The purpose of this study was to determine if significant differences existed in principals’ perceptions of their school’s capacity to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements between principals whose schools failed to meet AYP requirements for one year compared to principals whose schools failed to meet AYP requirements for two to four consecutive years. Additionally, responses of the principals were analyzed based on the level of school, the location of the school, and if the school was or was not a Title I campus. A total of 2,040 schools met the criteria of the study and a finite population sampling method was utilized where the entire population of eligible principals was invited to participate in the study. A quantitative online survey was distributed to principals of eligible schools. A total of 183 principals responded, for a participation rate of nearly 10%. The study utilized two statistical methods for analyzing discrete data. Independent-t tests were conducted to determine if there were statistically significant differences in principals’ perceptions of their school’s capacity between principals of schools that failed to meet AYP requirements for one year, and those that failed to meet AYP requirements for two to four consecutive years. It was found that there were not statistically significant differences in principals’ perceptions of their school’s capacity. The second method of analyzing data was to conduct two-way ANOVAs to test for statistically significant differences in perceptions of principals based on level of school, type of school, and Title I status. It was found that there were not any statistically significant differences in principals’ perceptions of their school’s capacity. The absence of statistically significant differences in principals’ perceptions of their school’s capacity to meet AYP requirements regardless of the number of years the school missed the requirements, location of the school, type of school, or Title I status of the school could reasonably lead to the conclusion that capacity domains of schools fail to predict success of schools. This however, would contradict most literature that has previously been written about school capacity. Other more reasonable conclusions, as well as future research are presented in this study.

With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002) and the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004), the inclusion of students with disabilities (SWDs) in general education classrooms has become more prevalent within our public schools (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Mcleskey et al., 2010). Current research on inclusion focuses on student outcomes and procedural changes and not the contexts and capabilities of education leaders who are implementing it. Empirical research that examines how schools have built the capacity for sustaining these models, especially through the perspectives of those who implement it, is limited to date. The purpose of the current study was to examine in depth one school's capacity development during their own inclusive education reform. Specifically, this study (1) explored how school leaders perceived their own capacity in initiating and implementing inclusion reform; (2) explored how leaders perceived the school's capacity to implement inclusion and (3) explored how their capacity to implement inclusion aligned with the school capacity literature. Case study methodology was used to make meaning of the participants' individual perspectives and weave them into an integral whole. This case study sought to uncover the perspectives that school leaders (teacher leaders and administrative leaders) placed on their capacities to initiate and sustain an effective inclusive education model.

ABSTRACT Lifestyle factors related to overweight, obesity, and Type 2 diabetes are currently in the forefront of health issues affecting children and adolescents. Schools have been considered important venues for disseminating health education and promotion programs. Some investigators, however, contend that school-based programs have only seen modest success over the last two decades. Typically short-term, school-based interventions do not address program sustainability or larger social issues such as socioeconomic status (SES). A growing body of literature suggests there is value in collaborative efforts between university researchers and communities as these relationships can help build the capacity of the school and community. The Coordinated School Health Program (CSHP) model was developed as a mechanism to build the organizational capacity of schools to facilitate, integrate and sustain health education and promotion efforts to improve the health of youth in our nation. The purpose of the current study was to assess a mid-western middle school's capacity to sustain a previously implemented Type 2 diabetes prevention program. An instrumental case study design was utilized. A total of 19 interviews were conducted. Additionally, observations and documents related to school policies and procedures were reviewed. The four infrastructures of the CSHP framework were used as predetermined categories into which data were coded. This study found that there was potential for the school to sustain the Type 2 diabetes program within the framework of the CSHP Model. The school already had in place five of the eight CSHP components. The three remaining components could be implemented if several issues were addressed. First, there were many myths and misconceptions regarding the purpose and costs of a CSHP. Education for district administrators, school faculty and staff, as well as the community, would be vital. Concerns regarding personnel to implement a CSHP were expressed. A dedicated health course would also need to be implemented. When planning health related interventions that will be implemented in school-based settings researchers should seriously consider implementing a CSHP prior to employing their short-term programs. If programs can be planned with sustainability in mind, there is potential for greater health outcomes for school-aged children and adolescents.

Primary School Pupil Numbers and Demographic Change in Czech Municipalities Abstract Following a sharp fall in fertility to its historical minimum after 1990, the population of Czechia began to increase again gradually. Consequently birth cohorts of varying size are emerging and these then enter the education system. Moreover suburbanisation has led to a change in population distribution. These factors have mean that in some areas primary school capacity does not reflect the numbers of primary school age children, with some schools having insufficient places and others suffering from a lack of pupils. The aim of this dissertation is to analyse regional demographic change in Czechia after 1990, including changes in the spatial pattern of compulsory school age children (6-14 years). The information obtained is set against the changes in the spatial patterns of primary school pupils and maximum primary school capacity. The whole analysis is undertaken within the catchment regions for combined primary schools (schools that provide nine years of primary and middle school education), which were created on the basis of the shortest road distance from the district to the nearest combined primary school. Webb's graphs were used along with spatial autocorrelation since these are appropriate methods for conducting...

Teachers' perceptions of their school leaders influence student achievement in their schools. The extent of this influence is examined in this study. This quantitative study examined teachers' perceptions of the leadership style of their principals as transformational, transactional or passive-avoidant in improving and non-improving schools in relation to student achievement. The study population was a purposeful sample of 143 teachers in 16 schools in one school district. Leadership behaviors, as perceived by the teachers, were measured using the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire. Student achievement was measured with the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test results for each school using three years of results. Independent t-test, multiple regressions, and an open-ended question were used to analyze the research questions. The study found that teachers in improving and non-improving schools had minimal differences in how they perceived their principals' leadership styles. All three leadership styles were statistically significant predictors of student achievement. School status was not significant in predicting student achievement indicating no difference in student achievement between improving and non-improving schools. Transactional leadership had a negative relationship while transformational and passive-avoidant leadership style had a positive relationship with student achievement. Regression analysis of the MLQ subscales for each leadership style as perceived by the teachers and the school status with student achievement found that transformational subscale intellectual stimulation and school status had a statistically significant positive relationship with student achievement. Likewise, the transactional subscale management by exception-active was a significant predictor with student achievement but had a negative relationship. Passive avoidant style also had a positive relationship with student achievement. Teacher demographics of gender, age, years as a teacher, years at current school, and level of school (elementary, middle, high) were examined in relation to perceived leadership style and school status. Multiple regression analysis found that only years at current school that was significant in how they perceived their principal's transformational or passive avoidant leadership style. No demographic variables were significant for transactional style or school status. Overall, teachers were satisfied with the principal's leadership style and effectiveness. Teachers most often cited school culture as having an influence on student achievement in both improving and non-improving schools. Limitations of the study included self-reported teacher perceptions of principal leadership style from 16 schools in one school district which limits generalizability; no controls for teacher classroom performance and no verification of respondents actually observing principal behaviors; time of year survey was given; and, the use of one instrument to measure leadership style may not reflect the actual leadership style of the principal.