in kindergarten, and before being placed in special education, many of these students could have benefited from intensive interventions that are generally offered as part of special education. Thus, the three studies in this dissertation focus on early indicators of school struggle so that schools will be able to better identify the at-risk students who could benefit from early and targeted interventions. Specifically, each study utilizes restricted data from the ECLS-K: 2011 to explore kindergarten predictors of who is placed in special education in 4th grade. While a number of studies have looked at early indicators of special education status several years later, the studies here add to the literature in that they examine how executive functioning skills and Response to Intervention programs impact the likelihood a student will be placed in special education. Overall, findings from these studies identify multiple predictors that impact the likelihood a student will be placed in special education and also describe subtypes of students in special education, both of which can inform early interventions.Study 1 (“Students Identified with Learning Disabilities: Predictors, Profiles, and Policies”) identifies variables measured in kindergarten that predict learning disability (LD) identification by 4th grade. Results show the strongest kindergarten predictors include students’ math, working memory, and “approaches to learning” skills. Results also show a number of demographic characteristics (i.e., student age, race, and family income) impact the likelihood of a student being identified with LD. In addition, Study 1 finds and describes several subtypes of students who are in special education with LD. Next, Study 2 (“Who Is in Placed in Special Education with ADHD?”) explores how students receiving special education services for ADHD differ from general education students. Results show kindergarten students’ working memory, teacher reported attentional focus, and teacher-reported conflict distinguishes these students from students who are not placed in special education with ADHD in 4th grade. Again, a number of demographic characteristics (i.e., student ethnicity, family income, and home language) impact the likelihood a student will be identified with ADHD and placed in special education. An analysis of these students’ behaviors shows these students fall into different subtypes from those typically described in clinical psychology. Finally, Study 3 (“Who is Not Placed in Special Education?”) examines students with low reading and math achievement, with and without special education placement, and describes how they differ on a number of factors. Specifically, this study analyzes a group of academically struggling students and describes their likelihood of being placed in special education in 4th grade. Results show, for students with low academic achievement, the strongest kindergarten predictor of later special education placement is their “approaches to learning” skills, and low achieving students with higher levels of these skills are less likely to be in special education. Student ethnicity, age, and gender are also shown to impact the likelihood a low achieving student is placed in special education. Taken together, these findings have important implications for early interventions for students at-risk of later special education placement. Discussions within the three studies center around the skills these early interventions could target. These kinds of interventions have the potential to not only raise the academic achievement of at-risk students, but they also have the potential to reduce disproportionate representation by race, ethnicity, and gender within special education placements. Ultimately, the findings within this dissertation can inform special education policies related to identification procedures for students with mild to moderate disabilities, like LD and ADHD