University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Practicable principal leadership in low socioeconomic elementary schools

(USC Thesis Other)

Practicable principal leadership in low socioeconomic elementary schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 1

Practicable Principal Leadership in Low Socioeconomic Elementary Schools
by
Trina N. Moore

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2019

Copyright 2019 Trina N. Moore
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 2

Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to the children who need an educational system to believe
in them and invest in their future. They will not be lost but loved and educated into their purpose.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 3

Acknowledgements
I want to give Jesus Christ the glory for the completion of this dissertation journey. I am
thankful for His strength and grace to complete this program and to make a difference in the
spiritual and educational lives of children.
To my mother, Mary Hall, you have always offered love and support in every season and
endeavor the Lord has assigned me. Thank you for being a constant source of encouragement in
my life. I am proud and honored to continue in your legacy of leadership and administration.
I would like to thank the leadership and congregation of United Christian Fellowship
Church International, Salisbury, North Carolina, for the prayers and support during this journey.
I would like to thank my Dissertation Committee Chair, Dr. Fred Frederick, and
committee members Dr. Brady and Dr. Krop for their guidance, support, and encouragement
during this dissertation process.
I am honored to have been a part of Cohort 7 of the Organizational Change and
Leadership Doctoral Program. I have grown tremendously as an educational leader because I
was surrounded by bright, innovative, and passionate cohort members. I look forward to the
tremendous impact we will make in the years to come.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 4

Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 9
Abstract 10
Introduction to Problem of Practice 11
Organizational Context and Mission 11
Importance of Addressing the Problem 12
Purpose of the Project and Questions 13
Organizational Performance Status 14
Organizational Performance Goal 14
Stakeholder Group of Focus 14
Review of the Literature 16
Elementary Literacy Achievement Gap in the Unites States 16
Socioeconomic Literacy Achievement Gap 16
Racial Achievement Gap 16
Contributing Factors to Low Literacy Performance Among Low SES Students 17
Cognitive Lags 17
Early Literacy Experiences and Exposure 18
Lack of Resources and the Faucet Theory 19
Effects of the Economic Literacy Achievement Gap 19
Short-Term Effects 19
Long-Term Effects 20
Best Practices to Improve Literacy Performance Among Low SES Students 21
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 5

School Leadership 21
Classroom Instruction 23
Parent Engagement 24
Clark and Estes’s (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Framework 26
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 26
Assumed Knowledge Assets 26
Assumed Motivation Assets 30
Assumed Organizational Assets 33
Methodological Approach and Rationale 38
Interactive Conceptual Framework 39
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation 42
Findings 43
Principal Selection 44
Knowledge Asset Findings 44
Factual Knowledge Assets 44
Conceptual Knowledge Asset 1 45
Conceptual Knowledge Assumed Asset 2 47
Motivation Assets Findings 48
Utility Value 48
Self-Efficacy 49
Organizational Asset Findings 51
Cultural Setting Asset 1 51
Cultural Setting Assumed Asset 2 56
Cultural Models Assets 1 and 2 57
Findings Summary 65
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 6

Recommendations 67
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Assets 69
Knowledge Recommendations 69
Motivation Recommendations 73
Organization Recommendations 77
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 83
Implementation and Evaluation Framework 83
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations 85
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 85
Level 3: Behavior 87
Level 2: Learning 92
Level 1: Reaction 99
Evaluation Tools 100
Data Analysis and Reporting 105
Summary 109
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 111
Limitations 111
Future Research 113
Conclusion 114
References 116
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria for Interview, Survey
and Observation 126
Appendix B: Protocols 128
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness 134
Appendix D: Ethics 136
Appendix E: Evaluation Instruments 138
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 7

List of Tables
Table 1. Literacy Proficiency Scores 12
Table 2. Assumed Principal Knowledge Assets 30
Table 3. Assumed Principal Motivation Assets 33
Table 4. Assumed Organizational Assets 37
Table 5. Principal and School Demographics 39
Table 6. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 70
Table 7. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 74
Table 8. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 79
Table 9. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 87
Table 10. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 89
Table 11. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 91
Table 12. 3-Day Principal Immersion Training 95
Table 13. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 98
Table 14. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 100
Table 15. Level 3 and 4 Principal Mentorship Training Milestones and Evaluation
Schedule 103
Table 16. Data Analysis Questions 107
Table 17. Root Cause Identification Tactics 109
Table B-1. KMO Assumed Asset Table 131
Table E-1. Level 1 and 2 Blended Evaluation Instrument 138
Table E-2. Level 2 Evaluation Instrument 140
Table E-3. Level 3 Evaluation Instrument 141
Table E-4. Level 3 and 4 Blended Evaluation Instrument First Administration 143
Table E-5. Level 3 and 4 Blended Evaluation Instrument First Administration Part 2 144
Table E-6. Level 3 and 4 Blended Evaluation Instrument Second Administration 146
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 8

Table E-7. Level 3 and 4 Blended Evaluation Instrument Second Administration Part 2 147
Table E-8. Level 4 Evaluation Instrument 149
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 9

List of Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual framework. 40
Figure 2. Data alignment process. 46
Figure 3. Instructional triangulation: Data, dialogue, and delivery. 57
Figure 4. Detailed instructional triangulation process. 60
Figure 5. Instructional triangulation cycle horizontal visual. 61
Figure 6. New World Kirkpatrick model. 84
Figure 7. School assessment and evaluation schedule. 104

PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 10

Abstract
Low literacy achievement among students of low socioeconomic status (SES) in the
United States continues to be a prevailing issue in education. Schools categorize the
socioeconomic status of enrolled students by the family income eligibility requirement to receive
free or reduced lunch (FRL) sponsored by the National School Lunch Program (2018).
According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP; 2017), the average
reading score of fourth grade students of low SES in the United States is 208. That is 30 points
below a proficiency score range beginning at 238 (NAEP, 2017). The quantitative data show
there is a 28-point literacy achievement gap between students eligible for FRL and those
ineligible (NAEP, 2017). Understanding the risk factors of the low SES student population is
key to understanding how to create school environments that foster healthy relationships,
implement effective instructional practices, and have organizational processes to adequately
service their needs academically, emotionally, and socially. Key words: low-income, poverty,
socioeconomic status, instructional triangulation, data-driven instruction.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 11

Introduction to Problem of Practice
Low literacy achievement among students of low socioeconomic status (SES) in the
United States continues to be a prevailing issue in education. Schools categorize the
socioeconomic status of enrolled students by the family income eligibility requirement to receive
free or reduced lunch (FRL) sponsored by the National School Lunch Program (2018).
According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP; 2017), the average
reading score of fourth grade students of low SES in the United States is 208. That is 30 points
below a proficiency score range beginning at 238 (NAEP, 2017). The evidence further
highlights that students ineligible for free or reduced lunch scored proficient with an average
score of 236, which is 14 points above the national average (NAEP, 2017). The quantitative data
show that there is a 28-point literacy achievement gap between students eligible for FRL and
those ineligible (NAEP, 2017). The 28-point literacy achievement gap between low and high
SES students remained the same between 2015 and 2017 (NAEP, 2017). The achievement gap
between socioeconomic statuses remains a prevalent educational problem in the United States.
Organizational Context and Mission
The organizations included in this promising practice field study were elementary schools
with a low SES student population of at least 50%. These schools had mission statements that
included a focus on improving and sustaining literacy proficiency as found in school
improvement plans. Selected schools had a minimum of 2 years of literacy growth under the
leadership of the principal interviewed. The diversity of school principals is apparent through
ethnicity, representation of both male and female leaders, and diverse school locations within the
United States. Table 1 presents the literacy proficiency scores of each school for 2 academic
years.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 12

Table 1
Literacy Proficiency Scores
School A School B School C School D
Location Northeast Northeast Southeast Southeast
SES % 76% 100% 93% 53%
Year 1 Literacy %* 45% 54% 44% 37%
Year 2 Literacy %* 53% 60% 51% 48%
Literacy Nat’l Average (NAEP, 2017) 37% 37% 37% 37%
Met/Exceeded State Growth Goal Met Exceeded Met Exceeded
*Percent of students proficient

Importance of Addressing the Problem
The prevailing problem of low academic achievement in literacy among low SES
students continues to threaten the educational success of American schools. This problem is
important to solve because 41% of American children are identified as low SES (National Center
for Children in Poverty [NCCP], 2018). Fifty percent of students enrolled in American public
schools receive free or reduced lunch (McFarland et al., 2017). The four primary risk factors
associated with poverty are emotional and social challenges, acute and chronic stressors,
cognitive lags, and health and safety issues (Jensen, 2009). These risk factors can directly and
indirectly contribute to low academic performance (Jensen, 2009). The 2017 NAEP data show
that literacy scores improved by only 1% each year since 2009 for low SES students.
Literature shows that school leadership is the most important factor in creating and
maintaining academic success (Jacobson, 2011). Principals that are culturally responsive to the
additional needs of the low SES population, along with the alignment of instruction and data, are
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 13

most likely to experience increased levels of proficiency in their schools (Jacobson, 2011;
Jacobson, Brooks, Giles, Johnson, & Ylimaki, 2007). It is vitally important that principals gain
the knowledge and experience necessary to serve in poverty schools (Jensen, 2009; Jacobson et
al., 2007).
If this problem is not addressed, the literacy gap among low and high SES students will
remain in existence. Low SES students are much less likely to achieve literacy proficiency
throughout elementary school if they are below proficiency when entering the first grade
(Norwalk, DiPerna, Lei, & Wu, 2012). Low reading abilities will impact the social, emotional,
and economic well-being of low SES students, their families, and this nation (Hughes, Stenhjem,
& Newkirk, 2007; Reardon, 2013). Understanding the risk factors of the low SES student
population is key to understanding how to create school environments that foster healthy
relationships, implement effective instructional practices, and have organizational processes to
adequately service their needs academically, emotionally, and socially.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this promising practice study was to analyze the leadership styles and
knowledge, motivational, and organizational (KMO; Clark & Estes, 2008) influences at four
poverty elementary schools that have significantly improved literacy achievement among its
student population. The goal of this study was to analyze the principal leadership style and the
strategies implemented that contributed to improved literacy achievement. This goal aligns with
the schools’ organizational mission to improve literacy proficiency by meeting or exceeding
target goals set by their respective states. Drawing from Clark and Estes’s (2008) KMO model,
this study reviewed the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational capacity that was
conclusive of increased literacy proficiency. The questions that guided this analysis were as
follows:
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 14

1. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational assets resultant of selected
elementary schools meeting or exceeding target reading goals set by their respective
states?
2. What solutions and recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources may be appropriate for solving the problem of practice at
another organization?
Organizational Performance Status
This study focused on the practicable leadership assets of principals that achieved
improved literacy proficiency among low SES student populations in their respective schools.
The schools in this study met or exceeded state literacy performance goals for the duration of the
principal’s tenure. All schools are located in states which have adopted the Common Core
Standards (Common Core, 2018).
Organizational Performance Goal
The organizational performance goal for each elementary school in this study was to
increase literacy proficiency among low SES students by meeting or exceeding target literacy
goals. This organizational goal is measured by the target literacy growth goal set by the state
educational departments. This promising practice study assessed leadership assets that
influenced literacy proficiency at selected schools.
Stakeholder Group of Focus
The stakeholder group of focus is the principal at schools selected for this study. This
study analyzed and evaluated leadership practices that effectively influenced improved literacy
proficiency among low SES students. The schools selected for this study had a low SES student
population of 50% or higher. The effects of high-quality principal leadership are essentially
important in poverty schools and is the catalyst for any necessary school transformation
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 15

(Dodman, 2014, Jacobson, 2011, Jacobson et al., 2007). The principals selected have made
tremendous differences in their respective schools despite the additional challenges and risk
factors that accompany the low SES student population.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 16

Review of the Literature
This literature review examines the effects of school leadership on literacy achievement
among elementary students of low SES. The general research of literacy underperformance
among low SES elementary students begins the discussion. The review continues with
discussing contributing factors to low literacy performance among low SES elementary students.
To conclude the general research, best practices to improve literacy performance among low SES
elementary students were reviewed. Improved literacy proficiency is inclusive of school
leadership, teacher motivation and instruction, and parent engagement. Next, the knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences of the stakeholder group of focus, school principals, are
discussed. Last, the section concludes by presenting the conceptual framework.
Elementary Literacy Achievement Gap in the Unites States
Socioeconomic Literacy Achievement Gap
When addressing literacy achievement of the low SES student population, it is important
to assess performance and the literacy achievement gap that exist between low and high SES
student populations. According to NAEP (2017), 22% of American fourth grade students of low
SES read proficiently compared to 52% of high SES students. This achievement gap remained
consistent between 2015 and 2017 (NAEP, 2017). It is important to note that ethnicities are
overwhelmingly represented in the low SES category (McFarland et al., 2017).
Racial Achievement Gap
According to the 2017 Conditions of Education report (McFarland et al., 2017) the
ethnicities that represent the largest percentage of free or reduced lunch eligibility in public
schools are Black students at 74% and Hispanic students at 73%. Native American and Pacific
Islanders represent 67% and 60% respectively. White students represent 30% of the FRL
eligibility, followed by Asian students at 36% (McFarland et al., 2017).
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 17

According to NAEP (2017), only 20% of Black and Native American students tested
scored at or above proficiency in reading. Twenty-three percent of Hispanic students scored at
or above proficiency in reading. White students follow with 47% at or above reading
proficiency. Pacific Islanders and Asian students scored the highest with 56% and 59% at or
above proficiency respectively. There is a correlation between income and reading proficiency
with Black and Hispanic students at the greatest risk of low literacy achievement. It is important
for principals to be knowledgeable of both SES and racial statistics to create culturally
responsive learning environments that respond to the social and emotional needs of students
(Jones & Bouffard, 2012).
Contributing Factors to Low Literacy Performance Among Low SES Students
Cognitive Lags
According to Jensen (2009), the four main risk factors of poverty are emotional and
social challenges, acute and chronic stressors, cognitive lag, and health and safety issues. In this
discussion of contributing factors to low literacy performance among low SES students,
cognitive lags directly affect reading abilities (Jensen, 2009). Cognitive ability can be measured
in various ways and is affected by many factors including socioeconomic status. SES has a
strong association with cognitive ability indicators such as IQ, rates of grade retention,
achievement tests, and literacy (Baydar, Brooks-Gunn, & Furstenberg, 1993; Brooks-Gunn, Guo,
& Furstenberg, 1993; Liaw & Brooks-Gunn, 1994; Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997). There is a
substantial cognitive performance gap between low and high SES students that is evident from
infancy through adolescence and into adulthood (Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst, Guerin, &
Parramore, 2003).
To perform in school, the brain uses combined operating systems to pay attention,
process and sequence content, persist in assigned work, and think critically (Jensen, 2009).
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 18

According to research, these brain operating systems are lower functioning in low SES students
compared to high SES students (Jensen, 2009) explaining the association between language and
SES. The language processing region of the brain undergoes a longer period of development
than any other neural region, therefore, making the language system more susceptible to changes
within the environment (Noble, Norman, & Farah, 2005; Sowell et al., 2003). The language
system of a low SES student may become underdeveloped contingent upon the poverty risk
factors in the environment (Jensen, 2009).
Reading is one of the most important factors that affects a child’s developing brain
(Jensen, 2009). Reading skills are not hardwired into the brain and every subskill of reading
must be taught (Jensen, 2009). A growing human brain needs, “…coherent, novel, challenging
input, or it will scale back its growth trajectory (Jensen, 2009, p. 37).” The literature suggests
that poverty can adversely affect the developing reading brain (Noble, Wolmetz, Ochs, Farah, &
McCandliss, 2006). Children that have exposure to educational resources in their early years,
and parents or caregivers that use a wide variety of words and engagement of critical thinking
skills are more cognitively developed in language than children who lack access to such
resources (Jensen 2009; Jensen 2013; Neuman, 2013). The important factor regarding the brain
is that it is designed to change based upon the environment. A second contributing factor to low
literacy achievement among low SES students is early literacy experiences and exposure.
Early Literacy Experiences and Exposure
There are noticeable differences to early literacy exposure among low and high SES
children. Children are exposed to literacy through experiences and observations occurring in
their everyday lives (Neuman, 2013). Early exposure to literacy includes exposure to print books
and learning the spelling-to-sound code (Neuman, 2013). Low SES children typically have a
smaller vocabulary than their high SES counterparts (Jensen, 2013). Low SES children hear 13
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 19

million words by age 4, middle class children 26 million, and upper-class children 46 million
(Jensen, 2013). Vocabulary aides in learning, memory, and cognition (Jensen, 2013). If low SES
students have a smaller knowledge base of word recognition and meaning, they are less likely to
understand words used by the teacher or that appear in reading materials, therefore, contributing
to low self-efficacy and lack of instructional engagement (Jensen, 2013).
Lack of Resources and the Faucet Theory
Low SES families have fewer resources to invest in their child’s development education
compared to high SES families (Lacour & Tissington, 2011; Reardon, 2013). Low SES families
have limited access to culturally and intellectually stimulating activities during nonacademic
months (Burney & Beilke, 2008). Research concludes that the achievement gap does not widen
during the school calendar year (Quinn, Cooc, McIntyre, & Gomez, 2016). Students of varied
socioeconomic groups and ethnicities make academic gains at the same rates during the
academic school year and is commonly referred to as the “faucet theory” (Quinn et al., 2016).
During the school year the academic resources are turned on and during the summer months the
resources are turned off (Quinn et al., 2016). It is during the summer months that noticeable
gaps are likely to appear (Quinn, 2015). Students of higher SES are more likely to continue
making gains during the summer while students of lower SES become stagnant or experience
some amount of academic loss (National Center on Afterschool and Summer Enrichment, 2016).
Contributing factors of low literacy performance among low SES students can have both short-
term and long-term effects on students, families, communities, and nations.
Effects of the Economic Literacy Achievement Gap
Short-Term Effects
The literature supports that the effects of the economic literacy gap negatively impact
literacy performance and self-efficacy of low SES children. If the economic achievement gap is
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 20

sustained, low SES students will continue to perform below proficiency (NAEP, 2017). Low
literacy performance can lead to poor self-efficacy regarding academic performance and overall
self-perception (Chapman, Tunmer, & Proch, 2000; Morgan & Fuchs, 2007). Poor literacy skills
negatively impact instructional engagement (Jensen, 2013; Morgan & Fuchs, 2007). If students
cannot understand instructional content, they will not be motivated to engage in instructional
activities (Jensen, 2013). These short-term effects produce self-perpetuating achievement gaps
as low SES students develop a belief that low literacy achievement is the accepted norm,
therefore, the effort to engage is minimal or nonexistent (Jensen, 2013). The short-term effects
of the economic literacy gap produce long-term effects that not only negatively impact low SES
students, but American society.
Long-Term Effects
The long-term effects of the economic literacy achievement gap have a greater impact on
the economic and educational sectors of American society. Low SES students with below
proficiency reading skills are at greater risk of dropping out of high school (Hernandez, 2011).
One in six students that do not read proficiently by the third grade are very likely not to graduate
on time or drop out (Hernandez, 2011). Students that live in poverty for at least 1 year and do
not read proficiently are likely to drop out of school (Hernandez, 2011). High school drop outs
earn significantly less than high school graduates (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017). The
literature suggests that there is correlational evidence that students that read at or above grade
level in the third-grade graduate and attend postsecondary institutions at higher rates than those
that were below grade level in reading in the third grade (Lesnick, Goerge, Smithgall, &
Gwynne, 2010). Low literacy in secondary education can significantly hinder a student’s
chances of college acceptance and graduating with a postsecondary degree as they are not
deemed college ready (Greene & Forster, 2003). A poor educational foundation for low SES
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 21

students diminishes earnings and higher earning job prospects (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017;
McFarland et al., 2017; Hernandez, 2011). According to Reardon (2013, p.10), “If we do not
find ways to reduce the growing inequality in education outcomes—between rich and the poor—
schools will no longer be the great equalizer we want them to be”.
Best Practices to Improve Literacy Performance Among Low SES Students
School Leadership
Leadership is defined as the ability to mobilize, enlist, and motivate others to use their
abilities and resources to further an organizational cause or mission (Eyal & Roth, 2011).
Principals in low performing, high poverty schools are required to be transformational agents.
Transformational leadership motivates and inspires individuals to exceed their expectations of
performance capacity and motivates stakeholders to both identify with the leader in the
development of collective organizational goals and mission (Eyal & Roth, 2011; Robinson,
Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). Transformational leadership has the greatest influence on teacher
motivation when the principal develops a clear vision, framed school goals, share instructional
leadership, and gained staff consensus on desired outcomes (Eyal & Roth, 2011; Marks & Printy,
2003).
The role of a principal is to ensure that all students entrusted to their care are progressing
academically (Ubben, Hughes, & Norris, 2007). Therefore, it is the responsibility of the
principal to create a culture that fosters learning (Blankstein, 2004; Carter, 2000; Ubben et al.,
2007). Principal leadership is the catalyst for an entire school transformation (Dodman, 2014;
Finnigan, 2012). School leadership affects student outcomes indirectly by creating conditions
that support teachers’ ability to teach and students’ learning (Eyal & Roth, 2011, Finnigan,
2012). According to Leithwood, Harris, and Hopkins (2008), “Leadership acts as a catalyst
without which other good things are quite unlikely to happen (p. 28)”. Though teacher quality
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 22

has the greatest direct influence on student motivation and achievement, the quality and
effectiveness of the principal can impact the motivation of teachers and their quality of teaching
(Finnigan, 2012). These effects of high-quality leadership are vitally important in poverty
schools (Finnigan, 2010; Jacobson, 2011). This promising practice study focus on high-quality
leadership that influences improved academic achievement.
Schools that have high enrollment of low SES students must have a culture and
expectation that inclusively considers and addresses all risk factors of poverty such as poor
nutrition, the effects of chronic and acute stressors, crime, high transience and absenteeism, and a
host of other risk factors (Jacobson, 2011; Jensen, 2009). The literature supports that principals
in poverty schools tend to possess passion and ambition to make a difference, believe that all
children can learn and deserve an equitable chance to do so (Jacobson, 2011). These principals
have an enthusiasm that is both optimistic and persistent (Jacobson, 2011). Their passion,
enthusiasm, and ambition give birth to leadership practices that creates a culture of high
academic achievement.
Effective leadership practices in high poverty schools. Principals successfully leading
in poverty schools possess passion, persistence, and commitment to improving the life chances
of poverty students (Eyal & Roth, 2011, Jacobson, 2011). These principals are committed to
doing whatever it takes to make sure students learn (Scherer, 2010). Along with their
commitment, the literature supports common practices among principals in high poverty schools
that positively impact student achievement in literacy as well as other academic subjects. A
common practice is to establish a safe and nurturing environment for all school and community
stakeholders, as well as a nurturing and rigorous learning environment for students (Jacobson,
2011; Jacobson et al., 2007; Komro, Flay, Biglan, & PNRC, 2011). Second, principals set high
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 23

expectations for student performance (Carter, 2000; Jacobson et al., 2007) and hold all
stakeholder accountable for meeting set expectations (Carter, 2000; Jacobson et al., 2007).
Third, principals model expected behavior and practices (Jacobson, 2011). Fourth, school
improvement is combined with greater parent engagement and community resources to alleviate
the effects of poverty (Blankstein, 2004; Carter, 2000; Scherer, 2010). Fifth, capacity is
developed for rigorous learning and leading (Dodman, 2014). Sixth, an urgent common goal is
established that aligns with the vision and mission of the school and supports academic
improvement (Blankstein, 2004; Carter, 2000; Dodman, 2014). Seventh, principals adopt
processes and procedures that support and enhance instructional goals (Bambrick-Santoyo,
2012). And last, principals build capacity for instruction to be driven by data (Bambrick-
Santoyo, 2010; Blankstein, 2004; Carter, 2000). These practices lend themselves to influence
the instructional culture and implementation of high-quality instruction.
Classroom Instruction
Teacher motivation. The literature supports that high-quality leadership influences
teacher motivation, thus impacting student achievement (Jacobson, 2011). According to Eyal
and Roth (2011), leadership has the greatest influence on teacher motivation when the principal
develops a clear vision, framed school goals, and gained staff consensus on desired outcomes.
The aforementioned leadership dimensions were found to directly influence teachers’
amount of motivation (Eyal & Roth, 2011; Finnigan, 2010). Teacher quality has the greatest
direct influence on student motivation and achievement (Finnigan, 2010; Jacobson, 2011).
Therefore, it is vitally important that principals create learning environments in which teachers
are motivated to teach, have safe environments in which they can grow, and have opportunities
to collaborate and innovate (Eyal & Roth, 2011).
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 24

High quality instruction. When principals create environments of structure, support,
and learning for teachers it can positively impact student learning (Eyal & Roth, 2011). Students
of low SES can often experience academic incompetence due to ineffective teaching practices. It
is also common for poverty schools to have high rates of teacher turnover, as well as
inexperienced teachers (National Center for Education Evaluation, 2016; Scafidi, Sjoquist, &
Stinebrickner, 2007). Low SES students can have a wide range of literacy deficiencies that vary
among schools. It is the responsibility of each school to accurately interpret the data to
determine the curriculum and instructional strategies best suited for reading improvement.
However, literature supports that highly qualified teachers positively impact student achievement
(Jacobson, 2011). In regard to literacy, the literature presents the recommendation that higher-
level teaching practices and assessment of student learning result in higher literacy achievement
(Bitter, O’Day, Gubbins, & Socias, 2009). Literacy instruction that focuses on students creating
meaning from text, accountable talk, and writing instruction have shown to increase literacy
proficiency (Bitter et al., 2009). Literacy instruction that also focuses on questions and
discussions, and engagement of culturally relevant text selection related to higher level meaning
can also increase literacy proficiency (Bitter et al., 2009; Piazza & Duncan, 2012). In addition to
effective teaching practices, research also supports that consistent and healthy relationships with
adults both inside and outside of school help to increase student achievement (Cedeño, Martínez-
Arias, & Bueno, 2016). The next section discusses the impact parental engagement can have on
reading achievement.
Parent Engagement
Parental expectation of student academic achievement can have significant impact on
academic achievement (Borman, Benson, & Overman, 2005). Higher parental expectations are
positively related to academic achievement and confidence in academic performance (Mraz &
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 25

Rasinski, 2007). Parents placing high importance on literacy in the home have been identified as
a contributor of student reading success and achievement (Mraz & Rasinski, 2007). Milne and
Plourde (2006) conducted research identifying six second-grade students from low-income
households in which high academic achievement was evident. It was found that the parents
provided educational materials, structured reading and study time was implemented and engaged
by parents, television viewing was limited, and the importance of education was emphasized.
Research concludes that the factors of poverty that negatively affect academic achievement can
be adverted by effectively educating parents regarding the essential educational needs of students
(Jensen, 2009).
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 26

Clark and Estes’s (2008) Knowledge, Motivation
and Organizational Influences Framework
This section analyzed the assumed knowledge, motivational, and organizational assets
which resulted in increased literacy achievement for the selected schools. First, there is an
analysis of the 3 knowledge assets, 1 which is factual and 2 that are conceptual. Next, the
motivational assets of utility value and self-efficacy are analyzed in relation to their influence in
improved reading achievement. Last, two assets for both cultural settings and cultural models
are analyzed in relation to their influence of improved reading proficiency.
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Assumed Knowledge Assets
Knowledge and skills are essential to job performance. When job responsibilities and
expectations change, it is essential that individuals acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to
perform the assigned job. According to Clark and Estes (2008), knowledge and skill
enhancements are required when people do not know how to perform assigned job duties and
when the anticipation of future challenges require specific knowledge and problem-solving
skills. When addressing knowledge gaps, there are four knowledge types to consider (Rueda,
2011). These knowledge types are factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Rueda,
2011). Factual knowledge is basic knowledge of facts pertaining to specific discipline or domain
(Rueda, 2011). Conceptual knowledge is the knowledge of categories, concepts and principles
associated with a particular area (Rueda, 2011). Procedural knowledge is the knowledge of how
to perform a particular task or function (Rueda, 2011). Metacognitive knowledge is knowledge
of one’s cognitive process (Rueda, 2011). The knowledge and skills of focus in this promising
practice study are factual and conceptual. To better understand the leadership assets of
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 27

elementary principals leading poverty schools with increased literacy achievement, the
knowledge section discusses the factual and conceptual assumed principal knowledge assets.
Factual knowledge of stakeholder. The first assumed knowledge asset principals must
have is the literacy standards and strands in which students scored below proficient. This factual
knowledge is pertinent to creating an instructional plan that accurately addresses reading
deficiencies. Clark and Estes (2008), identify knowledge influence as necessary information to
aid individuals to perform job duties. Knowledge of low performance reading strands will
properly guide the daily instructional process. In the research conducted by Piazza and Duncan
(2012), a case study was examined of African–American students experiencing sociocultural
challenges enrolled in an after-school literacy program for below proficiency readers. Based
upon teacher input, grades, and literacy performance data, content was organized and delivered
to address specific reading deficiencies (Piazza & Duncan, 2012). After a 1-year study, the most
successful strategies that improved literacy performance were culturally relevant text, motivation
and engagement, and positive relationships (Piazza & Duncan, 2012). Factual knowledge of
literacy performance should influence instruction resulting in a direct positive impact on literacy
achievement (Piazza & Duncan, 2012). The student performance literacy data guide
instructional planning and implementation.
Conceptual knowledge construct 1. The second assumed knowledge asset principals
have that influences literacy achievement in their schools is knowledge of effective reading
instructional strategies and techniques. Krathwohl (2002) defines conceptual knowledge as
complex organized forms of knowledge. Teaching pedagogy should directly impact student
literacy achievement. Higher-level questioning and discussion about the text by teachers can
increase literacy comprehension and performance (Bitter et al., 2009). Growth in reading
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 28

comprehension can be associated with teacher practices of higher-level meaning of text, writing
instruction, and strategies of accountable discussion (Bitter et al., 2009). The literature also
presents the recommendation that higher-level teaching practices along with assessment of
student learning results in higher literacy achievement (Bitter et al., 2009). Higher-level teaching
practices include incorporating effective literacy practices and engagement of culturally relevant
text selection (Piazza & Duncan, 2012). In addition to effective teaching practices, research also
supports that consistent and healthy relationships with adults both inside and outside of school
help to increase student achievement among students of low SES (Cedeño et al., 2016; Hughes &
Kwok, 2007). This conceptual knowledge asset equips the principal to be an effective
instructional leader to guide the implementation process of reading instructional strategies that
directly address literacy deficiency problems.
Conceptual knowledge construct 2. The third assumed knowledge asset is knowledge
of the educational culture in the home. Parental expectation and participation of student
academic achievement can also have significant impact on summer achievement growth
(Borman et al., 2005). The measure of parental expectation in the Baltimore School Study (BSS)
of 300 students in high poverty schools showed that parents of low SES had lower expectations
of their children’s academic achievement (Borman et al., 2005). Parent expectations were
correlated with reading test results and reading instructional levels (Borman et al., 2005). Higher
parental expectations are positively related to academic achievement and confidence in academic
performance (Mraz & Rasinski, 2007). Parents placing high importance on literacy in the home
have been identified as a contributor of their children’s reading success and achievement (Mraz
& Rasinski, 2007). Conceptual knowledge construct 2 assesses how principals engage with
parents regarding their support for literacy in the home with their children.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 29

Table 2 lists the assumed principal knowledge assets inclusive of the organizational
mission and global goal. The table concisely communicates the specific actions taken to acquire
the necessary knowledge components to successfully meet the organizational performance goal.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 30

Table 2
Assumed Principal Knowledge Assets
Organizational Mission
The organizational mission of schools in this promising practice study is to increase literacy performance among
low socioeconomic status students in the elementary grades.
Organizational Global Goal
The global goal of this promising practice is to improve literacy performance among low socioeconomic status
students in grades 3 through 5.
Assumed Knowledge Asset Knowledge Type
Assumed Knowledge Asset
Assessment
Principals know the literacy standards and strands
students show below proficiency scores.
Factual Summative State Reading
Assessment Scores
Principals know effective reading instructional
strategies and techniques.
Conceptual Principal Interview
Principals know the educational culture in the home. Conceptual Principal Interview

Assumed Motivation Assets
According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation is the element of mental attitude that
helps to start a task, maintain persistence in the midst of obstacles, and determines how much
effort to attribute to certain task. Motivation revolves around three facets of performance: active
choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivation will be critically
important to assist students to become proficient readers. From the student perspective,
motivation is essential to engage in instructional activities and put forth the necessary mental
effort. From an organizational perspective, principals need to possess the ability to motivate
teachers to provide instruction that is properly aligned to data to improve student performance.
Teachers need to possess the ability to motivate students to actively engage in the instructional
activities necessary for proficient performance. For this section, self-efficacy and utility value
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 31

are the assumed motivational assets discussed. To best understand the assets in the context of
school leadership, the literature discussion includes the assumed motivation assets regarding
instructional best practices, the acknowledgement of emotional awareness, and the role emotions
attribute to academic achievement.
Utility value theory. Utility value focuses on the benefits of getting a job done rather
than the level of interest or discomfort (Clark & Estes, 2008). The utility motivational principle
is that the higher an individual values a task, it is more likely they will choose, persist, and
engage (Rueda, 2011). It is essential that principals gain the value of developing effective
reading instructional strategies and techniques. When educators value their role in positively
impacting student achievement, it is likely they will motivate their students by making utility
value connections with instructional delivery (Hulleman, Kosovich, Barron, & Daniel, 2017).
Hulleman, Kosovich, Barron, and Daniel (2017) identify educators making value connections
with curriculum as utility value interventions. Utility value interventions make the connection
between the curriculum taught and how it impacts the student in real-life situations (Hulleman et
al., 2017). Utility value causes the student to attain value for learning resulting in an investment
of effort to master instructional content (Hulleman et al., 2017). These utility value interventions
proved effective with low performing students warranting higher test scores (Hulleman et al.,
2017). In addition to educational utility value, principals have value of the sociocultural effects
of poverty that can adversely affect the academic achievement of low SES students (Hughes et
al., 2007).
Self-Efficacy theory. Self-efficacy is the belief that a person holds about their ability to
perform a task (Bandura, 1997). Positive self-efficacy can attribute to a positive self-image and
motivation to set and achieve established goals in a particular area (Rueda, 2011). It is essential
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 32

that principals demonstrate high self-efficacy in their ability as the instructional leader to
influence improved reading proficiency. It is also important to understand that emotions
accompany both positive and negative self-efficacy images (Pekrun, 2011). The emotional
connection to self-efficacy can positively or negatively impact leading, teaching, and learning
(Pekrun, 2011). The interview protocol asks principals to share how they engage in professional
development to further develop their leadership and instructional assets. The principals are also
asked to describe their leadership style in relation to the instructional goals set forth for their
designated schools.
It is assumed by the researcher that principals possess the belief that teacher learning and
growth is essential to literacy achievement. It is also assumed that principals have the skill set to
coach teachers in the area of instructional best practices to assist students in becoming proficient
in reading. Knowledge and application of the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Armstrong, 2018)
will greatly assist staff with the development and implementation of higher level reading
instruction (Krathwohl, 2002). Therefore, it is assumed that the interview protocol will confirm
high self-efficacy levels of participating principals.
Table 3 list the assumed motivation assets inclusive of the organizational mission and
global goal. The table concisely communicates the specific actions taken to acquire the
necessary motivation components to successfully meet the organizational performance goal.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 33

Table 3
Assumed Principal Motivation Assets
Organizational Mission
The organizational mission of schools in this promising practice study is to increase literacy performance among
low socioeconomic status students in the elementary grades.
Organizational Global Goal
The global goal of this promising practice is to improve literacy performance among low socioeconomic status
students in grades 3 through 5.
Motivational Indicator(s)
Increased Reading Proficiency
Assumed Motivation Assets
Assumed Motivational Asset
Assessment
Utility Value
Principals have the value of becoming knowledgeable of effective reading
instructional strategies.
Principal Interview
Self-Efficacy
Principals have the belief and skill set to assist students to become proficient
in reading.
Principal Interview

Assumed Organizational Assets
Before discussing assumed organizational influences in poverty schools, it is vital and
necessary to define culture. According to Schein (2017), culture is the shared learning of an
accumulation of beliefs, behavioral norms, and values. The culture of an organization can be
analyzed based upon the models and settings established (Schein, 2017). Within a school,
cultural models are the structural setting that includes values, policies, and practices (Rueda,
2011). Cultural settings provide the structural stability of an organization (Schein, 2017).
Organizational policies and procedures are enacted through cultural settings (Rueda, 2011).
They identify the who, what, where, when, why, and how of the daily routines of an organization
(Rueda, 2011).
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 34

Assumed cultural setting asset 1.
School processes and procedures. In the first assumed cultural setting, it is assumed that
the promising practice schools have structured processes and procedures that attribute to the
instructional goal of meeting or exceeding target reading growth goals. According to Rueda
(2011), processes and procedures identify the who, what, where, when, why, and how of the
daily routines of a school. Effective school cultures are developed when the vision of a school is
developed into minute-by-minute routines (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2012). These routines make the
school vision a reality (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2012). When routines are aligned with the school
vision, practiced, and consistently evaluated it solidifies the culture each day of the school year
(Bambrick-Santoyo, 2012). By developing solid daily routines, habits are developed among the
students and staff that enhance the instructional time, therefore, producing learning. Ultimately,
it is assumed that structured processes and procedures will result in reading proficiency growth.
Assumed cultural setting asset 2.
Triangulation: Assessment, instruction, and curriculum. The second assumed cultural
setting asset that the promising practice schools have is effective triangulation of assessment,
instruction, and curriculum. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2018),
triangulation is the alignment and interaction of at least three elements or theories. Literature
supports that the alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment can improve test scores
and overall learning of the mandated objectives (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2010; Slavin, Cheung,
Holmes, Madden, & Chamberlain, 2013). The curriculum is established by state standards.
Instruction should then be rigorously aligned to the state curriculum standards. All student
assessments should be aligned to instruction which is aligned to the state standards. Assessment
is inclusive of informal and formal teacher and student learning assessment measures. Student
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 35

informal assessments consist of assessments at the end of lessons and units. Informal teacher
assessments consist of walk-through evaluations, as well as planning and debriefing sessions.
Formal student assessments include district, state and national literacy assessments. Formal
teacher assessments include midyear and summative evaluations. Assessment in the
triangulation process also includes data assessment which occurs daily for each standard. There
is dedicated time built into the instructional day for teachers, curriculum coaches, and principals
to strategically assess data and make the necessary changes. Data assessment is also conducted
with formal state testing results.
Assumed cultural model asset 1.
Staff engagement in the instructional development and processes. The learning
equation encompasses content to be taught and how students learn, therefore, what makes
learning effective is how teachers best help their students learn, most commonly known as the
science of learning (Rueda, 2011). Schools that have achieved improved literacy performance
provide dedicated time during the instructional day to engage teachers in the instructional
development and processes. This dedicated time provides an opportunity for teachers and
instructional leaders to communicate and collaborate regarding curriculum, instruction, and
assessment.
Assumed cultural model asset 2.
Instructional coaching and development. Instructional coaching can improve teacher
practice (Tschannen-Moran & Tschannen-Moran, 2011). The schools in this study are assumed
to have the organizational asset that they have created a safe environment that encourages
teachers to develop and enhance instructional skills through formative assessment. Formative
assessment is the form of assessment that is not tied to scores or rubrics but is utilized solely for
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 36

adjustment and improvement (Heritage, 2010). This safe environment for teachers provides
informal observations and coaching that allow for the teacher to learn and grow in instructional
best practices and is crucial to improving and sustaining literacy instruction and proficiency.
This cultural model provides a protected place for teachers to communicate concepts in which
they may be experiencing some challenges, as well as provides a nonintimidating environment in
which teachers can be coached with nonpunitive feedback. Research supports that coaching can
best improve instructional practice when it is teacher centered, strength based, and separate from
the formal evaluation process (Tschannen-Moran & Tschannen-Moran, 2011). Table 4 provides
an explanation of the assumed organizational assets for the organizational section of this
discussion.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 37

Table 4
Assumed Organizational Assets
Organizational Global Goal
The organizational mission of schools in this promising practice study is to increase literacy performance among
low socioeconomic status students in the elementary grades.
Assumed
Organizational
Assets
Assumed
Organizational Asset
Assessment
Research-Based
Recommendation
Proposed
Asset
Recommendation
Cultural Settings
The organization
has structured
school processes
and procedures.
Principal Interview According to Rueda (2011),
processes and procedures
identify the who, what,
where, when, why, and how
of the daily routines of a
school.
It is recommended that
principals work with faculty to
develop school processes and
procedures that support the
school vision, school culture,
and instructional improvement
goals.
Cultural Settings
The organization
has instructional
triangulation:
assessment,
instruction, and
curriculum.
Principal Interview Literature supports that the
alignment of content
standards, instruction, and
assessment can improve test
scores and overall learning of
the mandated objectives
(Bambrick-Santoyo, 2010;
Slavin, Cheung, Holmes,
Madden, & Chamberlain,
2013).
It is recommended that
principals engage in
instructional triangulation by
analyzing student performance
data to develop instructional
goals coupled with the
appropriate instructional
actions aimed at closing
literacy achievement gaps.
Cultural Models
The organization
prioritizes staff
engagement in the
instructional plan.
Principal Interview Teacher quality has the
greatest direct influence on
student motivation and
achievement (Finnigan,
2012).
It is recommended that
principals engage teachers in
the instructional planning
process through creating
opportunities for input, data
assessment, and
implementation in the
classroom.
Cultural Models
The organization
supports a learning
environment for
teachers to develop
and enhance
instructional
practices.
Principal Interview Research supports that
coaching can best improve
instructional practice when it
is teacher centered, strength
based, and separate from the
formal evaluation process
(Tschannen-Moran &
Tschannen-Moran, 2011).
It is recommended that
principals provide a learning
environment for teacher growth
and development through
relevant professional
development, professional
learning communities, and peer
mentoring and coaching.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 38

Methodological Approach and Rationale
The research design for the methodological approach of this promising practice study
examines the assumed KMO assets (qualitative data) that achieved an increase in literacy
achievement in the poverty schools selected for this study. This examination required the
qualitative model of research (Creswell, 2014). In this data review phase, the KMO stakeholder
influences on literacy achievement were reviewed. The stakeholder of focus is the principal of
each selected school. Therefore, the principals’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that increased literacy achievement were the focus of this study.
Documents, such as test scores, are a ready-made source of data that can analyzed in a
physical or online setting (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Test score data have been analyzed to
validate the participation of each principal. Documents are a ready-made source of data that can
be analyzed in a physical or online setting and are important sources of data in qualitative
research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Principal stakeholders have been validated prior to the
beginning of this study. Standardized reading test scores have been analyzed by the researcher
prior to conducting interviews. In all states, public school test data and socioeconomic
enrollment percentages are deemed as public information. The researcher was able to analyze
test score data on state department websites. These documents have been used to analyze
reading growth and to verify if schools met or exceeded target reading goals in relation to the
KMO framework.
The principals for this promising practice were selected using purposeful unique
sampling. Purposeful sampling is a form of sampling in which the researcher chooses samples
specific to the needs of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The principals were contacted by
the researcher.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 39

Eight principals were initially contacted. Four principals responded and agreed to
participate in a 1-hour semistructured interview. Pseudonyms are utilized to identify principals
and their respective schools. Table 5 presents the demographic information, as well as reading
score data for each principal participant.
Table 5
Principal and School Demographics
Principal
Pseudonym Ethnicity/Sex Age Degrees
Years in Classroom,
Level, and Subject
Years in
Principal
Leadership
Years at
School of
Study
Principal A White Female 40s BA/Master-
Education
PhD-Educational
Psychology
10-K12-History

6-Collegiate-
Educational
Psychology
5 5
Principal B Black Male 40s BA/Master-
Education
6-Elementary
Education
10 2
Principal C White Female 50s BS-Physical
Education
Master-
Education and
Administration
9-K-12-Physical
Education
20 8
Principal D White Male 40s BA-Psychology
and Education
Master-
Administration
8-Kindergarten 6 6

Interactive Conceptual Framework
The purpose of a conceptual framework is to provide structure in the explanation of the
study of the problem of practice (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). It is the assumptions, beliefs, and
interworking of concepts and theories that support and inform the research (Maxwell, 2013).
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 40

While each of the KMO assets have been presented independently, they do not remain isolative
from each other. Figure 1 displays the assumed KMO assets independently and how they
interact to achieve the global goal.

The research problem of practice for this dissertation study was to explore the leadership
assets of principals in poverty schools that have successfully achieved an increase in literacy
proficiency among low socioeconomic status (SES) students. The research problem of practice
reflects the KMO conceptual framework and guides the in-depth study of the research problem
of practice, data collection, and interpretation of findings.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 41

The problem of practice focused on the global goal of improving literacy proficiency of
low SES students in poverty schools. To achieve the improved literacy proficiency goal, it is
important to first address the relationship between the knowledge and motivational influences as
depicted in Model 2. Clark and Estes (2008) identify knowledge as necessary information to aid
individuals to perform job duties. According to Eyal and Roth (2011), vision building can create
the greatest capacity to influence motivation. Vision building provides clear goals for all
stakeholders (Eyal & Roth, 2011). Therefore, stakeholders must be knowledgeable of goals
associated with the vision building process and how to best achieve them (Eyal & Roth, 2011).
Goals aligned to data can provide clear and realistic direction to accomplishment (Eyal & Roth,
2011). The global goal of this study required principals to be proficient in the knowledge assets
identified for this promising practice study. The knowledge gaps identified by student
performance data coupled with the assumed knowledge influences can provide principals the
motivation necessary to engage in effective vision building and improved literacy performance.
Motivation revolves around active choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes,
2008). Knowledge of literacy standards, strategies, and home culture can produce utility value
and high self-efficacy to guide principals in the determination of daily routines for aligned
rigorous instruction. This transformational leadership trait in return motivates teachers,
therefore, coupled with instructional alignment produces student learning (Eyal & Roth, 2011).
Motivation is the element of mental attitude that helps to start a task, maintain persistence in the
midst of obstacles, and determines how much effort to attribute to certain tasks (Clark & Estes,
2008). These motivational elements aid the principal in providing consistent and effective
instructional leadership along with maintaining instructional accountability. The aforementioned
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 42

assumed knowledge assets, along with utility value and high self-efficacy provide a strong
foundation for the interaction and implementation of cultural settings and models.
Cultural settings provide the structural stability of an organization (Schein, 2017). They
identify the who, what, where, when, why, and how of the daily routines of an organization
(Rueda, 2011). Principals that have improved literacy proficiency among low SES students in
have organizational practices that contribute to and protect daily instructional time. The
knowledge gaps determined by student performance data also help to determine daily routines
within the instructional school day. Cultural models are the structural settings that include
values, policies, and practices (Rueda, 2011). The cultural settings listed in Model 1 provide
structure for the cultural models that prioritize staff engagement in the instructional planning and
assessment process, as well as instructional coaching. Therefore, the global goal is accomplished
when all KMO assets appropriately interact and are effectively implemented.
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
This qualitative promising practice study utilized the interview data collection methods.
Data interpreted through words are deemed as qualitative (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Therefore,
it is most appropriate to use interviews to best collect such qualitative data (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The interview data collection examined the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO framework in
relation to each poverty school meeting or exceeding target goals in reading. The interview data
collection method examined the solutions and recommendations in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources and what may be appropriate for solving a similar
problem of practice at another educational organization.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 43

Findings
The purpose of this promising practice study was to analyze the leadership styles and
knowledge, motivational, and organizational (KMO; Clark & Estes, 2008) assets at four
elementary schools that have improved literacy proficiency for 2 consecutive years among low
SES student population of 50% or higher. The goal of this project was to analyze the principal
leadership styles and the strategies implemented that contributed to improved literacy
proficiency. This goal aligned with the organizational mission to improve literacy proficiency by
meeting or exceeding target goals set by the states in which the participating schools reside.
Drawing from the Clark and Estes’s (2008) KMO model, this study reviewed the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational capacity that was conclusive of increased literacy
proficiency. The questions that guided this analysis are as follows:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational assets resultant of elementary
schools meeting or exceeding target reading goals set by their respective states?
2. What solutions and recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources may be appropriate for solving the problem of practice at
another organization?
The findings of this study were gathered from interviews conducted with four elementary
school principals. Document analysis of reading test score data was conducted prior to the
interviews to lend to the development of the research questions. Pseudonyms were used to
identify the principals and the locations of their schools in the United States. The pseudonyms
and locations are as follows: Principal A, Northeast; Principal B, Northeast; Principal C,
Southeast; Principal D, Southeast.
The principals shared knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets, as well as
perspectives and experiences that were resultant of reading proficiency growth in their schools.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 44

The data were collected through semistructured interviews, the primary source of data collection.
These principals have demonstrated competency in their ability to lead schools that have
exhibited literacy growth. The proceeding sections discuss the research questions along with
influences that emerged from the data collected aligned with the KMO conceptual framework by
Clark and Estes (2008).
Principal Selection
As previously stated in this study, eight principals were initially contacted. Of the 8, only
4 responded and offered to grant an interview. The demographics of the principals were 2
Caucasian females, 1 Caucasian male, and 1 African–American male. The majority of principals
for this promising practice study were Caucasian. Culturally relevant leadership practices is
likely to influence academic achievement (Beachum, 2011; Fraise & Brooks, 2015). In low SES
schools, Black and Hispanic students typically are the races represented in majority (McFarland
et al., 2017). Though 3 of the 4 principals were not Black or Hispanic, it was evident that all the
principals implemented culturally relevant leadership practices in their schools. The findings
discussed later in this section present in good detail the specific assets that influenced an increase
in reading proficiency.
Knowledge Asset Findings
This section discusses the knowledge findings from the interview data analysis. Two
knowledge assets were confirmed, and one additional finding emerged in alignment with the
conceptual framework as discussed in the Methodology Section of this study.
Factual Knowledge Assets
The first assumed knowledge asset was principals know the literacy standards in which
students scored below proficiency. Principals were asked to share their formative data
assessment process at the beginning of the year (BOY), middle of the year (MOY), and end of
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 45

year (EOY). One hundred percent of schools utilized benchmark assessments at the BOY,
MOY, and EOY. The reoccurring theme evident was the use of benchmark assessments to drive
instruction. Three schools utilized the mandated state benchmark assessments. One school
utilized a nationally standardized benchmark assessment. All benchmark assessments were
aligned to respective state reading standards.
The finding that emerged from this knowledge asset is principals became knowledgeable
of student reading scores by analyzing the data on three levels: real-time reading assessment data
(daily/weekly assessments), benchmark assessments, and summative reading assessment data. In
context, real-time assessment data are captured daily through school-based diagnostic
assessments or assessment software programs aligned to the state standards. Real-time data are
utilized to assess student reading progress in between benchmark assessments. Benchmark
assessment data are captured throughout the academic school year at the beginning, middle, and
end of the academic school year. The summative reading assessment data are the mandatory
annual state assessment administered at the end of the year. The next section discusses how each
of the three assessment levels are aligned to influence reading proficiency growth.
Conceptual Knowledge Asset 1
The second assumed knowledge asset is principals know effective reading instructional
strategies. For this conceptual knowledge asset, principals were asked to identify how the use of
reading curriculum and instructional strategies were decided to support benchmark assessments.
The element that enhanced the BOY, MOY, and EOY benchmark assessments, and ultimately
the summative reading assessment, were the additional diagnostic tool of real-time assessments
implemented in between each of the benchmark assessment cycles as discussed in the previous
section. The real-time data assessments were not only utilized to identify reading gaps in real
time but were used to plan and modify classroom instruction. The real-time data were utilized
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 46

daily during instruction and analyzed by the staff on a weekly basis. The real-time data
assessments were different for each school; however, all assessments served the purpose of
addressing reading proficiency gaps much sooner and more frequently than the benchmark
assessments. Figure 2 presents the data alignment process.

Figure 2. Data alignment process.
Principal A states that they utilized a variety of content providers to address reading
deficiencies and plan instruction. Principal A (2018) states:
The district seemed more concerned about kids getting the same thing across the
district than kids having their needs met based on where they were. And so that
was my big push back…if people want us to change in the school, we’re going to
have to do things differently. We started to bring in better pedagogical matches
for what we needed to do. That’s why the blended learning piece started to really
take hold there. And so, we started doing pre-assessments. We used different
content providers to help us reach kids in different ways by using technology in
and outside of the classroom to help kind of drive the learning.
Principal B discusses the implementation of an Instructional Learning Cycle that teachers
use to plan weekly instruction based upon the data. Principal B (2018) states:
The curriculum is just a support and extension of what the teacher is teaching
inside of the classroom, which is pretty much the state standards. What we do
with that is that we align the state standards with our Northwest Evaluation
Association (NWEA) data (nationally standardized assessment administered
BOY, MOY, and EOY) showing the strength and weaknesses of each particular
class and grade. Then from there, per week, that’s where we cover the
Instructional Learning Cycle. Then from there we teach the standards for the
week. On Friday, we assess whether the kids got it or not. If the kids got it, we
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 47

move on. If they don’t [assess proficient for the standard] we will reteach the
following week.
Principal C discusses the use of standards-based instruction without the purchasing of a
set curriculum. Principal C (2018) states:
We don’t use a curriculum. Everything we do is standards base. So, when we’re
doing English language arts, we have the standards in front of us and that’s what
we’re looking at. Everything’s created by our literacy coach. Richard Allington,
he will say if you’re going to grow readers, you give them quality teachers who
are giving them quality lessons and there’s not a program that does that.
Principal D states that their additional assessment tools assist teachers with modifying
instruction based upon student need. Principal D (2018) states:
We chose iReady, quite frankly, because it had the best alignment with the end-
of-grade test as well as the best data reporting that we could use for diagnostic
purposes. The teachers could use that data effectively to modify their instruction.
We can go in and monitor how we’re doing on the updated assessments and it
even gives you a sample lesson for small group instruction for them.
The interview data support that principals are knowledgeable regarding the design and
implementation of data-driven instruction. When the alignment of assessment data, and
instruction were aligned respectively, growth was evident for each school. More specifically,
when classroom instruction was aligned to the gaps identified in the real-time data, growth was
evident. Literature supports that the alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment can
improve test scores and overall learning of the mandated objectives (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2010;
Slavin et al., 2013). Therefore, schools experienced growth on benchmark reading assessments.
Conceptual Knowledge Assumed Asset 2
The second conceptual knowledge assumed asset was principals know the educational
culture in the home of their students. To be more specific, this question was aiming to find if
parents took the time to read with their children and provided the necessary resources for
academic success. Principals were asked how they assessed the reading culture in the home.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 48

Schools did not collect data regarding this assumed asset; therefore, there was a lack of statistical
evidence to support that this assumed knowledge asset influenced increased literacy proficiency.
Though there was no specific method to gather such data, all principals were aware of the greater
parental needs based upon staff interaction with students and families.
In School A, there were parent nights with dinner to share reading techniques and best
practices for parent and child academic interaction. In School B, there were curriculum nights in
conjunction with a job fair. In School C, there was interaction on a case by case basis. In School
D, they utilized reading logs in which parents were required to provide a signature if their child
read for the required time assigned. All principals were consistently engaged with students and
their families in a manner that best served the needs in their schools. Further research should be
conducted to analyze the influence of parental involvement on increased reading proficiency.
Motivation Assets Findings
This section discusses the motivational asset findings from the interview data analysis.
All of the motivational assets were confirmed as findings in alignment with the conceptual
framework as discussed in the Methodology Section of this study. The findings of the
motivational assets of utility value and self-efficacy are discussed in the proceeding sections.
Utility Value
The utility value of becoming knowledgeable of effective reading instructional strategies
was assessed by asking principals how they engage in professional development to sharpen and
maintain their skills as the instructional leader. The principals value professional development
and consistently engage. Professional development ranges from professional learning
communities, professional reading, and attending professional development. Three out of four
principals actively participate in professional learning communities. One hundred percent of
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 49

principals engage in professional reading on a continual basis. Two of the four principals
physically attend professional development on-site at conferences or training.
Principal A highlights the importance of professional learning communities and on-site
professional development.
I’m in a lot of professional learning communities. I invested in trying to
understand the difference between blended and personalized learning and learned
a lot about Orton Gillingham and Lucy Calkins. I went out to California with a
think tank of eight women to try to see what was happening in personalized
learning out in Silicon Valley.
Principal B (2018) highlights the following:
A lot of times I will look at different/other principals or teachers who have had a
success rate in literacy and take away some of their strategies mentioned. In
addition to that I do a lot of reading whether its books [or] journal reading.
[Journals] have a lot of good information on some best practices that people use
all over the world to help move that reading needle. Then, I bring it back to my
school and share it out with my staff, so they can know these are the things we
should be doing in the classroom to move that reading needle.
Professional development and continuous learning are evident with principals that are
striving to increase reading proficiency in their schools. More specifically, principals aligned
their professional development to the learning needs of their schools, therefore, contributing to
reading proficiency growth.
Self-Efficacy
Principals were asked to describe their leadership style for the first assumed motivational
asset of self-efficacy. The recurring theme among the principal leaders was distributive
leadership. Distributive leadership is delegated leadership among a group of individuals that
works through and within relationships to meet organizational goals (Bennett, Wise, Woods, &
Harvey, 2003). Distributive leadership is not centered around, nor based upon one person. It is
holistic and dependent upon the effective collaboration of the stakeholders (Barker 2001;
Hosking, 1988). Each principal possessed a unique method of identification and implementation;
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 50

however, the distributive leadership style theory was evident in the instructional process and
relationships with the faculty.
Strong effective relationships between administrators and teachers is necessary to
increase instructional growth. According to Leithwood, Harris, and Hopkins (2008),
“Leadership acts as a catalyst without which other good things are quite unlikely to happen (p.
28).” The literature supports that high-quality leadership influences teacher motivation, thus
impacting student achievement (Jacobson, 2011). Teacher quality has the greatest direct
influence on student motivation and achievement (Finnigan, 2010; Jacobson, 2011). The
principals in this study demonstrated competency in the development and nurturing of strong
relationships with the school faculty resultant of increased literacy proficiency. The principles
discuss in their leadership model self-knowledge and how the strategies for leadership work for
them. Their discussion includes the presence of metacognition along with the assets of self-
efficacy. Metacognition is what a person knows about themselves as a leaner, awareness of the
task to be completed, and the analyzation of strategies that are used to complete the task at hand
(Baker, 2006). The principals were task specific in their leadership styles and professional
development engagement in that it improves self-efficacy in the motivation asset domain.
Principal A (2018) discusses the first year as principal of School A and the process of
selecting staff for the next school year and leadership philosophy:
I think I definitely possess a distributive leadership style. My goal is to know the
name of every single kid and his parents on a personal basis as I really do believe
that no significant learning occurs without a significant relationship. Out of the
37 teachers from [School A] every single one of them wanted their jobs back the
next year. Twenty-seven teachers stayed and ten were asked not to return. Any
person that I saw treating kids with a level of unfairness, bias, discrimination, or
just inhumane, they were not welcome back.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 51

Principal B (2018) states:
I think I’m a very hands-on instructional leader. I try to spend at least 80% of my
time inside the classroom so I can see exactly what’s going on, so I can support
teachers in any and all type of areas. I also work with kids. So, really just making
sure that all of my teachers are using best practices…we’ve trained them on how
to really deliver that instruction to the best of their ability and with fidelity and in
addition to that making sure the classroom is culturally responsive [to students].
Principal C (2018) states:
Well, leadership can be about telling people what to do or it can be empowering
people to get it done. And my leadership style tends to be that they know what’s
best. It’s my job to ensure that our belief system is believed by all; that we are
not going to underestimate kids, that we are going to believe in all kids.
Principal D (2018) states:
I think the leadership style is dependent on the kind of staff that you have. If you
have staff that is not sure what to do, or not sure how to analyze the data, or not
sure how to make those decisions, your leadership style would adjust to that. I
think it’s important that you make sure that you don’t decide what your leadership
style is and then try to apply it. You let your leadership style be dictated by the
staff and the students in your building. I’d say 80% of the time it is a tandem of
decision making between the teams of teachers and the administration with 20%
of us (administrators) having to say this right here we need to modify.
Organizational Asset Findings
This section discusses the organizational asset findings based on the interview data
analysis. The findings confirmed the assumed organizational assets, as well as new findings that
emerged. These findings include the cultural setting assets of school processes and procedures.
The cultural model assets include the instructional model that was resultant of improved literacy
proficiency scores.
Cultural Setting Asset 1
Cultural settings provide the structural stability of an organization through policies and
procedures (Rueda, 2011; Schein, 2017). The policies and procedures are inclusive of activities
that may not be instructional, but also support the school instructional goals.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 52

The instructional schedule. Each school presented a well-planned master schedule to
include instructional time, lunch, and other activities that vary by school such as specials (art,
music, physical education), interventions, and teacher planning time. Though each master
schedule was unique to each school, the reoccurring similarity was the priority of student
instructional needs. Each principal identified the needs of students as the theme of the
instructional scheduling core.
The master schedules were created with teacher input from each grade level. Principals
valued the input of the teachers and other instructional staff. Instructional assessment data were
used in each circumstance to validate scheduling preferences. All schools provided dedicated
instructional planning time in various increments during the week. This dedicated time was
utilized by the leadership team and teachers for review of student data and anything pertaining to
students, instruction, or teacher concerns. Principal C stresses the importance of utilizing every
adult in the building: “Every adult is scheduled every moment of the day. Nothing happens
surprisingly, it’s very intentional.”
Principal D (2018) states:
[We] make sure the day is structured in a way that’s very differentiated to the
students’ [instructional] needs…kids that are behind are going to continue to get
further behind so we need to be able to make our instructional day and our
instructional methods to change those factors to have all kids get there
[proficient], setting expectations to meet the case needs.
Creative key elements of the learning culture. Principals were asked to describe key
elements, if any, at their schools that has aided in the improvement of literacy performance such
as acronyms, chants, or data displays. Two principals discussed the creative elements that were
embedded in the school culture that contributed directly or indirectly to reading achievement.
Principal B (2018) discusses data walls:
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 53

…the biggest thing we did is use the data walls, being data driven to drive our
instruction. We actually look at data during our meetings in a very strategic way,
[pinpointing] the particular standards of weaknesses of all kids. Now, we’re able
to put some things in place in the classroom to really drive that instruction.
The researcher asked a follow-up question regarding student response to the data walls.
Principal B states:
Well, they love it because our school climate and culture support education…if a
kid sees success, that motivates him to keep moving on. A lot of times schools
only get information at the end of the year. You need to give information in real
time so if I know every two or three weeks I’m growing, I’m getting better, that’s
going to motivate me to work harder in the classroom and do my homework. If I
don’t get any type of feedback for eight or nine months, then I get frustrated
because I don’t know if it’s good or bad.
The use of data walls in School B provides a visual of data-driven instruction. Because
the leadership and instructional teams intentionally addressed academic weaknesses identified by
the assessment data, instruction was developed, strategized, and implemented to target specific
needs. Therefore, students were set up for success. The data walls were used to motivate as
opposed to demotivate.
School A had a school chant. There is no statistical evidence that it had a direct effect on
improved literacy scores, however, it contributed to the establishment of the learning and
behavior culture. The students were able to recall the mission of the school with one word.
Principal A (2018) states:
So, we basically created the mission together of [School A] and [School A]
P.R.I.D.E. If you asked [students] what the mission was they could tell you in a
word like in a chant, what it was. I’d do it fired up. I’d say perseverance and they
would call back and scream we never give up. And then the R was respect and
they would scream back, we honor. Integrity and they would call back its part of
me. And then I’d say determination and they would yell back we strive. And
then I’d yell excellence and they would say in everything.
Additional needs of low SES students and community support. Principals were asked
to discuss specific programs or strategies implemented to serve the additional needs of the low
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 54

SES student population. Meeting the social and emotional needs, being culturally relevant, and
community partnerships emerged as findings.
Cultural relevance. All principals reference cultural relevance as a contributor of
increasing reading proficiency. Principal C (2018) began the interview with stating, “You have
to get kids to love reading. If they don’t love reading they will not be motivated to engage in it.
That’s how you improve reading proficiency. What the kids are reading should look like them
and relate to them.” All principals addressed the motivational aspect of student engagement in
reading that was inclusive of instruction, culturally relevant classrooms, and a culturally relevant
school. Cultural relevancy is likely to influence instructional engagement (Weinstein, Curran, &
Tomlinson, 2003). To provide culturally relevant instruction, reading selections were chosen
that were relatable to students in the areas of ethnicity and life experiences. School C creates
standards-based reading instruction using the novels of African-American authors. The African-
American authors create stories that are relatable to most African–American children.
Principal B provides professional development on culturally relevant classrooms and
instruction. Cultural relevancy is the expectation; therefore, it is embedded in the organizational
models of the school. Upon walking into School B, students, staff, parents, and visitors see
pictures of each of their enrolled students hanging from the ceiling.
Social and emotional student needs. Principal C (2018) places emphasis on the social
and emotional needs of the students:
Throughout the day, the staff pays close attention to students who may have an
emotional need and [would] need a guidance counselor. Area churches donate
food bags for families with food insecurity. Uniforms and clothing are provided
throughout the school year for families in need.
Principal A hired a Family Crisis Coordinator (FCC) to help leverage the partnerships in
the community and to address the social and emotional needs of the student body. For example,
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 55

the FCC would assist families with gaining community assistance to help with utility payments
and social security benefits. In addition, community assistance was granted to fund and run the
afterschool program. Principal A also established strong partnerships with area colleges and
universities to bring in student teachers to help with student teacher ratios. Principal A (2018)
states:
I think the most important thing was really leveraging partnerships. We became a
full-service community school because no school can do it alone. We would try
to go above and beyond for the families that were in crisis through the family care
coordinator and it’s because of the partnerships we made. [We were] very
intentional with that small number of organizations. That helped us become a
better school and helped us serve the families that were coming to us. And with
the universities, bringing in student teachers to help with ratio.
Community partnerships. All schools participating in this study partnered with the
community in various ways to meet student needs. School A had strong partnerships with the
community. Principal B places emphasis on teacher training throughout the year so they are
adequately prepared to give effective and rigorous reading instruction to all students, especially
below proficiency readers. School B also has strong community support specifically for reading
instruction. This included donated books, as well as monetary donations. Principal B (2018)
states:
Well, we receive a lot of support. We always have community members and
churches that will donate their time and energy. The Zeta Sorority. That’s our
biggest support group. They literally give us books, whatever, any type of
reading materials we need they will give it to us.
School D receives community funding for afterschool tutoring inclusive of transportation.
Area churches are strong supporters as well.
We have the United Way, the big support. They provide after school tutoring.
They finance after school tutoring for students that we identify of need. That’s a
big thing and it’s two days a week and afterschool. They provide bus
transportation for the kids. We have several churches that help us in a variety of
ways with morale things with teachers, help feed us at times and provide support.
They also provide some small group instruction for kids.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 56

All participating schools addressed the social and emotional needs of their students. The
emerged findings in which schools addressed student instructional needs are discussed in the
following section.
Cultural Setting Assumed Asset 2
Instructional triangulation: data, instructional dialogue and planning, instructional
delivery. This section discusses the emerged findings of instructional triangulation and its
integration within the instructional schedule. The instructional triangulation initially discussed in
the earlier KMO section listed this assumed asset as triangulation: assessment, instruction, and
curriculum. The emerged findings yielded a shift in the categorization. It is to be noted that all
instruction is aligned to the respective state reading standards. All schools are required to teach
the grade level standards within the academic school year. Figure 3 displays the instructional
triangulation that emerged from the data findings for each school established within their
instructional processes and procedures.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 57

Figure 3. Instructional triangulation: Data, dialogue, and delivery.
All schools demonstrated triangulation with student instructional assessment data,
instructional dialogue and planning, and instructional delivery in the classroom. The
instructional triangulation begins with data. The data refer to any of the three assessment
categories: real-time data, benchmark data, and summative data. The instructional dialogue and
planning is the time set within the daily master schedule for the leadership team and faculty to
discuss data and plan instruction to address proficiency gaps. Instructional delivery is the
teaching that occurs in the classroom.
Cultural Models Assets 1 and 2
Within a school, cultural models are the structural setting that includes values, policies,
and practices (Rueda, 2011). Figure 4 shows the emerged instructional triangulation findings in
detail for assumed cultural models 1 and 2. Assumed cultural model asset 1 asked principals to
describe the role of teachers in the development and implementation of instruction to support
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 58

literacy improvement goals. The data confirm that teachers played a vital role in supporting
reading improvement goals by learning to analyze data and deliver data-driven instruction. This
is discussed in detail in the explanation of Figure 4.
Second, principals were asked to describe how the literacy coach supports literacy
improvement goals. The literacy coaches supported literacy goals by assisting with analyzing
reading data, engaging in classroom visits, coaching teachers in reading instructional strategies,
attending grade level and PLC meetings, and conducting professional development as necessary.
The engagement of the literacy coach is evident in the instructional triangulation model
discussed in the next section. Principal A (2018) states:
[The literacy coach is] there to not just help the kids with some strategies, but help
the teachers scaffold learning [and] build on what they already know and can do
in the classroom…bringing in strategies like teaching teachers how to do a close
read...you know, all the things that you would think a literacy coach would do.
And they were viewed as almost like an assistant principal. They were like a peer
leader, but also a huge part of the leadership team. And the same is true of the
math coach.
Principal B (2018) states:
So, what my instructional coach will do is that she will go into the classroom and
actually looked at the teacher’s lesson and give that teacher really good feedback
or really good coaching on how to become better. And then also she’ll do a lot of
deliberate legwork so if she sees there’s a gap for a particular teacher for a
particular grade, she will do the research, she will bring materials to them. She
will bring ideas that she will recommend for the particular professional
developments. So, the teachers don’t have to do the leg work. [For example],
she’s taking three teachers and we’re going to another school to see a teacher who
is supposed to be a kindergarten teacher. So, we’re going to actually look at her
reading lesson/reading block to see how she’s able to facilitate that block. So, she
organizes things of that nature to make sure we’re moving in the right direction.
Principal C (2018) states:
So, I have two master teachers in the building. And so those master teachers help
with new teachers. My literacy people, they’re out working with students.
They’re out coaching teachers they’re working with plans. They help me with
professional development because we meet almost every Wednesday for
professional development. We didn’t hire any brand-new teachers this year.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 59

We’re at the point now that we’re keeping our teachers so we’re not having to go
back and start all over like we used to.
Principal D (2018) states:
[The administrators and literacy coach] meet 15 minutes with each teacher in the
building just to kind of touch base. [The literacy coach] is assigned to our
beginning teachers so she can kind of be there because as a first-year teacher you
don’t want the principal in your room every single day. She’s more of a good
coach in that regard so she can go and coach our young teachers in a variety of
ways. She also is kind of the person who’s in charge of our K–3 M-class
assessments with the progress monitoring, managing that. She’s also the person in
charge of the data review with the M-Class and iReady. She’s the one who works
with the assistant principal to organize that and allow teachers to digest that
information. She provides professional development on text dependent questions,
during reading. She provides professional development on building academic
conversations with the students. She delivers a lot of whole group PD. A lot of
times it’s grade level PD on these areas, but it’s again, it’s all coming from where
we see our weaknesses are and where the data shows that we need to do better.
Assumed cultural model asset 2 asked principals to describe how teachers are supported
instructionally and how professional development supports literacy instructional goals. Figure 4
describes how each of the cultural models is included in the data, dialogue, and delivery
triangulation process. The table displays the merged findings of assumed cultural assets 1 and 2.
Figure 4 elaborates on the instructional triangulation process.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 60

Figure 4. Detailed instructional triangulation process.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 61

Data. Each school completes benchmark assessments three times each academic year
and one summative assessment at the very end of the school year. The benchmark assessments
are required by the state. In addition to the three benchmark assessments, the emerged finding
was each school implemented student reading assessments in between each benchmark
assessment. These assessments will be referred to as real-time data. The assessment data were
tracked daily and/or weekly and discussed during instructional planning time among grade
levels, along with literacy coaches and the leadership team. This real-time data allowed schools
to catch proficiency gaps within the reading standards and adjust instruction accordingly. Figure
5 displays a horizontal visual of the instructional triangulation cycle during an academic year.

Figure 5. Instructional triangulation cycle horizontal visual.
Data Dialogue and Planning. The interview data show that all the schools merged
planning and data review as one. This time was utilized for discussing the data and aligning it to
instruction. This dedicated time was unique to each school; however, it was a reoccurring
finding within the data. This dialogue and planning designated time was also utilized to provide
teachers with the instructional support they needed.
Individual and grade level planning. In each school, teachers received an allotted number
of minutes for planning each day whether it was individually or with their grade level teams.
This usually occurred during specials. Specials are classes such as music, art, physical
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 62

education, or technology. This planning time was guided by the student reading data results. An
administrator and the literacy coach were present during the grade level planning. All schools
had a literacy coach or an administrator that served as the literacy coach. The dialogue and
planning meetings with the presence of the administrator or learning coach in dialogue and
planning meetings was purposed to discuss student data, offer instructional support to teachers if
necessary, address Multi-Tier System of Supports (MTSS) reading interventions, or anything
pertinent to data and instruction. The teachers were given instructional autonomy as long as the
instruction was aligned to the standards and addressed gaps identified by the data. The focus of
instructional dialogue was always teacher and student centered. Principal C (2018) discusses the
planning schedule:
So, you have planning Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursdays that deal with the
standards, that deal with what workshop’s (instructional time) going to look like.
On Fridays, it deals with what small groups are going to look like and what
interventions are going to be put in place. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, it’s
literacy. Wednesdays it’s math and then Fridays we meet for what we call Crew
Meeting. So, what we do in Crew Meetings is we take two teachers and they
come in with all their data and they bring in and then the literacy coach is there,
the assistant principal is there, and we begin that of talking about the kids, talking
about corporately, how they’re doing and then talking about them individually
and what do we need to do.
Principal D (2018) states:
Once a week [the teachers] get 90 minutes. They have 40 minutes per day when
[the students] get to go to music, art, or PE. And then we also have 90 minutes
that they have once a week. That’s the time that is structured with the assistant
principal and the literacy coach and the ESL coach...our counselors are also there
to provide help with kids who need social emotional interventions. The idea of
that is to have a 90-minute time when you have all the resources there to have
wraparound services for all the kids.
Principal A (2018) states:
The schedule really revolved around when the specials fell a lot, honestly… the
teachers said we need to have at least 40-minute specials…our teachers love 40
minutes specials, collaborative planning time, and common planning time that we
did by Grade K, one, two, three, four, and five. And so, once a week we’d have
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 63

80 minutes of collaborative planning time with two back to back specials and
teachers doing professional development every single week looking at data,
talking about kids, figuring out what to do next.
Professional learning communities (PLCs). Professional learning communities (PLC) are
meeting times with groups of people centered around a particular topic of interest (Stoll, Bolam,
McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas, 2006). The purpose of PLCs in a school setting is to review
educational research, share best practices, and discuss issues of professional concern. The
schools of this promising practice study implemented professional learning communities as an
outlet for teachers to discuss classroom challenges, glean from colleagues, and receive support
and coaching in challenged areas. They were scheduled either weekly or monthly for each
school. The principals were asked to describe what was expected during scheduled PLCs.
Principal A (2018) discusses the protocol for PLCs:
Once per month the math coach would lead one. Once per month the reading
coach would lead one. Once per month the math coach. Once per month I would
lead those and once per month the teachers would lead their own. And I said to
them (teachers), the goal is for you to own this time. Like for your PLC, you
should be working on problems of practice that you start to see like I’m having a
problem with so and so. Use each other as thought partners to get in each other’s
classrooms and figure it out together. So that’s what started to happen in the
PLCs. And often times the math coach leading it was data driven and the reading
coach leading it was data driven and mine were often big picture cultural things. I
put the full year calendar [together], I would plan out the year in terms of the
common planning time (grade level planning), but the PLCs that the teachers led
always gave them some breathing room and it gave us some flexibility in what we
were using that time for depending on what happened in the school or the world.
Principal B (2018) discusses their regularly scheduled Monday professional learning
community afterschool:
So, on Mondays we have a meeting from 3:50 to 5:00 that everyone has to bring
their data to the meeting. We sit in grade levels and we discuss common trends.
What is the thing that you saw that worked and did not work? Then from there
we report out, so that allows everybody to kind of look at particular ideas, jot
down what happened and things of that nature. Then also in addition to that, I
will go into a class and I will videotape a five- or six-minute lesson. We will
watch the lesson together as a school and kind of see what this particular teacher,
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 64

whether it’s a third-grade teacher, second grade teacher, or whoever it is; what are
they doing positive to impact that particular classroom. And the teachers can
actually see teaching taking place in real time. Real-time teaching that they will
be able to take strategies from some of our superstar teachers.
Professional development. Professional development (PD) was scheduled and developed
to address teacher instructional deficits as well as to present best practices for literacy or any
other academic subject. According to the interview data, PD sessions were led by either the
principal, literacy coach, experienced teachers, or outside experts. PD was scheduled during
planning time if deemed necessary, weekly after school, and at various times during the school
year. Principals also supported and suggested that teachers attend professional development
outside of school if it aligned to the school instructional goals. Principal D (2018) discussed
their unique professional development plan:
We had ongoing PD for the first two and a half months of school on [MTSS].
The blended learning, we’ve had both sides of the pedagogy, pedagogical side of
that as well as the technology side. We had Apple come in and also experts from
other counties on blended learning. The third thing was responding to students
with social emotional trauma. With students in poverty there’s a whole lot more
of that than you’d realize.
Principal B (2018) described the innovative approach their school takes with PD:
Well, so we have our data dialogues every month…then we do have two days
throughout the year for professional development, so we have a day on Tuesday
where we have an all-day PD. We will take two additional days throughout the
year which will be on Saturday from 9am–2pm and we do a data dig where we
will open up our data, unpack everything and really roll up our sleeves to really
get to the needs of these students. So, we’ll have one in November and then we’ll
have another one in February. Because we always want to make sure that we are
aligning everything that we need to align and that is always the best time because
no one is rushing off from work, or no one is tired from working a whole day, and
usually everyone is fresh and that’s when we get a lot of our work done. All of
our veteran teachers, they say, yeah, [this is] our climate of culture here. This is
not something we roll our eyes at. We love it.
The researcher asked a follow-up question regarding the facilitating of their professional
development. Principal B (2018) states:
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 65

I really don’t bring in anybody. What I do is…I look at what is there [teachers at
school]. So, I have superstar teachers that attend my school. I give them time to
train my other teachers. I don’t believe in bringing a consultant in because they
don’t really know what’s really going on. But my teachers who are well
respected among their colleagues, I will have them train and they love it because
they’re getting better. The teachers respect [them] because they see them every
day. So, they’re like, we know what you’re saying is true because we actually see
you delivering instruction and [professional development] just goes so much
better.
Within the instructional triangulation process many professional activities were included
within the instructional day to meet the needs of teachers and students. Professional
development, professional learning communities, instructional support, and anything vital to the
instructional process was included within the instructional triangulation cycle.
Delivery of Instruction. The delivery of instruction is the culmination of the data review
and instructional dialogue and planning to address the needs identified by the data. Instructional
delivery is the tangible result of instructional alignment of identified student knowledge gaps
coupled with instructional strategies used by the teacher to deliver instruction. As confirmed by
the state reading scores for each school, the instructional triangulation process was one of the
factors that influenced an increase in reading proficiency.
Findings Summary
The findings of this promising practice study present leadership assets that assisted in the
influencing of increased reading achievement in low SES schools. The findings were presented
in a manner that other school leaders can adopt and adapt according to the assessed needs of their
student populations. Students must be motivated to love reading producing increased reading
engagement. When this is coupled with quality instruction that is culturally relevant increased
reading proficiency is likely to occur.
Based upon the findings presented in this section, the following sections present
promising practice recommendations for use at other schools. Following the recommendations, a
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 66

promising practice evaluation and implementation plan aligned to the New World Kirkpatrick
model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is presented and discussed.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 67

Recommendations
Interview results and document analysis of reading scores prior to the beginning of this
study were used to answer research questions and create a series of recommendations for solving
the problem of practice at other organizations. The interview results confirmed for this
promising practice study that the assumed assets influenced an increase in reading proficiency at
the promising practice schools in this study.
From a knowledge standpoint, the interview data confirmed that principals knew the
literacy standards in which students scored below proficiency and possessed the skill set to
analyze the data and use it to drive instruction to target reading proficiency gaps. For use at
other schools with similar SES demographics as the promising practice schools, it is
recommended that principals learn to properly analyze reading data, acquire knowledge of
effective reading strategies for low readers, and develop the skills to use data to drive instruction.
In the area of assumed motivational assets, the interview results confirm principals have
the belief that students reading below proficiency can become proficient, as well as the skill set
as the instructional leader to influence proficiency growth. The interview results also confirm
that principals valued becoming knowledgeable of reading instructional strategies and best
practices by learning to analyze reading assessment data and formulating a plan to address lack
of proficiency. For use at other schools with similar SES demographics as the promising
practice schools, it was recommended that principals learn to analyze reading test score data to
set the instructional reading goals for the academic school year, participate in professional
development to remain current of reading best practices, and regularly engage in leadership self-
reflection as it pertains to the needs of school.
In regard to assumed organizational assets, the interview data confirmed that principals
created and structured school processes and procedures to accommodate the instructional needs
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 68

of the students. The accommodation of students’ needs was inclusive of engaging the faculty in
the instructional planning and implementation and creating a learning environment for teachers
to develop and enhance their instructional skills of practice. For use at other schools with similar
SES demographics as the promising practice schools, it was recommended that principals create
organizational processes and procedures that support the implementation of the use of reading
test score data to align reading assessment, instructional planning, and classroom instruction.
The recommendations for this promising practice study influenced a suggested mentoring
program for principals at other schools to acquire the knowledge and implementation skill set of
the confirmed assets of the promising practice schools in this study. The suggested mentoring
program is for the duration of 1 academic school year and has been developed using the New
World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The suggested program will begin
with a 3-day immersion training in which principals learn the confirmed assets of the promising
practice schools in this study. For the duration of the suggested program, principals engage in
weekly calls with a training coach. The principal will host a site visit and observation with the
training coach at the beginning, middle, and end of the academic school year to discuss student
benchmark reading assessments and formative program evaluation results. The principal
mentoring program will conclude with a closing summative meeting.
The suggested principal mentoring program includes formative and summative
evaluations. Reactionary and learning evaluations will be administered during and at the end of
the 3-day principal immersion training. Additional formative evaluations will be administered at
the beginning, middle, and end of the academic school year. A summative evaluation will be
administered at the close of the mentoring program. A full description of the KMO assumed
assets and recommendations is discussed in the proceeding sections.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 69

Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Assets
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. Knowledge and skills are essential to job performance. When job
responsibilities and expectations change, it is essential that individuals acquire the knowledge
and skills necessary to perform the assigned job. According to Clark and Estes (2008),
knowledge and skill enhancements are required when people do not know how to perform
assigned job duties and when the anticipation of future challenges require specific knowledge
and problem-solving skills. For this study, the assumed knowledge assets are factual and
conceptual knowledge. The Knowledge, Motivational, and Organizational Framework (KMO;
Clark & Estes, 2008) and the knowledge framework of Rueda (2011) guides the discussion of the
knowledge assets of priority and recommendations. Table 6 lists the assumed knowledge assets
for this study. The first two knowledge assets are validated as assets based upon standardized
state test scores for each school participating in the study. The third assumed knowledge asset is
categorized as a highly probable asset because it is a strong assumption, however, not validated
by survey and organizational data. The first two knowledge assets listed in Table 6 have data to
support the assets as valid, therefore, are given top priority for knowledge recommendations.
The recommendations for each knowledge asset are based on the theoretical framework of Clark
and Estes (2008), Rueda (2011), and best practices for leadership and improving test literacy
proficiency. To better understand the assets of elementary principals leading poverty schools
with increased literacy achievement, the knowledge section discusses the factual and conceptual
assumed knowledge assets.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 70

Table 6
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Validated as a
Gap?
Yes, High
Probability or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Factual Knowledge
Asset
Principals know the
literacy standards and
strands students show
below proficiency
scores.
V Y Factual knowledge is
basic knowledge of
facts pertaining to
specific discipline or
domain (Anderson et
al., 2001).
It is recommended that
principals acquire the
proper knowledge of
how to properly
analyze and interpret
test score data of the
literacy standards in
which students
demonstrate low
proficiency.
Conceptual Knowledge
Asset 1
Principals know
effective reading
instructional strategies
and techniques.
V Y Conceptual knowledge
is the knowledge of
categories, concepts
and principles
associated with a
particular area
(Anderson et al.,
2001).
It is recommended that
principals acquire
knowledge of effective
reading instructional
strategies and practices
that best suit readers
that are below
proficiency.
It is recommended that
principals acquire
knowledge of how to
use test score data to
drive instruction.
Conceptual Knowledge
Asset 2
Principals know the
educational culture in the
home.
HP N Conceptual knowledge
is the knowledge of
categories, concepts
and principles
associated with a
particular area
Anderson et al., 2001).
It is recommended that
principals acquire
knowledge of how to
effectively involve
parents in the reading
process at home.

PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 71

Principals know the literacy standards and strands students show below proficiency
scores. The results and findings in this section indicate that 100% of principals participating in
this study had adequate knowledge of literacy standards and strands in which students performed
below proficiency. Clark and Estes (2008), identify knowledge influence as necessary
information to aid individuals to perform job duties. Factual knowledge is basic knowledge of
facts pertaining to a specific discipline or domain (Anderson et al, 2001). Knowledge of low
performance reading strands will properly guide the daily instructional process. Therefore, it is
recommended that principals acquire the proper knowledge of how to properly analyze and
interpret test score data of the literacy standards in which students demonstrate low proficiency.
It is imperative for principals to possess knowledge of academic performance as the
instructional leader of their school. Factual knowledge of literacy performance should influence
instruction resulting in a direct positive impact on literacy achievement (Piazza & Duncan,
2012). It is the foundation of such knowledge that teachers are able to build upon to develop and
provide instruction to results in academic growth. Principals are then able to set high
expectations for student performance (Carter, 2000; Jacobson et al., 2007) and hold all
stakeholders accountable for meeting set expectations (Carter, 2000; Jacobson et al., 2007).
Principals know effective reading instructional strategies and techniques. The
results and findings in this section indicate that 100% of principals possessed adequate
knowledge of effective reading instructional strategies and techniques. Literacy achievement
increases can be associated with higher-level teaching practices, meaning of text, writing
instruction, and strategies of accountable discussion that include assessment of student learning
(Bitter et al., 2009). Conceptual knowledge is the knowledge of categories, concepts and
principles associated with a particular area (Rueda, 2011). This conceptual knowledge influence
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 72

will equip the principal to be an effective instructional leader to guide the implementation
process of reading instructional strategies that directly address literacy deficiency problems.
Therefore, it is recommended that principals acquire knowledge of effective reading instructional
strategies and practices that best suit readers that are below proficiency.
Academic achievement is attainable when data are properly interpreted and implemented
to drive instruction (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2012). The principals in this study built capacity for
instruction to be driven by data and adopted accountability processes and procedures that support
and enhance instructional goals (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2010; Bambrick-Santoyo, 2012; Blankstein,
2004; Carter, 2000).
Principals know the educational culture in the home. The findings do not conclude
that principals had data to concretely assess the educational culture in the home of their student
population. Students of low socioeconomic status (SES) are more inclined to have a cognitive
learning lag resultant of low literacy achievement due to the risk factors of poverty and minimal
early exposure to literacy (Jensen, 2009; Neuman, 2013). Based upon the aforementioned
assumption of low SES students, principals created a culture to include parents in the
instructional process through communication and informing. Conceptual knowledge is the
knowledge of categories, concepts and principles associated with a particular area (Rueda, 2011).
This conceptual knowledge asset supports principals with creating a culture to involve parents in
the educational process of improved literacy achievement. It is recommended that principals
acquire knowledge of how to effectively involve parents in the reading process at home.
Parental expectation of student academic achievement can have significant impact on
academic achievement (Borman et al., 2005). The findings indicate that principals created a
culture of communication with parents that informed them of reading best practices and
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 73

suggestions for engagement. Parents placing high importance on literacy in the home have been
identified as a contributor of their children’s reading success and achievement (Mraz & Rasinski,
2007). The principals are aware of the positive correlation between parental involvement and
increased literacy achievement, therefore, adopted parental partnership into the instructional
culture of their schools.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation is the element of mental
attitude that helps to start a task, maintain persistence in the midst of obstacles, and determines
how much effort to attribute to certain task. Motivation revolves around three facets of
performance: active choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivation is
critically important to assist students to become proficient readers. From the student perspective,
motivation is essential for the engagement in instructional activities and the assertion of mental
effort. From an organizational perspective, principals need to possess the ability to motivate
teachers to provide instruction that is properly aligned to data to improve student performance.
Teachers need to possess the ability to motivate students to actively engage in the instructional
activities necessary for proficient performance. This section discusses the assumed motivational
assets of utility value and self-efficacy as listed in Table 7.

PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 74
Table 7
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Validated as a
Gap?
Yes, High
Probability or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation
Utility Value
Principals have the value
of becoming
knowledgeable of
effective reading
instructional strategies
and techniques.
V Y Utility value focuses on the benefits of getting a job
done rather than the level of interest or discomfort
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Learning and motivation are enhanced if the learner
values the task (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
The utility motivational principle is that the higher an
individual values a task, it is more likely they will
choose, persist, and engage (Rueda, 2011).
Hulleman, Kosovich, Barron, & Daniel (2017)
identify educators making value connections with
curriculum as utility value interventions.
When educators value their role in positively
impacting student achievement, it is likely they will
motivate their students by making utility value
connections with instructional delivery (Hulleman et
al., 2017).
It is recommended that principals
value the importance of becoming
knowledgeable of effective reading
instructional strategies by
prioritizing data analyzation of
student reading assessments.
The reading proficiency gaps
identified by the assessment data
will determine the reading
instructional goals and best
instructional strategies for
implementation. The instructional
improvement plan will then align to
the established reading goals.

(continued)

PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 75
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Validated as a
Gap?
Yes, High
Probability or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation
Table 7, continued.
Self-Efficacy
Principals have the skill
set to lead and guide the
instructional process
resultant of students
demonstrating growth in
reading proficiency
levels.
V Y Self-efficacy is the belief that a person holds about
their ability to perform a task (Bandura, 1997).
High self-efficacy can positively influence motivation
(Usher & Pajares, 2006).
Provide goal-directed practice coupled with frequent,
accurate, credible,
Targeted and private feedback on progress in learning
and performance (Usher & Pajares, 2006).
Positive self-efficacy can attribute to a positive self-
image and motivation to set and achieve established
goals in a particular area (Rueda, 2011).
It is also important to understand that emotions
accompany both positive and negative self-efficacy
images (Pekrun, 2011). The emotional connection to
self-efficacy can positively or negatively impact
leading, teaching, and learning (Pekrun, 2011).
It is recommended that principals
acquire high self-efficacy in their
ability to lead and guide the
instructional process resultant of
reading proficiency growth.
This is inclusive of remaining
knowledgeable of the most current
literacy research, consistently
engaging in literacy and learning
professional development, engaging
and empowering the staff in the
literacy instructional process, and
regularly conducting self-reflection
of the leadership style implemented
to meet literacy instructional goals
and holistic needs of the school.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 76

Utility value. The utility motivational principle is that the higher an individual values a
task, it is more likely they will choose, persist, and engage (Rueda, 2011). The results and
findings in this section indicate that 100% of principals participating in this study value
becoming knowledgeable of effective reading instructional strategies. This knowledge will assist
the principal in leading the process of closing the reading proficiency gaps through proven
reading instructional best practices. Learning and motivation are enhanced if the learner values
the task (Eccles & Whitfield, 2002). Clark and Estes (2008) also note that utility value focuses
on the benefits of getting a job done rather than the level of interest or discomfort. Therefore, it
is recommended that principals value the importance of becoming knowledgeable of effective
reading instructional strategies by prioritizing data analyzation of student reading assessments.
The reading proficiency gaps identified by the assessment data will determine the reading
instructional goals and best instructional strategies for implementation. The instructional
improvement plan will then align to the established reading goals.
Hulleman et al. (2017) identify educators making value connections with curriculum as
utility value interventions. When educators value their role in positively impacting student
achievement, it is likely they will motivate their students by making utility value connections
with instructional delivery (Hulleman et al., 2017). In addition to educational utility value,
principals have value of the sociocultural effects of poverty that can adversely affect the
academic achievement of low SES students (Hughes et al., 2007).
Self-Efficacy. The results and findings in this section indicate that 100% of principals
demonstrated abilities to lead and guide the instructional process resultant of students
demonstrating growth in reading proficiency levels. Self-efficacy is the belief that a person
holds about their ability to perform a task (Bandura, 1997). Positive self-efficacy can attribute to
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 77

a positive self-image and motivation to set and achieve established goals in a particular area
(Rueda, 2011). It is essential that principals demonstrate high self-efficacy in both their
leadership abilities and knowledge of effective reading instructional strategies to achieve growth
in reading proficiency. High self-efficacy can positively influence motivation (Usher & Pajares,
2006). Therefore, it is recommended that principals acquire high self-efficacy in their ability to
lead and guide the instructional process resultant of reading proficiency growth by remaining
knowledgeable of the most current literacy research, consistently engaging in literacy and
learning professional development, engaging and empowering the staff in the literacy
instructional process, and regularly conducting self-reflection of the leadership style
implemented to meet literacy instructional goals and holistic needs of the school.
It is also important to understand that emotions accompany both positive and negative
self-efficacy images (Pekrun, 2011). The emotional connection to self-efficacy can positively or
negatively impact leading, teaching, and learning (Pekrun, 2011). It is the responsibility of the
principal to create a culture that stimulates and supports teacher learning and growth, therefore,
positively impacting student motivation and learning. Providing goal-directed practice coupled
with frequent, accurate, credible, targeted and private feedback on progress in learning and
performance are vitally important to organizational and instructional growth and development
(Usher & Pajares, 2006).
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. Before discussing assumed organizational influences in poverty schools, it
is vital and necessary to define culture. According to Schein (2017), culture is the shared
learning of an accumulation of beliefs, behavioral norms, and values. The culture of an
organization can be analyzed based upon the models and settings established (Schein, 2017).
Within a school, cultural models are the structural setting that include values, policies, and
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 78

practices (Rueda, 2011). Cultural settings provide the structural stability of an organization
(Schein, 2017). Organizational policies and procedures are enacted through cultural settings
(Rueda, 2011). They identify the who, what, where, when, why, and how of the daily routines of
an organization (Rueda, 2011). This section will discuss the organizational assets as listed in
Table 8.

PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 79
Table 8
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence
Validated as a Gap?
Yes, High Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)

Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Settings
The organization
has structured
school processes
and procedures.
V Y According to Rueda (2011), processes and procedures identify
the who, what, where, when, why, and how of the daily
routines of a school.
Effective school cultures are developed when the vision of a
school is developed into minute-by-minute routines
(Bambrick-Santoyo, 2012).
When routines are aligned with the school vision, practiced,
and consistently evaluated it solidifies the culture each day of
the school year (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2012).
It is recommended that principals
work with faculty to develop
school processes and procedures
that support the school vision,
school culture, and instructional
improvement goals.
Cultural Settings
The organization
has instructional
triangulation: data
analyzation,
instructional
planning and
dialogue, and
instructional
delivery.
V Y According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2018),
Triangulation is the alignment and interaction of at least three
elements or theories.
Literature supports that the alignment of content standards,
instruction, and assessment can improve test scores and overall
learning of the mandated objectives (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2010;
Slavin et al., 2013).
It is recommended that principals
engage in instructional
triangulation by analyzing student
performance data to develop
instructional goals coupled with
the appropriate instructional
actions aimed at closing literacy
achievement gaps.

(continued)

PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 80
Assumed
Organization
Influence
Validated as a Gap?
Yes, High Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)

Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Table 8, continued.
Cultural Models
The organization
prioritizes staff
engagement in the
instructional plan.
V Y Teacher quality has the greatest direct influence on student
motivation and achievement (Finnigan, 2012).
The learning equation encompasses content to be taught and
how students learn (Rueda, 2011).
What makes learning effective is how teachers best help their
students learn (Rueda, 2011).
It is recommended that principals
engage teachers in the
instructional planning process
through creating opportunities for
input, data assessment, and
implementation in the classroom.
Cultural Models
The organization
supports a
learning
environment for
teachers to
develop and
enhance
instructional
practice.
V Y Instructional coaching can improve teacher practice
(Tschannen-Moran & Tschannen-Moran, 2011).
Research supports that coaching can best improve instructional
practice when it is teacher centered, strength based, and
separate from the formal evaluation process (Tschannen-Moran
& Tschannen-Moran, 2011).
It is recommended that principals
provide a learning environment
for teacher growth and
development through relevant
professional development,
professional learning
communities, and peer mentoring
and coaching.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 81

School processes and procedures. According to Rueda (2011), processes and
procedures identify the who, what, where, when, why, and how of the daily routines of a school.
The results and findings indicate that 100% of principals in this study have established structured
processes and procedures that support the instructional vision of the school. Therefore, it is
recommended that principals work with faculty to develop school process and procedures that
support the school vision, school culture, and instructional goals.
Effective school cultures are developed when the vision of a school is developed into
minute-by-minute routines (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2012). These routines make the school vision a
reality (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2012). When routines are aligned with the school vision, practiced,
and consistently evaluated it solidifies the culture each day of the school year (Bambrick-
Santoyo, 2012). By developing solid daily routines, habits are developed among the students
and staff that enhance the instructional time, therefore, producing learning.
Triangulation: data analyzation, instructional dialogue and planning, and
instructional delivery. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2018),
triangulation is the alignment and interaction of at least three elements or theories. In the context
of this study, triangulation is the alignment of assessment, instruction, and curriculum. The
findings indicate that 100% of principals in this study have implemented instructional
triangulation of data analyzation, instructional dialogue and planning, and instructional delivery.
Therefore, it is recommended that principals engage in instructional triangulation by analyzing
student performance data to develop instructional goals coupled with the appropriate
instructional actions aimed at closing literacy proficiency gaps.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 82

Literature supports that the alignment of content standards, instruction, and assessment
can improve test scores and overall learning of the mandated objectives (Bambrick-Santoyo,
2010; Slavin et al., 2013). Assessment is inclusive of informal student learning assessment
measures. Student informal assessments consist of assessments at the end of lessons and units.
Formal student assessments include district, state and national literacy assessments. Assessment
in the triangulation process also includes frequent data analyzation of student literacy
performance. Data analyzation of reading data occurs formatively for each instructional standard
and is built into the instructional learning schedule. Within the instructional schedule there is
dedicated time for teachers, curriculum coaches, and principals to strategically analyze data and
adjust accordingly. Rigorous instruction aligned to state standards is then developed to close the
gaps identified by the data.
Staff engagement in the instructional development and processes. Teacher quality
has the greatest direct influence on student motivation and achievement (Finnigan, 2012). The
findings indicate that 100% of principals in this study have achieved improved literacy
performance by providing dedicated time during the instructional day to engage teachers in the
instructional development and processes. The principals have created a cultural model that
prioritizes staff engagement in the instructional plan. Therefore, it is recommended that
principals engage teachers in the instructional planning process through creating opportunities
for input, data assessment, and implementation in the classroom.
What makes learning effective is how teachers best help their students learn (Rueda,
2011). This is most commonly known as the science of learning (Rueda, 2011). The learning
equation encompasses content to be taught and how students learn (Rueda, 2011). The provision
of dedicated instructional planning time during the instructional day provides an opportunity for
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 83

teachers and instructional leaders to communicate and collaborate regarding assessment data and
instruction.
Instructional coaching and development. Instructional coaching can improve teacher
practice (Tschannen-Moran & Tschannen-Moran, 2011). The findings indicate that 100% of
principals have created cultural models that support a learning environment for teachers to
develop and enhance instructional practice. Therefore, it is recommended that principals provide
a learning environment for teacher growth and development through relevant professional
development, professional learning communities, and peer mentoring and coaching.
Research supports that coaching can best improve instructional practice when it is teacher
centered, strength based, and separate from the formal evaluation process (Tschannen-Moran &
Tschannen-Moran, 2011). The schools in this study have created a safe environment that
encourages teachers to develop and enhance instructional skills. Teacher development and
coaching is crucial to improving and sustaining literacy instruction and proficiency. This
cultural model provides a nonintimidating environment in which teachers can be coached with
nonpunitive feedback, as well as a protected place to communicate areas of specific challenge.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The framework for implementation and evaluation of the recommendations for this
promising practice as stated in previous sections is the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The New World Kirkpatrick Model has been updated and
expanded to provide recommendations suited for 21st century implementation. Figure 6 shows
the revised model displaying the original four levels implemented in reverse order (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016).
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 84

Figure 6. New World Kirkpatrick model.
Beginning with Level 4, the model shows desired outcomes based upon behaviors and
actions of stakeholders as a result of the learning experiences provided in addition to support and
appropriate accountability (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). In Level 3, the model highlights
the behaviors demonstrated by stakeholders as a result of the learning and engagement in Levels
1 and 2 (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 3 behaviors include on the job learning,
coaching, monitoring and adjustment if necessary (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). In Level 2,
the model examines the learning and acquiring of knowledge (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Stakeholders are acquiring new knowledge, or knowledge gaps are addressed as identified by the
organization (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Last, the model examines Level 1 and the
degree to which stakeholders are engaged in the learning experience, find relevancy, and their
overall satisfaction (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 85

Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
As discussed throughout this promising practice study, elementary schools with high
percentages of low SES students often demonstrate high percentages of students reading below
proficiency (NAEP, 2017). The analysis of principal leadership of the elementary schools in this
promising practice have demonstrated knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets that
have resulted in reading proficiency growth among low SES students.
The purpose of this implementation and evaluation plan is to provide a blueprint of
leadership and school organizational best practices that are resultant of reading proficiency
growth for principals serving in schools with high SES populations. This implementation and
evaluation plan include practical leadership and organizational practices that principals and
instructional teams can utilize to increase reading proficiency in their respective schools. The
following sections describe and outline the New Kirkpatrick World Model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016) and the actions required at each level for principals to successfully lead the
charge to increase reading proficiency in poverty schools.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
In Level 4, the New World Kirkpatrick Model examines the extent in which targeted
outcomes are a result of meeting organizational goals (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The
results should be visible as outcomes with metrics that provide evidence and measure through
specific methods (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The New World Kirkpatrick Model
categorizes these as internal and external outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Internal
outcomes occur within the organization by individuals, teams, or departments (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). External outcomes are influenced by responses from customers, clients,
markets, or industries (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 86

In the educational setting, summative test results indicate reading proficiency for public
schools in the United States. The schools in this promising practice study have formative
systems of accountability to aid in meeting or exceeding the summative target goals for reading
growth set forth by their respective states. The formative assessments that assist schools with
staying on target to meet growth reading goals include weekly data meetings to discuss student
performance, weekly student assessments, informal teacher assessments and coaching, and
benchmark reading assessments. Table 9 presents Level 4 internal and external outcomes,
metrics, and methods for schools in this promising practice.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 87

Table 9
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increased percentage of students
reading at or above proficiency.
Formative and summative reading
assessment scores.
Formative Benchmarks
Summative Assessment (end of
school year)
Internal Outcomes
Reading growth during the
academic school year.
Weekly reading data assessment
scores.
Reading assessment selected by
schools that are ongoing in between
benchmark assessments.
Reading instruction aligned to
deficits identified by the weekly
reading data assessments.
Student reading assessment data
and teacher observations (informal
and formal).
Reading deficiencies identified
weekly during grade level meetings
with teachers, literacy coach, and
administration.
High quality reading instruction
aligned to the state reading
standards and targeted directly
toward areas of students’ reading
deficiencies.

Monthly (or as needed) professional
development in teaching best
practices and teacher coaching
based upon student reading
assessment data and teacher
observation feedback.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Level 3 in the New World Kirkpatrick model discusses the behavior
of the organization’s stakeholders. Level 3 is considered the most important level as
stakeholders must apply what they have learned to achieve Level 4 results (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 3 employs critical behaviors that are necessary for Level 4 to be
successful (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016)
defines critical behaviors as required actions necessary to achieve Level 4 outcome results
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). As such, there are three critical behaviors that principals
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 88

identified as necessary to implement for schools to achieve reading proficiency growth. Those
three critical behaviors are data analyzation, instructional dialogue and planning, and
instructional delivery. They are discussed in detail in this section.
Data analyzation. The first critical behavior is analyzation of student reading assessment
data. In this study, all the promising practice schools utilized data throughout the school year to
monitor students’ reading progress. This data analyzation is in addition to the state mandated
reading benchmark assessments completed at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year.
The benchmark assessments are not inclusive of the annual reading assessment given by the state
at the close of the year. In addition to benchmark assessments, all schools in this study utilized
some form of real-time reading assessment in between each benchmark assessment conducted
daily or weekly. Principals should engage in weekly analyzation of real-time student reading
assessment data in preparation to discuss with literacy coach and grade level teams during
scheduled planning time.
Instructional dialogue and planning. The second critical behavior is instructional
dialogue and planning. Once the data have been analyzed by the leadership team, it is vitally
important that teachers know how to use the real-time reading assessment data to guide and drive
instruction in the classroom. Principals or designate (assistant principal) should attend grade
level instructional dialogue and planning time on a daily or weekly basis, based upon the master
schedule, to ensure that teachers receive training and coaching regarding data analyzation,
instructional alignment to address reading gaps identified by the data, and proper implementation
of data-driven classroom instruction.
Instructional delivery. The third critical behavior is instructional delivery. This critical
behavior is vital to student learning as it is the culmination of data analyzation and instructional
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 89

dialogue and planning. Teachers should provide instructional delivery that is aligned to the state
reading standards and directly address reading deficiencies as shown by the data. Principals or
designate should conduct informal and classroom observations on a daily basis to ensure the
instruction is delivered in a rigorous and data-aligned manner. Table 10 lists the critical
behaviors.
Table 10
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
Data analyzation of student
reading progress
Assessment results from
school specific real-time
reading assessments.
Real-time Reading Assessment
Instrument
School specific: teacher made,
literacy coach made,
assessment software (i.e.
iReady, IXL)
Weekly
Instructional dialogue and
planning for instruction in the
classroom
Student/duty-free time used to
discuss data and plan
instruction aligned with state
standards and reading
deficiencies as shown by data.
Grade-Level Daily Planning
Time
Weekly Staff Meetings and
Trainings
Teacher: literacy
Coach/Principal Meetings
Daily

Weekly

Monthly
Lesson plan review and
classroom observations to
ensure instructional alignment
to address reading gaps as
determined by the data.
Teacher lesson plans

Informal and Formal
Classroom Observations
Review of weekly lesson plans
by administration/literacy
coach
Administrative/literacy coach
classroom walkthroughs
Weekly/
As Needed

PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 90

Required drivers. Required drivers are processes that reinforce, monitor, encourage,
and reward the performance of on-the-job critical behaviors (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Table 11 lists the required drivers that will support the critical behaviors of principals working to
increase reading proficiency.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 91

Table 11
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Monitoring

Create a system of accountability with leadership team to ensure all lesson
plans are reviewed.
Weekly 3
Schedule instructional meetings with assistant principals and literacy coach to
review and discuss grade level real-time reading assessment data and lesson
plan alignment to data.
Weekly 1
Attend (principal, asst. principal, literacy coach) grade level instructional
planning meetings.
Daily 2
Conduct and attend (principal, asst. principal, literacy coach) scheduled
professional learning communities (PLCs).
Weekly or
Monthly
2
Create and implement a schedule for informal classroom walkthroughs. Daily 3
Reinforcing

Attend (principal, asst. principal, literacy coach) grade level instructional
planning meetings to discuss data, provide coaching (if needed), and ensure
instruction is aligned to address reading gaps identified by the data.
Daily 2
Conduct weekly corporate staff meetings to review data, discuss teaching best
practices, and provide teacher coaching (if needed).
Weekly 2, 3
Schedule monthly meetings with individual teachers to discuss student reading
data and MTSS tier designation.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Encouraging

Principal support and encourage assistant principals, literacy coach, and
teachers during meeting time in their effort to align data to classroom
instruction to achieve increased reading proficiency growth.
Weekly 1, 2, 3

Rewarding

Principal acknowledges teachers that are consistently achieving reading growth
with their students.
Weekly 3
Principal provides opportunities during corporate staff meeting to share student
reading growth data and share teaching best practices they utilize to achieve
student reading growth.
Weekly 3
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 92

Organizational support. As previously discussed, increased reading proficiency is
achieved when schools have cultural settings and models that support instructional goals. First, a
solid plan to capture student reading data in real time, formatively, and annually must be
implemented and adhered to by the principal and instructional staff. Second, designated time
must be scheduled to review reading data, discuss reading growth and deficiencies, and plan
instruction to address reading deficiencies. Last, teachers must utilize best practices to provide
instruction that is data driven and aligned to address reading deficiencies. In the following
sections, Level 2 and Level 1 of the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016) is discussed.
Level 2: Learning
The second level of the New World Kirkpatrick model is learning (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). It is the degree in which for this study, the principals, acquire the necessary
knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence and commitment to achieve increased reading proficiency
among enrolled students. Level 2 is defined and measured by learning goals as discussed in the
proceeding section.
Learning goals. Listed below are the recommended learning goals for principals for the
recommended training program.
Knowledge learning goals.
1. Conduct School Data and Test Score Analyzation
a. Student Attendance and Behavior/Teacher Attendance
b. Real-Time Diagnostic Reading Data—This is student reading assessment data
captured daily/weekly.
c. Benchmark Diagnostic Reading Assessment – BOY, MOY, EOY
d. Summative Reading Assessment (school, district, and state)
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 93

2. Become knowledgeable of current research on literacy trends, instructional practices
in relation to school literacy needs.
3. Effectively inform and involve parents with literacy goals.
Motivational learning goals.
4. Learn and implement best practices on how to best lead the data-driven process (data
aligned to instruction) in respective schools through professional
development/professional learning communities (PLCs).
5. Engage in self-reflection of leadership style aligned with school reading instructional
goals, as well as faculty and student needs.
Organizational learning goals.
6. Develop and implement school processes and procedures that support and align to the
school vision, culture, and instructional goals.
7. Triangulation: Align reading data, instructional dialogue and planning, and
instructional delivery.
8. Engage faculty in the reading instructional process.
9. Create a formative learning environment for teacher growth and development.
Program. The recommended program for implementation of confirmed assets of this
promising practice study is a suggested 1-year principal mentorship. The Principal Mentorship
Program has been drafted as a template program with the intent for principals to effectively
implement knowledge, motivational, and organizational assets proven by the promising practice
principals and schools in this study to increase reading proficiency. The goal of the mentorship
program is to incorporate researched-based learning and training activities that produce increased
reading proficiency results.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 94

The program will align with critical behaviors and required drivers as stated in Level 3.
The recommended time frame of the mentorship program is 1 academic year. The learning in
Level 2 will require the mentorship program to present an instructional process that will guide
principals through the implementation process at their respective schools. The program is to be
facilitated by individuals with adequate experience in the culture and processes of data-driven
instruction and leadership. The program will provide principals with the following: a 3-day
immersion training, weekly follow-ups by the training coach, onsite visit with the training coach
at the beginning of the year (BOY), middle of the year (MOY), and end of year (EOY), and
closing meeting with all principals.
The 3-day immersion training will provide principals with knowledge and motivational
skills aligned to the Level 3 critical behaviors. Those behaviors are data analyzation,
instructional dialogue and planning, and instructional delivery and address the accompanying
learning goals. The principals will develop processes, goals, and implementation plans for the
critical behaviors during the training. The weekly follow-up meetings will occur with the
training coach or designee by phone or video conference. This will provide principals with the
opportunity to engage in guided formative assessment to discuss implementation progress and
areas requiring adjustment. Next, principals will host an on-site meeting and observation with
the training coach at the BOY, MOY, and EOY. This is an opportunity for the training facilitator
to observe processes and procedures and discuss those results with principals. Last, the
principals will attend an end of year closing meeting to discuss the program implementation.
Table 12 displays a proposed agenda for the 3-day immersion training program.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 95

Table 12
3-Day Principal Immersion Training
Time
Schedule Day 1—Data Analyzation
Day 2—Instructional Dialogue
and Planning
Day 3—Instructional
Delivery
8:00–
8:30am
Registration and Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast
8:30–
8:40am
Welcome and
Opening Remarks
Program Overview Review—
Level 3 Behaviors
Program Overview Review—
Level 3 Behaviors
8:40–
9:10am
Program Overview—
Level 3 Behaviors
Review Data
Analyzation/Present Dialogue
and Planning
Review Dialogue and
Planning/Present Instructional
Delivery
9:10–
9:40am
Data Pretest
Group Dialogue: How is
reading data used at your
school?
Dialogue and Planning Pretest
Group Dialogue: How does
your school schedule time for
instructional dialogue and
planning?
Instructional Delivery Pretest
Group Dialogue: How are
teachers supported in regard to
their instructional quality?
What role does the literacy
coach have in teacher
development?
9:40–
10:40am
Session 1—Types of Data to be
Analyzed and Correlations
Session 1—Designated Faculty
Dialogue and Planning
Time/PLCs
Session 1—Teachers’ Role in
Data Analyzation
10:40–
10:50am
Break #1 Break #1 Break #1
10:50–
11:50am
Session 2—Data and the
Reading Instructional
Plan/Parent Involvement
Session 2—Designated Grade
Level Dialogue and Planning
Time
Session 3—Teacher Coaching
and Informal/Formal
Observations
11:50–
12:00pm
Midtraining Assessment
Survey
Midtraining Assessment
Survey
Midtraining Assessment
Survey
12:00–
12:30pm
Lunch Lunch Lunch
12:30–
1:30pm
Session 3—Development,
Implementation, and
Accountability of a School
Data Team
Session 3—Designated
Teacher Dialogue and Planning
Time
Session 3—Teacher
Professional Development
1:30–
1:40pm
Break #2 Break #2 Break #2
(continued)
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 96

Time
Schedule Day 1—Data Analyzation
Day 2—Instructional Dialogue
and Planning
Day 3—Instructional
Delivery
Table 12, continued.
1:40–
2:20pm
One principal from each
breakout group to present
corporately.
One principal from each
breakout group to present
corporately.
One principal from each
breakout group to present
corporately.
2:20–
2:45pm
Day 1 Recap, Posttest, Training
Survey
Day 2 Recap, Posttest, Training
Survey
Day 3 Recap, Posttest, Training
Survey
2:45–
3:00pm
Overview of Day 2 Training:
1. Principals are to bring
master schedules.
2. Principals should touch up
and review data plans for
use in Day 2 training.
Overview of Day 3 Training
1. Principals are to teacher
support plans
2. Principals should touch up
and review scheduling plans
for Day 3 training.
Overview of Training Next
Steps:
1. Weekly Follow-Up
2. BOY, MOY, EOY site visits
3. End of Year Closing
Meeting
Required Next Steps:
Schedule weekly follow-up
with facilitator prior to leaving
the training.
Learning
Goals
1, 3, 4, 5, 8 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 4, 5, 7, 8, 9

Data analyzation. Day 1 of the 3-Day Immersion Training will address the first Level 3
critical behavior, data analyzation. The data analyzation session will address the types of data
the leadership team should analyze as stated in learning goal 1 and any correlations between the
data categories analyzed. Once data are analyzed, principals should then be able to develop an
instructional implementation plan which is presented and discussed in Session 2. Session 2 will
engage learning goal 8 and discuss how to engage the teaching faculty in the development and
implementation of a schoolwide instructional plan that should outline learning goals for the
academic year. Learning goal 3 is addressed as principals will gain insight on effective means of
incorporating parents informing them of literacy best practices that can be done at home.
Session 3 will present and discuss school data teams, their responsibilities, and how their work
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 97

will align with the instructional plan. Session 3 addresses learning goals 8, engaging school
faculty.
Instructional dialogue and planning. Day 2 of the 3-Day Immersion Training will
discuss school processes and procedures regarding scheduling. It is vital that school faculty have
designated uninterrupted time that is absent of instructional responsibilities to discuss data
analyzation results and how to best prepare classroom instruction to address the reading gaps
evident through the data analysis. Instructional dialogue and planning should occur on three
levels: as a collaborative faculty body, grade level teams, and by individual teachers. All three
sessions will address learning goals 7 and 8, instructional triangulation and engaging faculty in
the reading instructional process.
Instructional delivery. There is a great body of research that supports student learning is
most directly influenced by teacher instruction. Day 3 of the 3-Day Immersion Training will
conclude with teacher instructional delivery. Once data have been analyzed and instruction
aligned to the data, it must be delivered or taught to students along with appropriate assessment
for proficiency. The continual loop of data analyzation, instructional dialogue and planning, and
instructional delivery has proven to increase proficiency as it directly addresses learning gaps.
The session will present and discuss teachers’ role in the data analyzation process, coaching and
observations, and professional development. The sessions will address learning goals 7, 8, and
9: instructional triangulation, engaging faculty in the reading instructional process, and creating a
formative learning environment for teacher growth and development.
Reflective practitioners. Principals will be continuous reflective practitioners by learning
how to effectively engage in learning goals 4 and 5, self-learning and self-reflection. “Reflective
practice refers to the on-the-job performance resulting from using a reflective process for daily
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 98

decision-making and problem solving” (Larrivee, 2008, pp. 341–342). These reflective learning
goals are to ensure that principals are providing the structure and leadership that will maintain
alignment between the school vision and mission, data, and instruction. These learning goals are
evident with each critical behavior previously discussed in this section.
Evaluation of the components of learning. Training is effective when the components
of learning can be effectively evaluated within a specific time frame (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Table 13 presents the evaluation of the components of learning for the 3-Day Immersion
Training.
Table 13
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(-ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it . ”

Principals can recall and discuss the content of the learning goals in
presentation form.
During and after each session
Principals show proficiency on training posttest. At the end of training
Procedural Skills “I can do it right no w. ”

Principals can discuss and present how the content of learning goals apply
to the specific instructional and organizational needs of their schools.
During and after each session
Attitude “I believe this is w o rt hw hil e. ”

Principals are actively engaged in learning content presentation, breakout
groups, and can present how the training information is applicable to their
school.
During session presentation by
facilitator, group activities,
presentation time
Confidence “I think I can do it on the j o b.”

Principals show evidence of how the learning content in each session is
applicable to their schools.
Session Group Time
Session Presentation Time
Commitment “I will do it on the j o b.”

Principals can create and present an implementation plan with time
implementation goals.
Session Group Time
Prior to the start of an academic
school year.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 99

Communication strategies and formative assessment. A vital component for the success
of the recommended program is effective communication strategies and formative assessment
between the principals and the program facilitator. The 3-Day Immersion Training has been
developed with the intent to train principals how to implement the critical behaviors of Level 3.
The critical behaviors will only be effective if they are implemented and adjusted throughout the
school year. The communication strategies specifically refer to the weekly follow-up meetings
and midyear on-site meetings between the principal and training coach or designee. These
implemented communication strategies will lend themselves to formative assessment.
According to Heritage (2010), formative assessment is the information presented for the
purposes of making necessary adjustments to instructional or leadership practices that do not
include the assessment of a grade or score. It is deemed important for the training program to
provide a nonpunitive opportunity for principals to be coached and to make the necessary
adjustments to the implementation of the critical behaviors. The next section will present
training reactions which is termed as Level 1 in the Kirkpatrick New World Kirkpatrick Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Level 1: Reaction
The first level of the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is
reaction. Reaction is the degree in which principals find training favorable, engaging, and
relevant to their jobs. Table 14 below lists the methods and tools the training facilitator will use
to gauge the reaction of the principals participating in the training. The left table lists the
methods used to measure principals’ reaction to training. The methods to obtain reactions are
listed in the categories of engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction. The right column
lists the timing in which the reaction methods will occur during the training.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 100

Table 14
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement

Attendance records At the beginning and end of training before
participants leave
Facilitator asks meaningful questions as it relates to current
school of practice
During training sessions: whole group
presentation and group breakout time
Participation of training activities, group activities, and report
outs
During each group breakout time within each
session
Dedicated observer who engages student commentary and body
language
During training sessions
Relevance

Pulse check using Poll Everywhere Each day after each of the three training
sessions
Anonymous Survey After training before participants leave
training site
Customer Satisfaction

Participant testimonials—Participants can choose to provide a
written testimonial that is included with the survey and/or record
a 1-minute video during session breaks. The video will be
recorded on the training site by training personnel.
After training before participants leave
training site

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. According to Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016), there are three major reasons to evaluate training programs. They are to
improve the implementation program, maximize transfer of learning, and demonstrate the value
of training to the organizational stakeholders (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Training
effectiveness is the combined effort of training and follow-up leading to improved organizational
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 101

performance that contributes to the key organizational results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
To maximize the yearlong principal mentorship program, evaluation instruments have been
created for each of the four Kirkpatrick Levels utilized in this program. The blended evaluation
of Levels 1 and 2 will be administered immediately following the program completion. The
Level 2 evaluation will be administered after each session. The first evaluation instrument of
discussion is the blended Level 1 and 2 evaluation.
Level 1 and 2 blended evaluation instrument. The Kirkpatrick New World Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) Level 1 and 2 blended evaluation instrument will measure
reaction in the following categories: principal engagement, relevance, customer satisfaction,
declarative knowledge, procedural skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment. It will be
administered at the end of the 3-day Principal Immersion Training. Principals will complete the
survey prior to leaving the last day of training. See Appendix E, Table E-1.
Level 2 evaluation instrument. The Kirkpatrick New World model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016) Level 2 evaluation instrument will measure learning goals of each training
session. A pre- and posttest is administered after each session to assess principals’ proficiency of
session content. The pre- and posttests are created by the training facilitator based upon the
specific needs of the principals in the areas of data analyzation, data dialogue and planning, and
instructional delivery. These specific needs are captured during the application process in which
a needs assessment is completed by all participating principals. These data should then be
assessed to create both session content, as well as pre- and posttests that will service the specific
needs of principals. The Level 2 evaluation instrument is administered to principals upon
completion of learning activities during each of the three sessions held each day of training. See
Appendix E, Table E-2.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 102

Delayed for a period after the program implementation. As stated earlier in this
section, training effectiveness is the combined effort of training and follow-up leading to
improved organizational performance that contribute to the key organizational results
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). It is vitally important to evaluate posttraining follow-up
activities for Levels 3 and 4 of the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Table 15 presents the Principal Mentorship Program milestones and timeline for
evaluations of Level 3 and 4 follow-up activities. The schedule listed for evaluation
administration is approximate. Exact dates will be scheduled according to the academic calendar
of each principals’ school. Figure 7 provides a visual for the school assessment, onsite facilitator
and principal meetings, and evaluation schedule.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 103

Table 15
Level 3 and 4 Principal Mentorship Training Milestones and Evaluation Schedule
Program Milestone Evaluation Timing
3-Day Principal Immersion Training 3-day training kickoff
Training facilitator beginning of year (BOY) onsite
meeting and observation with principal.
Level 3 Evaluation—Approximately 30 days after
Principal Immersion Training and after BOY
benchmark reading assessment. *
Training facilitator middle of year (MOY) onsite
meeting and observation with principal.
Level 3 and 4 Blended Evaluation First
Administration—Approximately 90 days after BOY
meeting and observation with principal and after MOY
benchmark reading assessment. *
Training facilitator end of year (EOY) onsite meeting
and observation with principal.
Level 3 and 4 Blended Evaluation Second
Administration—Approximately 90 days after MOY
meeting and observation with principal and after EOY
benchmark assessment. *
Closing meeting with all principal participants. Level 4 Evaluation—Approximately 90 days after
EOY meeting and observation with principal and after
summative benchmark assessment. *

*Evaluations are administered before the onsite
meeting and observation between the facilitator and
principal. The scheduled meeting time is to discuss
both student assessment data and program evaluations.

PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 104

Figure 7. School assessment and evaluation schedule.
Level 3 evaluation instrument. The Kirkpatrick New World Model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016) Level 3 evaluation instrument is administered approximately 30 days
following the Principal Immersion Training and after the BOY reading benchmark assessment
has been administered to students. This Level 3 evaluation assesses the principals’ progress and
implementation of organizational cultural settings and models that support Level 3 behaviors and
drivers. Both the Level 3 evaluation and BOY reading benchmark data will be discussed during
the scheduled onsite facilitator and principal meeting and observation. See Appendix E, Table
E-3.
Level 3 and 4 blended evaluation instrument first administration. The blended Level 3
and Level 4 merges behavior and results of the Kirkpatrick New World Model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). This blended evaluation is administered twice during the academic year.
The first Level 3 and 4 blended evaluation is administered approximately 90 days after the MOY
reading benchmark assessment (Level 3 evaluation). This blended evaluation assesses Level 3
behaviors in alignment of achieving Level 4 results of increased reading proficiency scores. The
first administration of the Level 3 and 4 blended evaluation and EOY reading benchmark data
will be discussed during the scheduled onsite facilitator and principal meeting and observation.
Each evaluation will track the principals’ progress and student reading benchmark progress
throughout the school year. See Appendix E, Tables E-4 and E-5.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 105

Level 3 and 4 blended evaluation instrument second administration. The second Level
3 and 4 blended evaluation instrument is administered approximately 90 days after the EOY
benchmark reading assessments. This blended evaluation assesses Level 3 behaviors in
alignment of achieving Level 4 results of increased reading proficiency scores. The second
administration of the Level 3 and 4 blended evaluation and EOY reading benchmark data will be
discussed during the scheduled onsite facilitator and principal meeting and observation. Each
evaluation will track the principals’ progress and student reading benchmark progress throughout
the school year. See Appendix E, Tables E-6 and E-7.
Level 4 evaluation instrument. The Kirkpatrick New World Model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016) Level 4 evaluation instrument is administered approximately 90 days after the
second Level 3 and 4 blended evaluation at the closing meeting of the Principal Mentorship
Program. This is the end of the academic school year for participating principals and schools
will have completed the annual summative reading assessment. The Level 4 evaluation will
assess each of the Level 4 results. See Appendix E, Table E-8.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Data analysis and reporting are critical steps to the successful alignment of learning,
behavior, and results. Data analysis summarizes the successes and gaps of learning and behavior
implemented. According to the Kirkpatrick New World Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016), the data analysis should ask three fundamental questions: 1) Does the level of (level of
assessment) meet expectations? 2) If not, why? and 3) If so, why? This level of questioning will
provide a guide to report data analysis in a detailed and concise manner to organizational
leadership.
Data analysis of program. The collection of data has minimal value if it does not
validate the success of a program or intervention or does not communicate a need for change of
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 106

established programs or behaviors. It is imperative that data analysis and reporting display
results accurately and organized, understandable to program and organizational personnel, time
relevant, and simple to execute (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
During the implementation of this suggested Principal Mentorship Program it is vitally
important to analyze the program data collected at various intervals of program implementation.
Levels 1 and 2 data are collected during the Principal Immersion 3-Day Training through the
methods of administered surveys. Levels 3 and 4 data are collected at various intervals during
this year-long principal mentorship program implementation. These data are collected through
survey data, school site observations, and interactions between the training facilitator, principal,
and school staff. It is imperative that the data at each level of program implementation be
analyzed and reported in a manner that objectively communicates results of the Principal
Mentorship Program.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) lists a series of data analysis questions for each of the
New World Kirkpatrick Levels. Table 16 lists program specific questions based upon the
suggested data analysis questions by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016). This list of questions is
provided to guide the data analysis process.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 107

Table 16
Data Analysis Questions
LEVEL 1: REACTION
Does principal engagement during the program meet expectation?
Does relevance of the program to principals’ job responsibilities meet expectations?
Does principal satisfaction with the program meet expectation?
LEVEL 2: LEARNING
Does principal knowledge obtained/demonstrated during the program meet expectation?
Does principal skill demonstrate during the program meet expectations?
Does principal attitude about performing new skills on the job meet expectations?
Does principal confidence to apply knowledge and skills on the job meet expectations?
Does principal commitment to apply knowledge and skills on the job meet expectations?
LEVEL 3: BEHAVIOR
Does performance of (insert critical behavior) on the job meet expectations?
Does level of on-the-job learning meet expectations?
Required Drivers
• Does the quality and amount of performance monitoring meet expectations?
• Does reinforcement of critical behaviors meet expectations?
• Does encouragement of perform critical behaviors meet expectations?
• Does the alignment of reward systems and performance of critical behaviors meet expectations?
LEVEL 4: RESULTS
Does movement of (insert leading indicator) meet expectations?
Does movement of (insert desired outcome) meet expectations?

PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 108

Data reporting. The data analysis report should address each question listed for each
respective level. The analysis reporting is to contain a well written and concise summation of
results and visual dashboards as appropriately necessary. Dashboards are visual representations
of results. The dashboards are to support both the written analysis and program results. Program
personnel may determine the implementation of data dashboards to report data findings.
Root cause identifiers. As previously stated, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016)
discusses that data analysis should ask three fundamental questions: 1) Does the level of (level of
assessment) meet expectations? 2) If not, why? and 3) If so, why? Root cause identifiers assist
with answering the second and third data analysis questions. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016)
provide root cause identification tactics that are designed to discover the root causes of program
successes and gaps. Table 17 list root cause identification tactics specific to the Principal Mentor
Program that program facilitators can utilize to conduct an in-depth analysis of data at various
stages of the program. These identification tactics are best implemented in the evaluation time
frames as previously stated in Table 15 and Figure 7. The identification tactics are best utilized
in the formative stages of the program along with program data supporting implementation.
Program facilitators are to implement as deemed necessary by the analysis of program data.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 109

Table 17
Root Cause Identification Tactics
ALL LEVELS
Include conditional questions in surveys and interviews.
Ask program instructors/facilitators for their input.
Ask managers and supervisors of the principals for their observations and input.
Drill down into data to determine if the problem is global or isolated.
Conduct training participant interviews or a focus group and ask open-ended questions.
When indicated, ask follow-up questions.
LEVELS 1 AND 2
Integrate formative evaluation into the training program.
LEVEL 3: BEHAVIOR
Observe on-the-job behavior and watch for obstructions to critical behaviors and required drivers.
Survey or interview principals and their supervisors, customers, coworkers and/or direct reports and ask them
why they think that critical behaviors and required drivers are not occurring reliably. Ask them what would make
them occur.
LEVEL 4: RESULTS
Survey or interview principals and their supervisors, customers, coworkers and/or direct reports and ask them
why they think that leading indicators and/or desired results are not moving in the right direction. Ask them what
behaviors or circumstances would make them move in the right direction.

Summary
The purpose of this study was to use the knowledge, motivational, and organizational
framework by Clark and Estes (2008) to evaluate leadership best practices that have influenced
increased reading proficiency at schools with low SES populations of 50% or higher. The
principals for this promising practice study were selected based upon confirmed state test scores
showing reading proficiency growth for at least 2 academic years.
Assumed knowledge, motivational, and organizational assets were identified and verified
through an in-depth literature review. Semistructured interviews captured data from the
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 110

participating principals. From the data analysis of principal interviews, one new organizational
asset emerged to confirm the existence and use of instructional triangulation. This promising
practice study introduced instructional triangulation. Though the principals interviewed did not
refer to this term, the interview data confirmed that the use and implementation of instructional
triangulation discussed in this promising practice study influenced an increase in reading
proficiency scores. In summation, instructional triangulation connects and aligns data
analyzation of student reading assessment data, instructional dialogue and planning (leadership
team, literacy coach, and teachers analyzing data and planning classroom instruction to address
learning gaps), and instructional delivery (classroom instruction aligned to the data and state
reading standards).
This promising practice study leveraged the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016) as the framework for future implementation and evaluation of the
promising practice study recommendations. The New World Kirkpatrick Model, launched in
2010, expands upon the original model to address the learning capacities of various industries
and fields in the 21st century.
Beginning with Level 4, the New World Kirkpatrick Model examines the degree in which
targeted outcomes should be evident with the targeted stakeholders in the organization as a result
of the learning experiences that were delivered with appropriate support and accountability
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). With Level 3, the model examines the degree in which the
principals should apply learning content from the training in their schools through monitoring,
encouraging, rewarding, and reinforcing (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). With Level 2, the
model examines the degree in which principals should embrace the knowledge, skills, attitude,
confidence, and commitment to do the tasks in a manner that would be appropriate for their
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 111

respective schools (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Last, with Level 1, the model examines
the degree in which principals should engage in the learning experience through relevancy and
overall satisfaction (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
The recommendations presented by this study aspire to serve as a performance
enhancement framework available for adoption, adaptation, and implementation by principals
and school districts with high percentages of low-income students. Through deliberate
application of the recommendations of this promising practice study, it is anticipated that
principals, schools, and districts will achieve increased reading proficiency with consistency.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivational, and organizational framework is
designed to analyze performance gaps within an organization. For this analysis, a promising
practice study, there were no performance gaps to analyze. With a promising practice study,
performance assets are the focus of analyzation, therefore, the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO
framework was not the best suited fit. However, the combination of the KMO influences (Clark
& Estes, 2008) and the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016)
provide a rigorous performance improvement framework with specific best practices that can be
considered for adoption and adaptation by elementary school principals seeking to improve
reading proficiency among a low SES student population.
Limitations
Limitations to the study must be disclosed to protect the credibility and trustworthiness of
a qualitative study (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Limitations consist of elements
in a study that cannot be controlled by the research or the study and include factors relating to
sample size, sample representation, potential confounding variables, limitations in the data
collection process, and researcher bias and reflexivity among many other (Glesne, 2014;
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 112

Maxwell, 2013). For this promising practice study, three limitations presented themselves that
the researcher, nor the study had control over. The limitations presented are the number of
participants consenting to participate, time constraints, and researcher bias and participant
reflexivity.
With regard to the first limitation of study participants, the researcher contacted eight
elementary principals located in various locations in the United States. Only four principals
responded and gave consent to participate. Prior to the scheduling of interviews, summative
reading test scores were analyzed by the researcher to confirm a low SES student population of
50% or higher and at least 2 years of reading proficiency growth to qualify principals for the
study. Four semistructured interviews were conducted and analyzed. All the interviews
provided rich content and all assets were confirmed with the exception of one. However, a larger
pool of participants could have presented an even richer pool of content for analysis.
The second limitation to this promising practice study is time constraints. The researcher
had to schedule interviews based upon principal availability based upon a 1-hour interview time
commitment. The time schedules of the participating principals were very demanding, therefore,
the researcher scheduled interviews in between benchmark testing and other required work and
training days committed to by the principals. This time restraint made it difficult to schedule a
second interview if deemed necessary by the researcher. The researcher had to be flexible as
there was always the possibility of a last-minute request by the principal to reschedule.
The third limitation to this promising practice study was researcher bias and participant
reflexivity. Maxwell (2013) lists two validity threats in qualitative research: researcher bias and
reactivity. Researcher bias is the influence of the researcher’s experience, beliefs, education, and
identity may have on the interpretation of data (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher may have some
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 113

external bias from personal experience as a classroom teacher, administrator, and advocate in
poverty schools and communities. The researcher engaged components of the Ethical Checklist
as listed by Merriam & Tisdell (2016). The checklist activities engaged by the researcher were
critical self-reflection, conduction of an audit trail, and the inclusion of rich descriptions of data
analysis to reduce the threat of researcher bias.
Reactivity is the influence the researcher has on participant responses to interview
questions (Maxwell, 2013). In the case of this study, the principals may provide answers that
alleviate negative perception or critique concerning their leadership abilities and school
performance. Respondent validation is the process of sharing and soliciting feedback from study
participants and is a confirmed method of ruling out possible misinterpretation of participant
interview responses (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher shared the final results of the study with
participants as the schools were only discussed in a positive perspective.
Future Research
Future research of the knowledge, motivational, and organizational assets listed in this
study could include a larger pool of principals to add to the body of research presented in the
promising practice, as well as previous research conducted on principal leadership. A larger pool
of participants would provide richer data analyzation for adoption and adaptation. Second,
future research is suggested to be conducted on the topic of social and emotional needs of low
SES students in relation to instruction, supplemental services, and professional development. An
emerged finding from this promising practice study was the resources and attention given by
schools and communities to address the social and emotional needs of the student population.
There is currently a wide body of research on the correlation of academic achievement and social
and emotional needs of low SES students. Conducting further research on the benefits of
training faculty and staff of social and emotional best practices and the impact on academic
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 114

achievement would contribute to the body of research currently present and be utilized for
adoption and adaptation by schools serving low SES students.
Conclusion
The purpose of this promising practice study was to utilize the Clark and Estes (2008)
knowledge, motivation, and organizational framework to evaluate leadership assets that
influenced an increase in reading proficiency among low SES student populations. Through
careful data analysis by the researcher, two knowledge assets were confirmed. All motivational
and organizational assets were confirmed with additional emerged findings.
The two emerged findings were organizational assets of social and emotional support and
instructional triangulation. It was confirmed that all schools provided for the social and
emotional needs of their students in various ways whether it was school based or through
community partnerships. Second, the findings confirmed that all principals engaged their
schools in instructional triangulation. One of the key assets that contributed to increased reading
proficiency scores in reading was instructional triangulation. Principals aligned data analyzation
of student assessment data, instructional dialogue of the data and planning to address academic
gaps, and instructional delivery aligned to academic gaps. In summation, this can be termed as
instructional triangulation of data, dialogue, and delivery. Based upon the findings, reading data
assessment was analyzed by schools in three stages: real-time data (daily/weekly classroom
assessment data), benchmark data (BOY, MOY, EOY), and annual summative data. Through
engagement in real-time data, reading gaps were assessed in real time, therefore, allowing
teachers to plan instruction directly addressing instructional gaps that emerge from the data
analyzation. Therefore, benchmark assessments were utilized to assess the effectiveness of the
real-time assessments given on a daily/weekly basis and alignment to the grade level reading
standards.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 115

In closing, this promising practice study discussed all confirmed knowledge, motivation,
and organizational assets and emerged findings, as well as provided suggestions for future
research. The rich data analysis in this promising practice study presented a suggested
implementation and evaluation program in which schools and districts serving low SES
populations can utilize through adoption, adaptation, and implementation for the purpose of
increasing reading proficiency among the low SES student population.

PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 116

References
Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Creikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich,
P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrick, M.C. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom ’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon (Pearson Education Group).
Armstrong, Patricia. (2018). Bloom’s Taxonomy. Retrieved from
https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy
Baker, L. (2006). Developmental differences in metacognition: Implications for metacognitively
oriented reading instruction. Metacognition in Literacy Learning (pp. 83–102).
Routledge.
Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2010). Driven by data. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2012). Leverage leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Barker, R. (2001). The nature of leadership. Human Relations, 54, 469–494.
Baydar, N., Brooks‐Gunn, J., & Furstenberg, F. F. (1993). Early warning signs of functional
illiteracy: Predictors in childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 64(3), 815–829.
Beachum, F. (2011). Culturally relevant leadership for complex 21st century school contexts.
Sage handbook of educational leadership, 26–35.
Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P. A. & Harvey, J. A. (2003). Distributed leadership. Nottingham,
England: National College of School Leadership.
Bitter, C., O’Day, J., Gubbins, P., & Socias, M. (2009). What works to improve student literacy
achievement? An examination of instructional practices in a balanced literacy approach.
Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14(1), 17–44. Retrieved from
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 117

http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/6
1899844?accountid=14749
Blankstein, A. M. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student achievement
in high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Borman, G. D., Benson, J., & Overman, L. T. (2005). Families, schools, and summer learning.
Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 131–150,188. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/224520285?accountid=14749
Brooks-Gunn, J., Guo, G., & Furstenberg Jr, F. F. (1993). Who drops out of and who continues
beyond high school? A 20-year follow-up of black urban youth. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 3(3), 271–294.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017). High school graduates who work full time had median
weekly earnings of $718 in second quarter. Retrieved from
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/high-school-graduates-who-work-full-time-had-
median-weekly-earnings-of-718-in-second-quarter.htm
Burney, V. H., & Beilke, J. R. (2008). The constraints of poverty on high achievement. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 171–321, 385. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/222275545?accountid=14749
Carter, S. C. (2000). No Excuses: Lessons from 21 High-Performing, High-Poverty Schools.
Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.
Cedeño, L. F., Martínez-Arias, R., & Bueno, J. A. (2016). Implications of socioeconomic status
on academic competence: A perspective for teachers. International Education Studies,
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 118

9(4), 257–267. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1
826532120?accountid=14749
Chapman, J. W., Tunmer, W. E., & Prochnow, J. E. (2000). Early reading-related skills and
performance, reading self-concept, and the development of academic self-concept: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 703.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Common Core, 2018. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1997). Consequences of living in poverty for young
children’s cognitive and verbal ability and early school achievement. In J. R. Smith, J.
Brooks-Gunn, and P. K. Klebanov (Eds.) Consequences of growing up poor (pp. 132–
189). New York, NY: Russel Sage Foundation.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 109–132.
Eyal, O., & Roth, G. (2011). Principals’ leadership and teachers’ motivation: Self-determination
theory analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(3), 256–275. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/881472939?accountid=14749
Finnigan, K. S. (2010). Principal leadership and teacher motivation under high-stakes
accountability policies. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(2), 161–189.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 119

Finnigan, K. S. (2012). Principal leadership in low-performing schools: A closer look through
the eyes of teachers. Education and Urban Society, 44(2), 183–202.
Fraise, N. J., & Brooks, J. S. (2015). Toward a theory of culturally relevant leadership for
school-community culture. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17(1),
6–21.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K., Guerin, D. W., & Parramore, M. M. (2003).
Socioeconomic status in children’s development and family environment: Infancy
through adolescence. In M. H. Bornstein & R. H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status,
parenting, and child development (pp.260–285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Greene, J. P., & Forster, G. (2003). Public High School Graduation and College Readiness Rates
in the United States. Education Working Paper No. 3. Center for Civic Innovation.
Heritage, M. (2010). Formative Assessment and Next-Generation Assessment Systems: Are We
Losing an Opportunity? Council of Chief State School Officers.
Hernandez, D. J. (2011). Double Jeopardy: How Third-Grade Reading Skills and Poverty
Influence High School Graduation. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Hosking, D.M. (1988). Organizing, leadership and skillful process. Journal of Management
Studies, 25, 147–166.
Hughes, C., Stenhjem, P. H., & Newkirk, R. (2007). Poverty, race and youth: Challenges and
promising practices in education. International Journal on School Disaffection, 5(1),
22–28. Retrieved From
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1
312421691?accountid=14749
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 120

Hughes, J., & Kwok, O. M. (2007). Influence of student-teacher and parent–teacher relationships
on lower achieving readers' engagement and achievement in the primary grades. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 39.
Hulleman, C. S., Kosovich, J. J., Barron, K. E., & Daniel, D. B. (2017). Making connections:
Replicating and extending the utility value intervention in the classroom. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 109(3), 387–404. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1895983196?accountid=14749
Jacobson, S. (2011). Leadership effects on student achievement and sustained school success.
International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 33–44. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/870284842?accountid=14749
Jacobson, S. L., Brooks, S., Giles, C., Johnson, L., & Ylimaki, R. (2007). Successful leadership
in three high-poverty urban elementary schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(4),
291–317. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/61954513?accountid=14749
Jensen, E. (2009). Teaching with poverty in mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Jensen, E. (2013). How poverty affects classroom engagement. Educational Leadership, 70(8),
24–30.
Jones, S. M., & Bouffard, S. M. (2012). Social and emotional learning in schools: From
programs to strategies and commentaries. Social Policy Report, 26(4), 1–33.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 121

Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development.
Komro, K. A., Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., & Promise Neighborhoods Research Consortium. (2011).
Creating nurturing environments: A science-based framework for promoting child health
and development within high-poverty neighborhoods. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review, 14(2), 111–134.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Lacour, M., & Tissington, L. D. (2011). The effects of poverty on academic achievement.
Educational Research and Reviews, 6(7), 522–527.
Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice.
Reflective Practice, 9(3), 341–360.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school
leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27–42.
Lesnick, J., Goerge, R., Smithgall, C., & Gwynne, J. (2010). Reading on grade level in third
grade: How is it related to high school performance and college enrollment. Chicago, IL:
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, 1, 12.
Liaw, F. R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1994). Cumulative familial risks and low-birthweight children’s
cognitive and behavioral development. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23(4),
360–272.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 122

Maxwell, J. A. (2013) Qualitative research design. Los Angeles: SAGE.
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., de Brey, C., Snyder, T., Wang, X., Wilkinson-Flicker, S.,
Gebrekristos, S., Zhang, J., Rathbun, A., Barmer, A., Bullock Mann, F., and Hinz, S.
(2017). The Condition of Education 2017 (NCES 2017-144). U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017144
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Milne, A., & Plourde, L. A. (2006). Factors of a low-SES household: What aids academic
achievement? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(3), 183.
Morgan, P. L., & Fuchs, D. (2007). Is there a bidirectional relationship between children’s
reading skills and reading motivation? Exceptional Children, 73(2), 165–183.
Mraz, M., & Rasinski, T. V. (2007). Summer reading loss. The Reading Teacher, 60(8), 784–
789. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/203281888?accountid=14749
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2017). Reading Assessment. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading
National Center for Children in Poverty. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.nccp.org/
National Center for Education Evaluation. (2016). NCEE Study Snapshot. Retrieved from the
U.S. Department of Education at https://ies.ed.gov/ncee
National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/
National Center on Afterschool and Summer Enrichment. (2016). Summer learning brief: Why
summers matter. Retrieved from http://www.summerlearning.org/about-nsla
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 123

National School Lunch Program (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/national-school-lunch-program-nslp
Neuman, S. B. (2013). The American dream: Slipping away? Educational Leadership, 70(8),
18–22. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1651860110?accountid=14749
Noble, K. G., Norman, M. F., & Farah, M. J. (2005). Neurocognitive correlates of
socioeconomic status in kindergarten children. Developmental Science, 8(1), 74–87.
Noble, K. G., Wolmetz, M. E., Ochs, L. G., Farah, M. J., & McCandliss, B. D. (2006). Brain–
behavior relationships in reading acquisition are modulated by socioeconomic factors.
Developmental Science, 9(6), 642–654.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00542.x
Norwalk, K. E., DiPerna, J. C., Lei, P., & Wu, Q. (2012). Examining early literacy skill
differences among children in Head Start via latent profile analysis. School Psychology
Quarterly, 27(3), 170–183. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1
140142218?accountid=14749
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Pekrun, R. (2011). Emotions as drivers of learning and cognitive development. In R. A. Calvo &
S. K. D’Mello (Eds.), New perspectives on affect and learning technologies (pp. 23–39).
New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-9625-1_3
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 124

Piazza, S. V., & Duncan, L. E. (2012). After-school literacy engagements with struggling
readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 28(3), 229–254.
doi:10.1080/10573569.2012.676363
Quinn, D. (2015). Black–white summer learning gaps: Interpreting the variability of estimates
across representations. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1), 50–69.
doi:10.3102/0162373714534522
Quinn, D. M., Cooc, N., McIntyre, J., & Gomez, C. J. (2016). Seasonal dynamics of academic
achievement inequality by socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity: Updating and
extending past research with new national data. Educational Researcher, 45(8), 443-453.
Reardon, S. F. (2013). The widening income achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 70(8),
10–16.
Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674.
Rueda, R. (2011). The three dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Scafidi, B., Sjoquist, D. L., & Stinebrickner, T. R. (2007). Race, poverty, and teacher mobility.
Economics of Education Review, 26(2), 145–159.
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership, 5th edition. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Scherer, M. (2010). Getting a grip on the gaps. Educational Leadership, 68(3), 1–7. Retrieved
from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/854553291?accountid=14749
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 125

Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Holmes, G., Madden, N. A., & Chamberlain, A. (2013). Effects of a
data-driven district reform model on state assessment outcomes. American Educational
Research Journal, 50(2), 371–396. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1413415653?accountid=14749
Sowell, E. R., Peterson, B. S., Thompson, P. M., Welcome, S. E., Henkenius, A. L., & Toga, A.
W. (2003). Mapping cortical change across the human life span. Nature Neuroscience,
6(3), 309.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning
communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.
Triangulation. (2018) In Merriam-Webster online. Retrieved from
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/triangulation
Tschannen-Moran, B., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2011). The coach and the evaluator.
Educational Leadership, 69(2), 10–16. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1018477797?accountid=14749
Ubben, G. C., Hughes, L. W., & Norris, C. J. (2007). The principal. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Inviting confidence in school: Invitations as a critical source
of the academic self-efficacy beliefs of entering middle school students. Journal of
Invitational Theory and Practice, 12, 7–16.
Weinstein, C., Curran, M., & Tomlinson-Clarke, S. (2003). Culturally responsive classroom
management: Awareness into action. Theory into Practice, 42(4), 269–276.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers. New York, NY: The Free Press.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 126

Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria
for Interview, Survey and Observation
Participating Stakeholders
There are many facets that contribute to high literacy achievement among low-income
student populations. For this promising practice study, the stakeholder of focus are elementary
school principals in mid- to high-poverty elementary schools. A school is deemed mid- to high-
poverty when at least 50% of the student population receives free or reduced lunch (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2018). Principals that participated in this study have met or
exceeded the annual target goal for a minimum of 2 years in literacy set forth by their state for
the economically disadvantaged subgroup as required by the Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA).
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The qualitative perspective was implemented for participant interviews. Qualitative
interviews included open-ended questions to obtain in-depth information from the participants
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews captured in-depth information from participants of the
KMO conceptual framework contributing to increased literacy proficiency. Four interviews were
conducted by telephone and one interview was conducted in person at the school site.
Explanation for Choices
In a qualitative study, it is important to discover the meaning and value of influences in a
study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview data collection method was used to obtain in-
depth information. The interview data collection method supported the assumed KMO
influences.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Elementary principals in mid- to high-poverty schools.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 127

Criterion 2. Principals have led the literacy improvement efforts resulting in schools
meeting or exceeding target literacy goals set by the state.
Criterion 3. Principals were assigned during the pre- and postliteracy improved
performance.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 128

Appendix B: Protocols
Interview Protocol
Interviews are conversations with an intended purpose that allows the interviewer to enter
the perspective of the stakeholder of focus (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview type to be
used for this qualitative study is semistructured. The semistructured interview format provides
structure by use of a list of questions aligned to the study’s research questions (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). There is no predetermined order or wording with the semistructured interview
and the questions can be used flexibly (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The semistructured interview
was most appropriate for this study as it provided the flexibility necessary to obtain each
principal’s unique perspective and the process to achieve increased literacy performance in their
respective schools. The semistructured interview examined all aspects of the KMO (Clark &
Estes, 2008) framework in relation to the leadership style utilized to meet or exceed target goals
in reading. In addition, the semistructured interview was used to examine the solutions and
recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources and what
may be appropriate for solving the problem of practice at another organization.
Patton (2015) suggests six question types that lend to the development of effective
interview questions. The interview instrument was inclusive of Patton’s (2015) six question
types to include a variety of questions that appealed to experience, values, feelings, knowledge,
sensory, and background. Such question types may require the use of probes to garner additional
details to adequately answer interview questions. Probes are questions or comments that follow
up to a question or comment previously stated (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Probes cannot be
specified ahead of time as they depend on the participants answer to a question (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Probing is best developed through practice (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). It is
important for the researcher to practice probing and be familiar with interview questions. This
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 129

will maximize the effectiveness of probing, if necessary, to gain important details from
participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Interview Procedures
Interviews should be conducted at a time when it is best for the study participants (Weiss,
1994). To acquire rich and useful data from principals that lead schools on the traditional
academic calendar, conducting interviews between the months of October through December is
most conducive. The beginning of an academic school year is extremely hectic for principals.
The date and time of the interviews were determined by availability of each principal. The
interview instrument consisted of 14 questions. The literature suggests that interview content is
accurately covered with at least two interviews (Weiss, 1994). Therefore, two interviews are to
be scheduled with each principal, however, only one interview was necessary. According to
Weiss (1994), the suggested interview time length is 1 hour, therefore, each interview was
scheduled for 1 hour. The semistructure of the interview questions appropriately merged the
formal and informal interview methods (Merriam &Tisdell, 2016).
Three interviews were conducted by phone and one interview was conducted in person at
the school site. Only the researcher and principal were in attendance. An in-person or face-to-
face interview allows for the researcher to best connect with the study participant to observe
body language and tone of voice (Meriam & Tisdell, 2016; Weiss, 1994). Recording interviews
in the audio format allows for the researcher to solely concentrate on the information gathered
from the study participant (Weiss, 1994). Along with recording the interviews, notes were taken
from the researcher. Note-taking can serve useful in the event the recorder fails during the
interview and to allow for the researcher to record any additional details pertinent to the
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 130

interview (Weiss, 1994). North Carolina is the principal residence of the researcher. The
researcher will audio record the interview, as well as take notes.
Interview Questions
Research questions.
1. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational assets resultant of selected
elementary schools achieving and sustaining at least 1 year of academic literacy
growth?
2. What solutions and recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources may be appropriate for solving the problem of practice at
another organization?
Table B-1 lists the knowledge, motivation, and organizational assumed assets that guided
the development of the interview questions. The assumed assets were aligned to the framework
of the KMO framework by Clark and Estes (2008).
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 131

Table B-1
KMO Assumed Asset Table
Knowledge Assets Motivational Assets Organizational Assets
Factual Knowledge
Principals know the literacy
standards and strands students show
below proficiency scores.
Self-Efficacy
Principals have the belief and skill
set to assist students to become
proficient in reading.
Cultural Setting 1
The organization has structured
school processes and procedures.
Conceptual Knowledge
Principals know effective reading
instructional strategies and
techniques.
Utility Value
Principals have the value of
becoming knowledgeable of
effective reading instructional
strategies and techniques.
Cultural Setting 2
The organization has instructional
triangulation: curriculum,
instruction, and assessment.
Conceptual Knowledge
Principals know the educational
culture in the home.
Cultural Model 1
The organization prioritizes staff
engagement in the instructional
plan.
Cultural Model 2
The organization supports a
learning environment for teachers
to develop and enhance
instructional practice.

Demographic questions.
1. How many years have you been in educational leadership in poverty schools?
2. What degrees do you presently hold and working toward (if applicable)?
3. How many years of teaching experience did you complete before becoming a
principal? What subjects?
4. What is your age range? Choose not to answer, 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60 plus.
5. What is your ethnicity?
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 132

Knowledge influence questions.
6. Can you share your data assessment process to identify below proficient literacy
strands of low socioeconomic status (SES) at the beginning of year (BOY), middle of
year (MOY), and end of year (EOY)?
7. Based upon the BOY, MOY, and EOY formative assessments, how are the use of
reading curriculum and instructional strategies decided?
8. What methods are utilized to assess the reading culture in the home of low SES
students?
Motivational influence questions.
9. Describe your instructional leadership style.
10. How do you engage in professional development as a principal to sharpen and
maintain your skills as the instructional leader of your school especially regarding
literacy?
Organizational influence questions.
Cultural setting 1.
11. Describe what a typical instructional day looks like at your school.
12. Can you describe some key elements of the learning culture at your school that has
improved literacy performance?
Follow-up: Acronyms, Chants, School student reading data, etc.
13. What specific programs and/or strategies have been implemented to serve the
additional identified needs of the low SES student population? This can be academic
and/or nonacademic.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 133

Follow-Up: How did data/research drive the selection and implementation of these
programs?
14. What kind of support does the school receive from the community?
Cultural setting 2.
15. Describe what is expected during professional learning community (PLC)/ staff
planning?
16. How are data used to drive instructional planning?
Cultural model 1.
17. What role do teachers play in the development and implementation of instruction to
support literacy improvement goals?
18. How does the reading facilitator/curriculum coach support literacy improvement
goals?
Cultural model 2.
19. How are teachers supported instructionally at your school?
20. How does professional development support literacy instructional goals?
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 134

Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness
It is vital that qualitative studies be credible and trustworthy (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The careful design of a study, and applying standards well developed and backed
by appropriate research is what makes a qualitative study credible and trustworthy (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). To ensure credibility and trustworthiness for this study, the researcher engaged in
critical self-reflection, provided an audit trail, and provided rich descriptions of findings
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Critical Self-Reflection
Critical self-reflection is a self-examination by the researcher of biases, assumptions, and
relationship to the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher is an educator and
educational leader that works with the low SES population. It was critical that the researcher
conduct critical self-reflection during the study and analysis of data so that researcher biases,
assumptions, and relationship to the educational field did not impede the credibility of the study.
The researcher will maintain a reflection journal during the course of the study.
Audit Trail
An audit trail is a detailed account of the methods, procedures, and findings of the study
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study required the researcher to provide detailed and descriptive
explanations supported by research of all research methods, procedures, data collection, and
findings. Explanations are detailed and precise for this study as it provides solutions and
recommendations for practice of what may be appropriate for solving the problem of practice at
another educational organization.
Rich Descriptions
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) describe rich descriptions as the researcher providing
detailed descriptions in an appropriate amount so that readers can understand findings and
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 135

determine how the study relates to their own context. The intent of this promising practice study
was to provide a soluble study for current or future principals serving in poverty schools. The
interview data collected from principals are presented as solutions to the problem of practice, as
well as recommendations for current and future principals serving low SES student populations.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 136

Appendix D: Ethics
It is the responsibility of the researcher to guide the integrity of both methods of research
to ensure trustworthiness of the study regarding participants, data collection, and dissemination
of research results (Glesne, 2011). To ensure ethical integrity, this study has been submitted and
approved by the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB). In good
faith, the researcher has abided by all rules and guidelines to ensure the welfare and protection of
rights of all participants of this study (UP-18-00595).
A research study that involves human participants should follow ethical principles such
as informed consent to participate, voluntary participation, data and participant confidentiality,
right to withdraw without penalty, separate permission to record, and storage and data security
(Glesne, 2011). Participants were asked to sign consent forms that were inclusive of the purpose
of the study and all necessary requirements. All participants were made aware that participation
was voluntary, and that they may withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. The
researcher informed and reminded participants that there are no monetary incentives for
participating. A thank you note at the end of the study was given in gratitude for their time and
efforts. Confidentiality of participant identities, organizations, and data were maintained using
pseudonyms. A separate permission form to record in person and video interviews was utilized.
The recording consent form informed participants that interviews recorded will only be used for
the purposes of the study and permanently deleted from all devices and data storage services.
Data storage and security is to be maintained by Google Drive and Box cloud storage services
that are password protected. All computing technical devices used for document formatting,
storage, and recording will also be password protected. Files for the study participants were
labeled using their assigned pseudonyms. Study files were removed at the end of the study.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 137

The researcher has not served as an employee of the schools participating in this study,
therefore, a professional relationship does not exist. This promising practice study was inclusive
of elementary schools located in various parts of the United States. Because the purpose of this
study was to highlight leadership traits that improved literacy achievement among low-income
students, the possibility of punitive damages to participants was minimal. To minimize any such
conflict to ethical behavior, the researcher reviewed in good detail the Ethical Issues Checklist
by Merriam and Tisdell (2016). In addition, the researcher’s dissertation chair served as ethical
advisor for this study. The researcher does not have a working relationship with principal
participants.
Maxwell (2013) lists two validity threats in qualitative research: researcher bias and
reactivity. Researcher bias is the influence of the researcher’s experience, beliefs, education, and
identity may have on the interpretation of data (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher may have some
external bias from personal experience as a classroom teacher, administrator, and advocate in
poverty schools and communities. Quality qualitative research includes self-reflection and peer
debriefing to alleviate researcher bias as a threat to validity in the interpretation of data
(Creswell, 2014).
Reactivity is the influence the researcher has on participant responses to interview
questions (Maxwell, 2013). In the case of this study, the principals may provide answers that
alleviate negative perception or critique concerning their leadership abilities and school
performance. Respondent validation is the process of sharing and soliciting feedback from study
participants and is a confirmed method of ruling out possible misinterpretation of participant
interview responses (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher shared the final results of the study with
participants as the schools were only discussed in a positive perspective.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 138

Appendix E: Evaluation Instruments
Table E-1
Level 1 and 2 Blended Evaluation Instrument
Evaluation Statements Likert Scale Rating
Engagement

I attended all the training sessions. Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
The facilitator presented the learning content that was understandable
and aligned with the session topic.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
I was able to implement the learning content in the group breakout
activities.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
Relevance

The session content was relative to the needs of my school. Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
The session content was relative to my needs as a principal. Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
Declarative Knowledge “I know it . ”

I can recall and discuss the content of the learning goals with my group
members.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
Procedural Skills “I can do it right no w. ”

I can discuss and present how the content of the learning goals applies
to the specific instructional and organizational needs of my school.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
Attitude “I believe this is w o rt hw hil e. ”

I actively engaged in the learning content presentation, breakout
groups, and can discuss how the training information is applicable to
my school.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
Confidence “I think I can do it on the j o b.”

I can discuss and show how the learning content in this session is
applicable to my school.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
How confident are you that you will be able to apply what you learned
back at your school?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0=Not committed at all
10=Extremely committed
(continued)
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 139

Evaluation Statements Likert Scale Rating
Table E-1, continued.
Commitment “I will do it on the j o b.”

I can create and present an implementation plan with time
implementation goals.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
How committed are you to applying what you learned to your school? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0=Not committed at all
10=Extremely committed
Customer Satisfaction

The facilitator appropriately paced the delivery for learning content so
that I could understand concepts.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
I enjoyed the facilitator’s communication style. Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
From what you learned, what will you be able to apply at your school? Comment:
What assistance or resources will you need to successfully apply what
you learned at your school?
Comment:
What outcomes are you hoping to achieve at your school as a result of
your efforts?
Comment:
Overall, my experience in this training session was: Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor
What other feedback would you like to share? Comment:
Participant Testimonials (optional)—
Option 1—We would appreciate a testimonial of your learning
experience at the Principal Immersion Training if the content was
meaningful and relative to your needs as a principal. You can complete
on this survey form.
Option 2—If you have found the Principal Immersion Training learning
experience beneficial and relative to your needs as a principal, please
consider recording a 1-minute video testimonial at our video booth
during the training.
Comment:

PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 140

Table E-2
Level 2 Evaluation Instrument
Evaluation Methods Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it . ”

I can recall and discuss the content of the learning goals. Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
Procedural Skills “I can do it right no w. ”

I can discuss and present how the content of learning goals apply to the
specific instructional and organizational needs of their schools.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
Attitude “I believe this is w o rt hw hil e. ”

I actively engaged in learning content presentation, breakout groups, and
can discuss how the training information is applicable to my school.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
Confidence “I think I can do it on the j o b.”

I can discuss and show how the learning content in this session is
applicable to my school.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
How confident are you that you will be able to apply what you learned
back at your school?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0=Not committed at all
10=Extremely committed
Commitment “I will do it on the j o b.”

I can create and present an implementation plan with time
implementation goals.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
How committed are you to applying what you learned at your school? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0=Not committed at all
10=Extremely committed
Learning Satisfaction

The facilitator presented the learning content that was understandable and
aligned with the session topic.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
The session was appropriately paced for learning content. Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
I enjoyed the facilitator’s communication style. Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
Overall, my experience in this training session was: Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor
What suggestions about this session would you like to make? Comment:

PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 141

Table E-3
Level 3 Evaluation Instrument
Evaluation Statement Likert Scale Rating
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3
Monitoring

My training mentor contacted me
weekly to discuss BOY plan and
implementation.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1. Data analyzation of student reading progress.
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
My training mentor conducted an on-
site meeting with me and school
observation at the BOY.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1. Data analyzation of student reading progress.
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
A system of accountability with my
leadership team has been created to
ensure all lesson plans are reviewed
on a weekly basis.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
I have implemented a weekly
instructional meeting schedule for
assistant principals and literacy coach
to review and discuss grade level
real-time reading assessment data
and lesson plan alignment to data.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1. Data analyzation of student reading progress.
A weekly attendance schedule has
been created for the principal,
assistant principal, and literacy coach
to attend grade level instructional
dialogue and planning meetings.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
A monthly schedule has been created
for assigned personnel to conduct
and attend (principal, asst. principal,
literacy coach, teachers) scheduled
professional learning communities
(PLCs).
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
A daily schedule for informal
classroom walkthroughs has been
created and implemented.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
(continued)
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 142

Evaluation Statement Likert Scale Rating
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3
Table E-3, continued.

Reinforcing

I, or my designee has attended daily
scheduled (principal, asst. principal,
literacy coach) grade level
instructional planning meetings to
discuss data, provide coaching (if
needed), and ensure instruction is
aligned to address reading gaps
identified by the data.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.

I, or my designee has facilitated
weekly corporate staff meetings to
review data, discuss teaching best
practices, and provide teacher
coaching (if needed).
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
I, or my designee have scheduled and
facilitated monthly meetings with
individual teachers to discuss student
reading data and MTSS tier
designation.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1. Data analyzation of student reading progress.
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
Encouraging

The principal provides necessary
support and encouragement to
assistant principals, literacy coach,
and teachers during weekly
scheduled meeting times in their
effort to align data to classroom
instruction to achieve increased
reading proficiency growth.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1. Data analyzation of student reading progress.
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
Rewarding

I have acknowledged teachers that
are consistently achieving reading
growth with their students in grade
level meetings and weekly faculty
meetings.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
I have provided opportunities during
faculty weekly staff meetings to
share student reading growth data
and for teachers to share teaching
best practices they utilized to achieve
student reading growth.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.

PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 143

Table E-4
Level 3 and 4 Blended Evaluation Instrument First Administration
Evaluated Outcome
Likert Scale
Rating Level 4 Outcome (O) and Method (M)
External Outcomes
The MOY Reading Benchmark
assessments showed increased
percentages of students reading at or
above proficiency.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
Increased percentage of students reading at or
above proficiency. (O)
Formative Benchmarks
Summative Assessment (end of school year) (M)
The MOY reading proficiency scores
are:
MOY Scores:

Internal Outcomes
Students demonstrated reading
growth during the academic school
year on daily/weekly real-time data
reading assessments.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
Reading growth during the academic school year.
(O)
Reading assessment selected by schools that are
ongoing in between benchmark assessments. (M)
Teachers have aligned reading
instruction to deficits identified by
the weekly reading data assessments.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
Reading instruction aligned to deficits identified
by the weekly reading data assessments. (O)
Reading deficiencies identified weekly during
grade level meetings with teachers, literacy coach,
and administration. (M)
Teachers provide high-quality
reading instruction aligned to the
state reading standards and targeted
directly toward areas of students’
reading deficiencies.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
High-quality reading instruction aligned to the
state reading standards and targeted directly
toward areas of students’ reading deficiencies. (O)
Monthly (or as needed) professional development
in teaching best practices and teacher coaching
based upon student reading assessment data and
teacher observation feedback. (M)

PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 144

Table E-5
Level 3 and 4 Blended Evaluation Instrument First Administration Part 2
Method(s) Likert Scale Rating
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3
Monitoring

My training mentor contacted me
weekly to discuss MOY plan and
implementation.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1. Data analyzation of student reading progress.
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
My training mentor conducted an on-
site meeting with me and school
observation at the MOY.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1. Data analyzation of student reading progress.
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
Lesson plan review schedule for the
leadership team has been followed
consistently.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
Instructional meetings with assistant
principals and literacy coach to
review and discuss grade level real-
time reading assessment data and
lesson plan alignment to data have
been consistently scheduled and
attended.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1. Data analyzation of student reading progress.
There is consistency of attendance
(principal, asst. principal, literacy
coach) at daily grade level
instructional planning meetings.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
Conduct and attend (principal, asst.
principal, literacy coach) scheduled
professional learning communities
(PLCs) as scheduled.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
The daily schedule for classroom
walkthroughs has been consistently
implemented.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
(continued)
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 145

Method(s) Likert Scale Rating
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3
Table E-5, continued.
Reinforcing

Consistent daily attendance
(principal, asst. principal, literacy
coach) at grade level instructional
planning meetings to discuss data,
provide coaching (if needed), and
ensure instruction is aligned to
address reading gaps identified by
the data.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
Facilitate weekly corporate staff
meetings to review data, discuss
teaching best practices, and provide
teacher coaching (if needed).
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
Schedule monthly meetings with
individual teachers to discuss student
reading data and MTSS tier
designation.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1. Data analyzation of student reading progress.
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
Encouraging

Provide support and encouragement
to assistant principals, literacy coach,
and teachers during weekly meeting
time in their effort to align data to
classroom instruction to achieve
increased reading proficiency
growth.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1. Data analyzation of student reading progress.
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
Rewarding

Provide acknowledgment of teachers
that are consistently achieving
reading growth with their students.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
Provide opportunities during weekly
faculty staff meetings to share
student reading growth data and for
teachers to share teaching best
practices utilized to achieve student
reading growth.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.

PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 146

Table E-6
Level 3 and 4 Blended Evaluation Instrument Second Administration
Evaluated Outcome Likert Scale Rating Level 4 Outcome (O) and Method (M)
External Outcomes
The EOY Reading Benchmark
assessments showed increased
percentages of students reading at or
above proficiency.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
Increased percentage of students reading at or
above proficiency. (O)
Formative Benchmarks
Summative Assessment (end of school year) (M)
The EOY reading proficiency scores
are:
EOY Scores:

Internal Outcomes
Students demonstrated reading
growth during the academic school
year on daily/weekly real-time data
reading assessments.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
Reading growth during the academic school year.
(O)
Reading assessment selected by schools that are
ongoing in between benchmark assessments. (M)
Teachers have aligned reading
instruction to deficits identified by
the weekly reading data assessments.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
Reading instruction aligned to deficits identified
by the weekly reading data assessments. (O)
Reading deficiencies identified weekly during
grade level meetings with teachers, literacy coach,
and administration. (M)
Teachers provide high-quality
reading instruction aligned to the
state reading standards and targeted
directly toward areas of students’
reading deficiencies.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
High-quality reading instruction aligned to the
state reading standards and targeted directly
toward areas of students’ reading deficiencies. (O)
Monthly (or as needed) professional development
in teaching best practices and teacher coaching
based upon student reading assessment data and
teacher observation feedback. (M)

PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 147

Table E-7
Level 3 and 4 Blended Evaluation Instrument Second Administration Part 2
Method(s) Likert Scale Rating
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3
Monitoring

My training mentor contacted me
weekly to discuss EOY plan and
implementation.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1. Data analyzation of student reading progress.
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
My training mentor conducted an on-
site meeting with me and school
observation at the EOY.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1. Data analyzation of student reading progress.
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
Lesson plan review schedule for the
leadership team has been followed
consistently.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
Instructional meetings with assistant
principals and literacy coach to
review and discuss grade level real-
time reading assessment data and
lesson plan alignment to data have
been consistently scheduled and
attended.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1. Data analyzation of student reading progress.
There is consistency of attendance
(principal, asst. principal, literacy
coach) at daily grade level
instructional planning meetings.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
Conduct and attend (principal, asst.
principal, literacy coach) scheduled
professional learning communities
(PLCs) as scheduled.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
The daily schedule for classroom
walkthroughs has been consistently
implemented.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
(continued)
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 148

Method(s) Likert Scale Rating
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3
Table E-7, continued.
Reinforcing

Consistent daily attendance
(principal, asst. principal, literacy
coach) at grade level instructional
planning meetings to discuss data,
provide coaching (if needed), and
ensure instruction is aligned to
address reading gaps identified by
the data.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
Facilitate weekly corporate staff
meetings to review data, discuss
teaching best practices, and provide
teacher coaching (if needed).
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
2. Instructional Dialogue and Planning for
Instruction in the Classroom
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
Schedule monthly meetings with
individual teachers to discuss student
reading data and MTSS tier
designation.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1. Data analyzation of student reading progress.
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
Encouraging

Provide support and encouragement
to assistant principals, literacy coach,
and teachers during weekly meeting
time in their effort to align data to
classroom instruction to achieve
increased reading proficiency
growth.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
1. Data analyzation of student reading progress.
2. Instructional dialogue and planning for
instruction in the classroom.
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
Rewarding

Provide acknowledgment of teachers
that are consistently achieving
reading growth with their students.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
Provide opportunities during weekly
faculty staff meetings to share
student reading growth data and for
teachers to share teaching best
practices utilized to achieve student
reading growth.
Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
3. Lesson plan review and classroom observations
to ensure instructional alignment to address
reading gaps as determined by the data.
PRACTICABLE PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 149

Table E-8
Level 4 Evaluation Instrument
Evaluation
Statement
Likert Scale
Rating Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increased percentage of students
reading at or above proficiency.
Strongly
Agree, Agree,
Disagree,
Strongly
Disagree
Formative and
summative reading
assessment scores.
Formative Benchmarks
Summative Assessment (end of
school year)
BOY/MOY/EOY Benchmark
Reading Assessment Scores:
Comment:

Summative Assessment Scores: Comment:

Internal Outcomes
Reading proficiency grew
during the academic school
year.
Strongly
Agree, Agree,
Disagree,
Strongly
Disagree
Weekly reading data
assessment scores.
Reading assessment selected by
schools that are ongoing between
benchmark assessments.
Reading instruction was aligned
to deficits identified by the
weekly reading data
assessments.
Strongly
Agree, Agree,
Disagree,
Strongly
Disagree
Student reading
assessment data and
teacher observations
(informal and
formal).
Reading deficiencies identified
weekly during grade level
meetings with teachers, literacy
coach, and administration.
High-quality reading instruction
aligned to the state reading
standards and targeted directly
toward areas of students’
reading deficiencies.
Strongly
Agree, Agree,
Disagree,
Strongly
Disagree
Daily walkthroughs
conducted by
principal, assistant
principals, and
literacy coach.
Monthly (or as needed)
professional development in
teaching best practices and teacher
coaching based upon student
reading assessment data and
teacher observation feedback.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Low literacy achievement among students of low socioeconomic status (SES) in the United States continues to be a prevailing issue in education. Schools categorize the socioeconomic status of enrolled students by the family income eligibility requirement to receive free or reduced lunch (FRL) sponsored by the National School Lunch Program (2018). According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Effects of mentoring on public school administrators: an evaluation study

PDF

Reforming student discipline policies in elementary schools: an improvement study

PDF

Elementary principal leadership and learning outcomes for low socioeconomic status Hispanic English learners

PDF

Teach them to read: implementing high leverage pedagogical practices to increase English language learner academic achievement

PDF

Meaningful learning opportunities for children from low socioeconomic backgrounds in pre-kindergarten

PDF

The impact of dual enrollment programs on first-year college success for Hispanic students from low-socioeconomic-status communities: a promising practice

PDF

Functional illiteracy: high stakes learning in the community college environment

PDF

K-12 dress codes and gender equity: an examination of policy and practice of dress code implementation

PDF

Educating hearts and minds through high-quality service learning curriculum in U.S. high schools

PDF

The African American male achievement gap: teachers as change agents

PDF

Supporting emergent bilinguals: implementation of SIOP and professional development practices

PDF

Promising practices: promoting and sustaining a college-going culture

PDF

The adolescent learner's perspective on intensive literacy intervention curriculum

PDF

Everything you need to prepare for college in the palm of your hand: a mobile app for low income, middle school students

PDF

Uncovered leaders in hidden schools: effective leadership practices in California Model Continuation High School principals

PDF

An examination of the impact of professional development on teachers' knowledge and skills in the use of text complexity

PDF

Critical factors impacting the exodus from teaching ranks: an evaluative study of an independent Christian school

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

Challenging stigmas and perceptions in alternative high schools through mentorship: an innovation study

PDF

A school leadership approach to building a college-going culture for low-income Latinx students: high school case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Moore, Trina Nichelle (author)

Core Title Practicable principal leadership in low socioeconomic elementary schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 07/18/2019

Defense Date 05/30/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag data-driven instruction,instructional triangulation,literacy, reading proficiency,low-income,OAI-PMH Harvest,Poverty,Principal,reading assessments,school leadership,socioeconomic status

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Freking, Frederick (committee chair), Brady, Melanie (committee member), Krop, Cathy (committee member)

Creator Email trinamoo@usc.edu,trinanmoore@ymail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-184238

Unique identifier UC11660330

Identifier etd-MooreTrina-7559.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-184238 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MooreTrina-7559.pdf

Dmrecord 184238

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Moore, Trina Nichelle

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA