Objective

The study presented here explore the extent to which schools principals serving disadvantaged communities in Germany are able to set appropriate goals and choose suitable measures for improving their schools according to the specific challenges they face. We determine whether principals are able to identify the challenges of their schools or whether they merely follow the “universal recipes” of the school effectiveness research paradigm regardless of their particular school context. This effectiveness-driven accountability approach requires in-depth evaluation of the school and its stakeholders and might lead to a new attitude toward failure that sees it as an essential part of developing effective school improvement plans.

Theoretical framework

Successful leadership at schools serving disadvantaged communities depends heavily on the principal’s ability to identify, and his or her willingness to continually re-evaluate, the needs, interests, and challenges of their school and to develop an effective school improvement plan accordingly (Brauckmann & Boese, 2017; Harris & Chapman, 2002; Keys et al., 2003; Pashiardis et al., 2018). Following this, (in)effective leadership can be described whether it (not) succeeds to initiate successful school improvement processes (Brauckmann et al., 2019). A principal’s individual perspective on the specific needs, interests, and challenges of his or her school will shape the improvement plan that he or she designs. If that plan is inappropriate, unsustainable, and ultimately ineffective, there could be major repercussions for all stakeholders.

School improvement plans must be strategic in order to enhance the quality of education and be sustainable (Fernandez, 2011; Mintrop & MacLellan, 2002). These plans help principals reflect on the situation of their schools, identify problems, develop solutions, and initiate school improvement processes. The aim of school improvement plans is to enhance not only academic performance but also the organization and management of the school; however, simply drawing up a school improvement plan is no guarantee that it will be effective (MacGilchrist & Mortimore, 1997).

Of crucial importance here are the goals toward which these plans are directed. The quality and scope of these goals as well as the time frame for achieving them must be taken into account (Fried & Slowik, 2004; Gilliland & Landis, 1992). However, before goals can be set at all, an in-depth analysis of the situation must be conducted to identify the problems, and such an analysis must take place in a rational decision-making context (Pashiardis, 1994). Diagnosing problems is particularly challenging during the early phase of decision making: “A correct decision for the wrong issue can be disastrous and completely useless” (Pashiardis, 1994, p. 1). School failurethus can be described as the result of a possibly inappropriate decision-making process used to set inappropriate goals and to select inappropriate measures.

The extent to which principals are able to prioritize, plan, organize, and implement actions in the face of this central task and under time constraints remains unknown (Hassel & Steiner, 2003). Consequently, investigating factors that have led to these recently recognized problems can begin both within and outside the school. Such a contextual embedding of the initial situation shapes not only the school principal’s power of observation, assessment, and evaluation, but also his or her resulting decisions and actions (Brauckmann & Boese, 2017). Against the background that no linear relationship can be found between more financial resources and an increase in the schools’ effectiveness, it is becoming widely accepted that it is not the amount of additional resources but rather the use of resources that is decisive (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2011).

Methods We conducted descriptive and correlative analyses of longitudinal data as well as exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of 164 school principals. Through cross-sectional analyses we investigated the connection among challenges, goals, and measures and how they correlated with (self-reported) improvements. Data sources Sample We analyzed quantitative data gathered from surveys of school principals con-ducted for the BONUS study (Boese et al., 2018), a scientific monitoring and evalua-tion of the Berlin Bonus Program which provides financial aid to schools serving dis-advantaged communities. In the BONUS study there were three measurement points: The first was shortly after the introduction of the Bonus Program in June 2014, the second was in September 2015, and the third was in March 2017. At these three meas-urement points standardized questionnaires were administered to school principals. We conducted cross-sectional exploratory and descriptive analyses of data gathered at the first and third measurement points. Of the initial 220 school principals participat-ing in the Bonus Program at the first measurement point, N = 164 participated at the third measurement point as well and thus only their data could be used in our study. To identify the specific goals and measures of the school improvement plans of, and determine the funding given to, the schools participating in the Bonus Program we examined the official target agreements negotiated between the schools and their local authorities for each phase of funding. Instruments To illustrate the challenges faced by the schools in the Bonus Program, the principals assessed on six-point Likert scales the extent to which they felt their school was affected by various problems. The rating ranged from “1 = doesn't apply at all” to “6 = entirely true”. The majority of the items were taken from the SHaRP study (Brauckmann et al., 2014) and were complemented by a number of context-specific items concerning the special situation of schools serving disadvantaged communities in the federal state of Berlin. Furthermore, we examined the extent to which the target agreements were ful-filled during the first funding phase. According to the Berlin Senate Department, stra-tegic goals of school improvement plans are to be defined in two fields that later must be approved by the local school authorities. Furthermore, the school principals are required to formulate three sub-goals for each strategic goal, explaining how the stra-tegic goal is to be reached.

Results The main results of these exploratory and descriptive analyses indicate that alt-hough most principals saw the challenges and goals of their schools as being related mostly to one area of school improvement (i.e., instructional development), they chose measures that were better suited for managing issues in another area of school im-provement (i.e., organizational development). This exemplifies that failure of school improvement plans might be the result of choosing inappropriate goals and measures for addressing challenges. Consequently, no statistically significant correlations be-tween the challenges and self-reported improvements could be found three years after the program was introduced. Discussion Learning from failure seem to indicate that from a leadership perspective, pri-orities in school improvement plans should be aligned with school-specific goals and challenges. It should be made clear why a principal sets a particular thematic goal and which challenges should be given greater consideration. While the data only allow for partial and situational conclusions to be drawn, analysis of the school context allows more complex correlations to be revealed and thus statements to be made about the school’s particular characteristics. It is difficult to determine the extent to which the legislative requirements, which in programs such as the Bonus Program that support schools serving disadvan-taged communities, were geared towards self-initiated quality development projects, could be translated into practical action and thus actually became tangible and effec-tive. The extent to which the interaction among educational frameworks and context will lend to effective autonomous principal leadership and ultimately school im-provement remains unclear. Further investigation is needed into the knowledge and skills principals need to be able to develop and implement effective school improve-ment plans, and whether developing school principals’ leadership competencies will bring about positive change in schools serving disadvantaged communities.

Boese et al. (2018), “Supporting Schools in Challenging Circumstances in Germany: The Berlin Bonus-Program”, in Meyers, C. and Darwin, M. (Eds.), International Perspectives on Leading Low-Performing Schools, pp. 189–216. Brauckmann et al. (2019), “Schulleitungshandeln und Schulentwicklung im Kontext Neuer Steuerungskonzepte”, in Steffens, U. and Posch, P. (Eds.), Lehrerprofessionalitaet und Schulqualitaet, Waxmann Verlag, Muenster, pp. 395–414. Brauckmann, S. and Boese, S. (2017), “Picking up the pieces? …”, in Manitius, V. and Dobbelstein, P. (Eds.), Schulentwicklungsarbeit in herausfordernden Lagen, Beitraege zur Schulentwicklung, Waxmann, Muenster, 85-103. Brauckmann et al. (2014), Ergebnisbericht im Rahmen des BMBF Forschungsschwerpunkts "Steue-rung im Bildungssystem" (SteBis) gefoerderten Forschungsprojekts "Schulleitungshandeln zwi-schen erweiterten Rechten und Pflichten (SHaRP)", Berlin. Fernandez, K.E. (2011), “Evaluating School Improvement Plans and their Affect on Academic Per-formance”, Educational Policy, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 338–367. Fried, Y. and Slowik, L.H. (2004), “Enriching goal-setting theory with time: an integrated ap-proach”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 404–422. Gilliland, S.W. and Landis, R.S. (1992), “Quality and Quantatiy Goals in a Complex Decision Task: Strategies and Outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 5, pp. 672–681. Hanushek, E.A. and Woessmann, L. (2011), “The Economics of International Differences in Educa-tional Achievement”, in Hanushek, E.A., Machin, S. and Woessmann, L. (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Education, Vol. 3, Elsevier, pp. 89–200. Harris, A. and Chapman, C. (2002), “Democratic leadership for school improvement in challenging contexts”, International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, Vol. 6 No. 9. Hassel, B. and Steiner, L. (2003), Starting fresh: A new strategy for responding to chronically low performing schools, Public Impact, Chapel Hill, NC. Keys, W., Sharp, C., Greene, K. and Grayson, H. (2003), Successful Leadership of Schools in Urban and Challenging Contexts. MacGilchrist, B. and Mortimore, P. (1997), “The Impact of School Development Plans in Primary Schools”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 198–218. Mintrop, R. and MacLellan, A.M. (2002), “School improvement plans in elementary and middle schools on probation”, The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 102 No. 4, pp. 275–300. Pashiardis, P., Brauckmann, S. and Kafa, A. (2018), “Leading Low Performing Schools in Cyprus: Finding Pathways Through Internal and External Challenges”, Leading & Managing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 14–27. Pashiardis, P. (1994), Problem and Dilemma Identification and Formulation As the Most Critical Element of the Decision-Making Process: Behavioral Biases and Characteristics.