University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Principals' perceptions of their ability, as school leaders, to apply learning from district-provided professional development

(USC Thesis Other)

Principals' perceptions of their ability, as school leaders, to apply learning from district-provided professional development

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: PRINCIPALS’ PERCEPTIONS OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1

PRINCIPALS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR ABILITY, AS SCHOOL LEADERS, TO APPLY
LEARNING FROM DISTRICT-PROVIDED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

by

Sandra Lyon

A Dissertation Proposal 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

December 2017

Copyright 2017 Sandra Lyon
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

2

Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my amazing husband, Paul. You encouraged me to go
back to school when I first surfaced the notion, even though it made no sense financially,
professionally, or personally. You pushed me to do it because when we first met over 34 years
ago I told you that at some point I wanted to get my doctorate. Then life happened, and the
pursuit of a higher degree was continuously tabled when other priorities emerged. Without your
nudging me to do it at this late stage, and then your complete support and sacrifice, I would not
have made it through this program. I have now fulfilled a lifelong dream because of your
support and I will be eternally grateful that you believed in me and that we did it. More than
anything I know that I am more than fortunate to have such a partner in life. I love you with all
my heart.

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

3

Acknowledgments
I am eternally indebted to all the people who have supported me through this educational
journey. To my family and friends, I thank you all for regularly telling me I could do this, even
on the days I was sure I could not. I love you all. To all of my fantastic colleagues throughout
these past 2 ½ years, and you know who you are, your constant words of encouragement and
understanding truly helped me make it through and I hope you realize how much your belief in
this endeavor made it achievable for me.
I am also appreciative of the phenomenal people I have encountered in the OCL program.
To my fellow OCL students, thank you for the emails, text messages and constant words of
encouragement and support. A heartfelt thanks to Eric, Dora and Marianne for the Sunday
meetings online that kept me going, especially during the last stretch. You are the best! To Dr.
Julie Slayton, thank you for insisting that we think deeply and mine the data. Your high
expectations and prodigious knowledge made me grow and push myself. I will forever look at
my work differently and I hope to be able to translate that learning into actions that improve the
work I do for staff and students alike.
Finally, thank you to all the staff and students with whom I have had the great pleasure of
learning with over my career. I am deeply grateful for each and every person who gives of
him/herself in public education in the service of young people. You are changing the world and
you do make a difference. And to the students I have been so fortunate to work with over the
years, thank you for allowing me to be a part of your lives and to watch you grow into your
futures. All of you inspire me to do a better job each and every day.

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

4

Table of Contents
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Introduction 9
Organizational Context and Mission 11
Organizational Performance Goal 12
Importance of the Study 13
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 15
Purpose of Project and Research Questions 16
Methodological Framework 17
Definitions 17
Organization of the Study 18
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 19
The Role of Instructional Leadership, Principal Self-Efficacy
And Goal Setting, Professional Development and the Organization
In Principals’ Work 20
Principals’ Knowledge and Motivation and District Organizational Factors 21
Knowledge and Skills 21
General Theory 21
The Role of the Principal Leader 22
Declarative Knowledge Influences 22
Procedural Knowledge Influences 26
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 27
Motivation 29
Self-Efficacy Theory 29
Principal Self-Efficacy 30
Goal Orientation Theory 32
Principal Goal Orientation 32
Principal Professional Development 33
Organization 35
General Theory 35
Culture 36
General Theory 36
Cultural Models 37
Cultural Settings 39
Change and Culture 40
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and
Motivation and the Organizational Context 42
Principal Knowledge, Skills and Motivation
and Professional Development 43
Organizational Culture, Leadership and Professional Development 44
Chapter Three: Methodology 47
Participating Stakeholders 47
Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale 47
Interview Sample 48
Observation Sampling Criterion and Rationale 49
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

5

Data Collection and Instrumentation 50
Interviews 50
Observations 52
Documents and Artifacts 54
Data Analysis 54
Credibility and Trustworthiness 55
Ethics 57
Limitations and Delimitations 59
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 61
Participating Stakeholders 61
Research Question One 62
Finding #1: Principals Did Not Believe the Professional Development
Provided by the District Prepared Them to Lead Instructional
Improvement at Their School Sites 63
Theme 1: Instructional Leadership 63
Theme 2: Focus on Compliance 69
Theme 3: Developing and Fostering a Culture 74
of Learning and Professional Behavior
Finding #2 The PD Did Not Build the Principals’ Knowledge to Be Able
to Articulate What the Concepts of Academic Discourse or Student
Engagement Mean or What They Would Look Like in the Classroom 85
Research Question Two 88
Finding #3 The Structure of the Professional Development Offered
Does Not Provide Ongoing Systems of Support for Principals to Carry
Over What They Learned Into Their Practice, Support the Needs
of New or Secondary Principals, Nor does it Address the Adult Learning
Needs of the Principals 89
Theme 1: Systems of Support 89
Theme 2: Meeting the Needs of New and Secondary Principals 97
Theme 3: Adult Learning Needs 103
Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications, and Future Research 108
Summary of Findings Research Question #1 109
Summary of Findings Research Question #2 110
Implications and Recommendations 110
For Practice 110
For Policy 119
Suggestions for Further Research 122
Conclusion 125
References 126
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 137
Appendix B: Observation Protocol 139
Appendix C: Informed Consent 141
Appendix D: Recruitment Letter 144

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

6

List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission and Performance Goal
Table 2: Framework for Learning-centered Leadership

Table 3: Participant Sample

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

7

List of Figures

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

8

Abstract
This study explored the relationship between principal knowledge and skills and district-
provided professional development in one school district that is working to close achievement
gaps between White and Asian students and African American, Latino and students from low
socio-economic backgrounds. Research suggests that principals can impact the outcomes for
underserved students and potentially help close the achievement gap. This study is a qualitative
case study that examined one K-12 school district's professional development for principals. The
investigation analyzed how the district-provided professional development affected the
principals' perceptions of their ability to apply what they learned in PD at their schools and how
the structure of the PD affected those perceptions. The data was collected through observations,
principal interviews and examination of artifacts. The findings revealed that principals did not
think the district-provided professional development prepared them to lead instructional
improvements at their schools nor did they feel they could apply that new learning at their
schools. The findings further revealed that the structure of the PD did not meet the differentiated
needs of the principals nor their needs as adult learners.

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

9

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

The problem of access and opportunity gaps to a high-quality education for African
American and Latino students is important to solve for many reasons. The educational
achievement gaps between White students and historically marginalized students across the
country have existed for years (Lynch & Oakford, 2014). Although educational achievement
gaps have diminished slightly since the 1970s, they have continued to persist due to numerous
factors (Lynch & Oakford, 2014). For example, historically marginalized students
disproportionately experience wealth and income inequalities, which influence educational
outcomes (Lynch & Oakford, 2014).
While income inequality is one factor that has been connected to academic achievement
(Lynch & Oakford, 2014), research also indicates that there are many factors within the
educational context that impact student outcomes for minority students. For instance, research
shows that teacher attitudes and student perceptions can negatively impact both learning
environments and academic achievement for students of color (Bol & Berry, 2005; Pringle,
Lyons, & Booker, 2010; Van den Bergh, Denesssen, Hornstra, Voeten, & Holland, 2010). A lack
of culturally proficient and relevant teaching practices has also been correlated to greater
discipline and negative educational impacts for some student populations (Ahram, Fergus, &
Noguera, 2011; Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010) and minority student populations are also
often found to have less qualified teachers than other students (Goldhaber, Lavery, & Theobald,
2015). Parental support, particularly in the early years, and an understanding of the education
system, with a combined willingness to engage with their children, can also impact student
achievement (Fan & Chen, 2001; Mandara et al. 2009; Scales, Benson, Roehlkepartain, Sesma,
& van Dulmen, 2006). Ultimately, studies (Brown, 2006; Jimenez-Castellanos, 2010; Rivera-
McCutchen, 2010) suggest that if access and opportunities are to increase for historically
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

10

underserved students, administrators at the district and school level must embrace the importance
of setting expectations and monitoring access, opportunities and outcomes for minority students.
If the United States closed the access and opportunity gaps that often prevent historically
underserved students from accessing a high-quality education and greater academic achievement,
the U.S. economy would be 5.8%—or nearly $2.3 trillion—larger in 2050, greatly improving the
standard of living of African Americans and Latinos and lowering the income equality that exists
today (Lynch & Oakford, 2014). Closing opportunity and access gaps to a high-quality
education for all students is not just important because it has a positive economic impact; it is
also important because it promotes society’s essential values of fairness and social justice while
at the same time promoting productivity in the economy that will benefit society at large
(Alliance for Excellent Education, 2011). For individual students, the achievement gap is a
problem because, as the McKinsey Report (2009) states, gaps create lagging representation in all
levels of achievement, including the highest achievement level from which students gain access
to top colleges and reap the highest wage earnings. There is an imperative to close the
achievement gap, or as Ladson-Billings (2006) termed it the “education debt,” so that all students
have equal access and opportunity in all educational settings to develop to their full potentials,
making them able to access colleges and careers that lead to greater economic benefits for them
as individuals and allow them to contribute to the economic health of the United States as a
whole.
In the Bayside School District, a pseudonym for the district studied, the achievement gap
had been examined and noted for many years (Hahnel & Stuart, 2011) and it was a problem that
had to be addressed. Research shows that when historically underserved students experience
higher academic achievement, increased graduation rates and access to higher education, they
have greater opportunities for their own economic improvement and security (McKinsey Report,
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

11

2009) and the Bayside School District, as evidenced by its mission statement (Bayside, 2015),
sought to do just that. Principals, as the leaders on their campuses, were best positioned to
address these inequities because they had the ability to influence and shape the learning
environment and influence the use of resources and community relationships that could impact
education on their campuses and improve outcomes for students. (Goldring, Porter, Murphy,
Elliott, & Cravens, 2007).
Organizational Context and Mission
The name of the organization in which I conducted my research is the Bayside School
District (BSD). The BSD is located on the southern coast of California and serves the two
communities of Bayside and Seaside. At the time of the study, the district had 16 schools: 10
elementary schools (Transitional Kindergarten through 5
th
grade); one Kindergarten-8
th
grade;
two middle schools (6
th
-8
th
grade); one 7
th
-12
th
; one comprehensive high school (9
th
-12
th
); and
one alternative high school (9
th
-12
th
).
As a mid-size coastal California school district with an enrollment of 11,300 in the 2014-
15 school year, Bayside School District had greater demographic variety than its other coastal
neighbors (2012-13 Accountability Progress Reporting, 2015). The demographic breakdown of
the school district was 52% White, 30% Hispanic or Latino, 6% Black or African American, 6%
Asian, 5% two or more races, and one 1% Filipino (2012-13 Accountability Progress Reporting,
2015). This demographic was not represented at each of the schools. Some elementary schools
were predominately White, such as A. Elementary School, which has a White population of
82%, while others, such as B. Elementary School has 52% Hispanic or Latino, 22% White, and
11% Hispanic or Latino. The comprehensive high school, M. High School was more diverse,
with 42% White, 36% Hispanic or Latino, 9% Black or African American, and 5% two or more
races (2012-13 Accountability Progress Reporting, 2015). In terms of performance, the district
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

12

as a whole had an Academic Performance Indicator (API) of 865 (2012-13 Accountability
Progress Reporting, 2015). Achievement varied based on race and ethnicity and socio-
demographic status. For the 2012-13 year, the API for African American students was 746,
Latino students 791, socioeconomically disadvantaged students 779 and English learners, 795.
Schools, based on their diversity, also reflected different levels of academic achievement. A, as
represented above, a more homogenous school, had an API of 944, while B., a more diverse
school, had an API of 830 and the comprehensive high school, M., had an API of 823 (2012-13
Accountability Progress Reporting, 2015).
The stated mission of the school district was “Closing the achievement gap through
excellence for everyone” (Bayside, 2015).
Organizational Performance Goal
The BSD had a stated goal of closing the achievement gap. The Board of Education
determined that closing the achievement gap needed to be part of their mission statement over 10
years ago when it was determined that student achievement of historically marginalized students
was not at the same level as that of White and Asian students (Bayside, 2015).
The district efforts at academic achievement gap closure can be examined through a
comparison of the 2007-2008 and the 2012-13 API data (2012-13 Accountability Progress
Reporting, 2015). In comparing the two data sets, the district-wide API improved from 831 to
865, an improvement of 34 points. African American students moved from 701 to 746, an
improvement of 45 points. Latino students moved from 744 to 791, an increase of 47 points.
Economically disadvantaged students went from 728 to 779, an increase of 51 points. English
learners improved from 755 to 795, an increase of 40 points. White students improved from 878
to 907, an increase of 31 points. And Asian students moved from 913 to 942, an improvement of
29 points. In all cases, the subgroups improved at a greater rate than their White and Asian
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

13

counterparts. However, none reached the state’s API goal of 800 (2012-13 Accountability
Progress Reporting, 2015) and none completely reached the performance of the White or Asian
subgroups.
The BSD had a stated goal that by Spring 2018, at least 60% of English learners, African
American, Latino and socioeconomically disadvantaged students would meet or exceed
standards in English language arts and math as measured by the new California assessment, the
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CASPP). At the time of the study,
results from the CASPP indicated a wide achievement gap in the test’s administration. The
2015-16 CASPP results for students who had met or exceeded standard proficiency (meets and
exceeded are combined), the results for English language arts were district-wide 71%, Latino
52%, African American 50%, White 82 %, Asian 86%, English learners 33%, economically
disadvantaged 48%. For math, the results were district-wide 70%, Latino 39%, African
American 33%, White 74%, Asian 82%, English learners, 30% and economically disadvantaged,
35%. (Edsource.org, 2016).
Importance of the Study
It was important to examine the organization’s performance in relationship preparing
principals so that they would be able to support instructional improvement for a variety of
reasons. If the organization did not improve instruction, gaps would continue and create lagging
representation in all levels of achievement, including the highest achievement level from which
students gained access to top colleges and reap the highest wage earnings (McKinsey Report,
2009). It is imperative that school districts close the achievement gap so all students have equal
access and opportunity in all educational settings to develop to their full potentials, making them
able to access colleges and careers that lead to greater economic benefits for them as individuals
and allow them to contribute to the economic health of the United States as a whole. As research
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

14

suggests, administrators can influence the outcomes for historically marginalized students
through monitoring of the instructional program, learning environment and the allocation of
resources (Brown, 2006; Jimenez-Castellanos, 2010; Rivera-McCutchen, 2010). Knowing that
principals can improve outcomes for students, it is important for a district to ensure principals
have the tools and support they need to be successful in these endeavors. This district-level
support most often comes in the form of professional development that is designed to improve
principals’ knowledge and skills so they can then improve outcomes for students (Guskey,
2000). Examining the organization’s professional learning plan for administrators would enable
stakeholders to collect data that could be used to assess the organization’s professional
development decisions to determine if they impacted the principals’ perception of his/her ability
to achieve the organization’s goal of closing achievement gaps.
Table 1.

Organizational Mission and Performance Goal

Organizational Mission
Closing the achievement gap through excellence for everyone.
Organizational Performance Goal
By Spring 2018, at least 60% of English language learners, African American and
Latino students will meet or exceed standards in English language arts and math as measured
by the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress.
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

15

Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
There were a number of groups who directly contributed to and benefited from the
achievement of the organization’s goal. First were teachers and administrators. As the
organization’s staff, these two groups directly impacted the ability of the organization to meet its
objective in improving outcomes for minority students and their actions and attitudes had an
impact on achieving the desired results. Next were historically marginalized and minoritized
students. As the benefactors of improved services, they would have directly benefited from the
organization’s ability to achieve its goals. Then there were members of the Board of Education,
a governing body that oversaw the direction and policy that was then carried out by the district’s
administrators. The Board of Education’s oversight was important to the organization meeting
its performance goal. Finally, there were parents and community members. These two
stakeholder groups might overlap at times and in each role, their engagement in the educational
outcomes for their own children or the children in the community contribute to the organization’s
ability to achieve its stated performance goal.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to gain insight into what was inhibiting the BSD from
achieving its organizational performance goal. Although some progress was made in closing the
achievement gaps during the administration of California Standards Test (2012-13
Accountability Progress Reporting, 2015), at the time of the study, results from the new CASSP
test revealed wide gaps in performance between White and Asian students and other subgroups
(Edsource.org, 2016). The BSD had a stated goal of closing the achievement gap, ensuring that
African American, Latino, English language learners and socioeconomically disadvantaged
students were achieving academically at the same level as their White and Asian counterparts.
The stated goal of the BSD was that by Spring 2018, at least 60% of English language learners,
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

16

African American and Latino students would meet or exceed standards in English language arts
and math as measured by the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress
(CASPP). As measured by the 2015-16 CASPP assessment, the following percentages had met
or nearly met standards in math: African American, 30%, Latino, 33%, English language
learners, 29%, economically disadvantaged, 37%, compared to White, 69% and Asian, 77%
(Edsource.org, 2016). The following percentages had met or nearly met standards in English
language arts on the CASPP for 2015-16: African American, 45%, Latino, 48%, English
language learners, 31%, economically disadvantaged, 50%, compared to White, 78% and Asian,
83% (Edsource.org, 2016). The district had recognized for more than 10 years, that there was a
gap in achievement between historically underserved students and their White and Asian
counterparts, prompting the district to write a mission statement that included the goal of closing
the achievement gap (Bayside, 2015). It was important to study underlying influences and
propose solutions that might help the BSD close the achievement gap which had been a concern
for staff and community for so long.
The evaluation focused on knowledge, motivation and organizational elements related to
achieving the organizational goals. While a complete performance evaluation would have
focused on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder focused on in this analysis
were the school principals in the district, because principals had the direct responsibility for
supervising and supporting instruction, improving school climate and learning environments and
allocating resources, all of which were known to be factors that affected the outcomes of students
(Brown, 2006; Jimenez-Castellanos, 2010; Rivera-McCutchen, 2010).
The questions that guided this study were:
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

17

1. What are principals’ perceptions of their ability to improve instruction at their
school sites as a result of the district provided professional development they
attended?
2. How does district provided professional development prepare principals to lead
instructional change?
Methodological Framework
This study was a qualitative study that examined the way principals perceived the district
provided professional development impacted their ability to improve instruction at their school
sites. Data was collected through interviews, observations and document review. The data and
information was triangulated with relevant literature and research-based solutions were evaluated
and recommendations made.
Definitions
Achievement Gap: The observed, persistent disparity of educational measures between the
performance of groups of students, especially groups defined by socioeconomic status (SES),
second language learner identification, race/ethnicity and gender.
Professional Development: A wide variety of specialized training, formal education, or advanced
professional learning intended to help administrators, teachers, and other educators improve their
professional knowledge, competence, skill, and effectiveness.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized in five chapters. Chapter One provides the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about educational organizations.
In Chapter One, the organization’s mission, goals and stakeholders as well as the initial concepts
of gap analysis were introduced.
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

18

Chapter Two provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope of the study.
Topics regarding the knowledge and skills principals need to improve learning outcomes,
motivation, professional development and organizational influences are addressed.
Chapter Three provides the methods guided sampling, data collection and analysis.
Chapter Four provides the findings of the evaluation study.
Chapter Five provides the discussion as well as the recommendations for practice, policy
and further research.

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

19

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
At the time of this study, the goal of the Bayside School District was to improve
academic achievement for English language learners, African American, Latino and
economically disadvantaged students so that 60% or more were meeting or exceeding state
standards in English language arts and mathematics as measured by the California Assessment of
Performance and Progress by 2018. In order to improve academic achievement for these
students, principals needed the requisite skills to lead their staffs and monitor the instructional
program at their schools. Therefore, this study sought to collect data that addressed these
research questions:
1. What are principals’ perceptions of their ability to improve instruction at their school
sites as a result of the district provided professional development they attended?
2. How does district provided professional development prepare principals to lead
instructional change?
In order to answer my research questions, I examined relevant literature regarding
principals and instructional leadership, motivation, particularly in regard to principal self-
efficacy and goal-setting, and professional development. I present that literature first. Next, I
explain how each of these bodies informed my understanding of the knowledge and skills
principals need, the way that self-efficacy and goal setting have been shown to be important in a
principal’s effectiveness, and the way that districts’ decisions related to professional
development influence principal learning. I conclude by presenting the interactive conceptual
framework that guided my study design, data collection, and analysis.

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

20

The Role of Instructional Leadership, Principal Self-Efficacy and Goal Setting,
Professional Development and the Organization in Principals’ Work
Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliott, and Cravens (2007) posit that in order to improve
schools and student outcomes, principals must be learning-centered leaders whose behaviors and
practices are focused on school improvement. Research also shows that effective principals
cultivate and support a collaborative learning culture where learning and professional behavior
are focused on the goals of the school and the needs of the students (Hargreaves & Fink, 2008;
Heck & Hallinger, 2010). Finally, research shows that principals must know the appropriate
steps they must take to build instructional capacity in teachers, monitor teaching and learning
and create an environment conducive to change (Jacobson, 2011; King & Bouchard, 2011).
In addition to needing to be sufficiently knowledgeable and skilled in what it takes to
improve schools’ environment and instruction, to be effective, principals must be able to reflect
on their practice, set goals and feel confident that they motivate teachers to provide the learning
environment necessary to improve achievement of all students (Brown & Chai, 2012; Klassen &
Chiu, 2010). School districts play an important role in developing principals’ sense of self-
efficacy (Leithwood, Strauss, & Anderson, 2007). Goal setting is important for principals as it
allows them to focus and operationalize their initiatives (Hallinger, 2005).
Finally, the choices a district makes with respect to professional development are
instrumental in determining whether principals become strong, learning-centered leaders. For
principals to develop, they need to be provided with learning opportunities that address the needs
of adult learners (Knowles, 1973; Mezirow, 2000; Sparks & Hirsh, 2000). Research indicates
that effective professional development is delivered in a way that develops teams and
relationships within the work setting and provides a connection between the learning and
practice (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr, & Cohen, 2007; Sanzo, Myran, &
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

21

Clayton, 2011). Some studies have shown that professional development that allows principals
to reflect on their own practices to determine which actions lead to improved student
achievement for all students and which actions interfere with their improvement efforts is most
supportive of leadership development (Goff, Goldring, & Bickman, 2014; Goldring, Preston, &
Huff, 2012; Helsing, Howell, Kegan, & Lahey, 2008). With these general understandings in
mind, I now turn to the specific ways that these elements play themselves out in principals’
knowledge and motivation and their ability to accomplish the goals set forth by the district.
Principals’ Knowledge and Motivation and District Organizational Factors
In this section I will present literature related to knowledge and skills, particularly as they
relate to principals as instructional leaders. The literature will be followed by my approach to
assessing the knowledge elements that exist for principals. After this section, I will present the
motivation literature, particularly as it pertains to principals’ self-efficacy and goal setting.
Finally, I will present organizational influences, particularly as they pertain to the professional
development.
Knowledge and Skills
General Theory. There are three types of knowledge that are important in learning:
declarative (which can be subdivided into factual and conceptual), procedural and metacognitive
(Krathwohl, 2002). Factual knowledge is what Krathwohl (2002) refers to as the basic
information that individuals must have to be able to understand a discipline or solve problems in
that discipline. Conceptual knowledge refers to the understanding of the interrelationships
between these pieces of information that enables a learner to see how these pieces of information
function together (Krathwohl, 2002). Procedural knowledge refers to any step-by step process
while metacognitive knowledge is the knowledge and control a person has of his/her own
cognitive processes (Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011). To develop mastery in any area,
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

22

individuals must attain the requisite skills, practice integrating them, and know the situations in
which they should apply what they have learned (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Ultimately,
with any knowledge base, continued practice of the knowledge or skill develops automaticity and
takes less capacity in working memory making it easier for the individual to do (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006). All learners need to be given opportunities with new material and
information to transfer the new knowledge, which promotes and furthers learning (Mayer, 2011).
The role of the principal leader. In this section I review literature that pertains to the
conceptual, procedural and metacognitive knowledge a principal must have in order to impact
student outcomes.
Declarative knowledge influences. There is a great deal of conceptual knowledge a
principal must have in order to be an effective leader and create the conditions that foster and
promote student academic success. Researchers have spent decades examining educational
leadership including balanced leadership (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003), distributed
leadership (Spillane, 2005), collaborative leadership (Heck & Hallinger, 2010), transformational
leadership (Sun & Leithwood, 2012) and student-centered leadership (Hargreaves & Fink, 2008;
Heck & Hallinger, 2010).
A framework for examining learning-centered leadership that was created by Goldring et
al. (2007) is helpful in understanding the skills and abilities needed by an effective principal.
This framework (Table 2) identifies the knowledge and skills principals must have to be good
leaders and each aspect of the framework is focused on creating a climate and engaging in
practices that best support student learning. Good leadership should, over time, lead to increased
school performance, and if adhered to for a length of time, improve student success (Goldring et
al., 2007; Heck & Hallinger, 2010). This framework is broken down into two dimensions, the
core components and the key processes that are meant to assess what leaders create and how they
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

23

create it in the service of improving student learning. Goldring et al.’s (2007) theory of action is
that effective leadership, both from an individual and a team perspective, requires core
components that are created through key processes and that both must be assessed. In the
framework, there are six core components: high standards for student learning, rigorous
curriculum, quality instruction, culture of learning and professional behavior, connections to
external communities, and systemic performance accountability. There are also six key
processes: planning, implementing, supporting, advocating, communicating and monitoring.
Table 2.
Framework for Learning-centered Leadership
High Standards for Student Learning

• Establish individual, team and school
goals that have rigorous demands for
student academic and social learning
Rigorous Curriculum

• Ensure that that there is ambitious content
received by all students in all core
academic subjects
• Monitor the curriculum to make sure that
all students, regardless of socioeconomic
background, race, gender, disability, is
receiving access to challenging content
Quality Instruction • Monitor content delivery to ensure it
engages students, is clear and recognizes
the prior knowledge that students have
about the content they are learning
• Monitor to ensure teachers are adapting
their delivery as necessary and providing
metacognitive strategies, particularly in
the early years
Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior • Ensure an integrated community of
professional practice that supports student
academic and social learning
Connections to External Communities

• Create relationships with others in the
community, both parents and the
community at large
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

24

Systemic Performance Accountability

• Hold staff accountable for making sure
they are implementing strategies that are in
alignment with the learning goals
• Establish assessment systems that
o are comprehensive
o disaggregate information based on
critical learning conditions and
outcomes
o use multiple data points to make
sure that are supported by multiple
points of data
Planning • Communicate the shared direction,
policies, practice and procedures need to
reach the high standards of student
performance
Implementing

• After they have planned, effective leaders
then take the next step to implement those
activities
Supporting

• Create the conditions necessary for student
success and appropriate resource
allocation to support the instructional
program
• Create the time and space for professional
interaction to create a community of
professional practice
Advocating • Advocate, both within the organization
and beyond, on behalf of all children.
Communicating

• Communicate regularly, clearly and
through a variety of channels to all
stakeholders
Monitoring

• Monitor the curriculum, the instruction
and achievement and use data to identify
areas for school improvement

There is alignment between the Goldring et al. (2007) framework and the other literature.
For example, research shows that effective principals cultivate and support a collaborative
learning culture where learning and professional behavior are focused on the goals of the school
and the needs of the students (Fullan, 2001; Jacobsen, 2010). Research also shows principals
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

25

must understand collaborative leadership (Heck & Hallinger, 2010) and the structures necessary
to make it work. Hallinger (2011), in examining 40 years of empirical research, narrows three
main avenues through which learning is linked to leadership: vision and goals, academic
structures and processes, and people. In the model, Hallinger (2011) proposes that adaptive and
responsive leadership is what most impacts learning. Vision, according to Hallinger (2011), is
most important in impacting learning and for purposes of improvement must be learning focused.
This is consistent with the clear established and communicated expectations for student learning,
rigorous curriculum and high-quality instruction espoused by Goldring et al. (2007). It is
important to keep in mind that, in terms of academic structures and processes, as Hallinger
(2011) found evaluating 40 years of data, the connection of leadership to student learning is not
direct, but is mediated and shaped by the school’s own academic capacity.
Based on a large body of research reviewed by Hallinger (2011), the best place for a
principal to place her focus is on the professional learning of her staff, which requires an
instructionally focused principal to understand the value of professional development and know
how to craft schedules and create time for the learning to take place. In fact, Elmore (2000, p. 7)
called instructional leadership the “holy grail” in educational administration, indicating the
elusiveness of this concept, and attributed at least some of the challenges in creating a strong
education system for all children on the idea that schools are “loosely coupled.” The supposition
of this concept is that the core of the educational program, what gets taught, how and how it is
assessed, is determined in classrooms, not by the school district (Elmore, 2000). Elmore (2000)
proposed that there are five principles that must be addressed in order to create instructional and
large-scale improvement: The purpose of leadership is the improvement of instructional practice
and performance regardless of the role; instructional improvement requires continuous learning;
learning requires modeling; the role and activities of leadership flow from the expertise required
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

26

for learning and improvement, not from the formal dictates of the institution; and the exercise of
authority require reciprocity of accountability and capacity. Elmore’s contentions about how to
improve instruction (2000) clearly indicate that the principal is essential in creating and driving a
climate that fosters the expectations and setting for a focus on student learning and achievement.
Researchers and experts agree that being a successful leader includes developing a shared
vision with school staff (Heck & Hallinger, 2010; Senge, 2006), an important declarative and
procedural knowledge component for a school leader. Heck and Hallinger (2010) examined a
data set taken from one state in the United States with about 177,000 students in 284 schools.
This longitudinal data on leadership and school improvement capacity was taken over a 4-year
period to explore the viability of a reciprocal-effects model of collaborative leadership and
school improvement. The researchers found that effective leadership involves developing a
shared vision and enabling people to work collaboratively to achieve that vision. This aligns
with other studies that have found that if leaders are to widely share responsibilities for these
problems and experiment with colleagues in the district to find solutions (Helsing, Howell,
Kegan, & Lahey, 2008), principal leaders must understand what collaboration means and how to
access others in their own system and in other agencies (Foley, 2001).
Procedural knowledge influences. Principals need strong procedural knowledge of the
appropriate steps they must take to build instructional capacity in teachers so they can improve
student achievement for all students and to create an environment conducive to change. Elmore
(2000) contends that at the core of standards-based reform to improve teaching and learning is
doing the right thing—collectively, progressively and cumulatively.
An effective principal leader must build the teacher capacity to improve student outcomes
(Heck & Hallinger, 2010). Principals must also serve as change agents and promote the climate
for change (Foley, 2001; Heck & Hallinger, 2010; Helsing et al., 2008) if they are to improve
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

27

instructional environments. Helsing et al. (2008) stated that leaders need adaptive behaviors so
they can prepare schools for 21
st
Century learning while sharing the responsibility and
experimenting with solutions with colleagues. Additionally, according to Helsing et al. (2008)
instructional leadership is connected to effective teacher practices and improved student
achievement. While declarative knowledge is the first step in understanding what an effective
school leader needs to do, it is taking the appropriate actions to take to make change happen that
is vitally important to a principal’s work.
Metacognitive knowledge influences. Principals need the metacognitive ability to
evaluate their own practices to determine which actions lead to improved student achievement
for all students and which actions interfere with their improvement efforts.
Kearney, Kelsey, and Herrington (2013) examined 149 schools in Texas to determine,
using a mixed-methods approach, how a mindful approach of the principals was affecting
academic outcomes. After analyzing the results of the survey, which looked at the dependent
variables of school demographics and school climate, the researchers determined the top 10% of
the most mindful schools and then interviewed 11 of the principals. Using a semi-structured
interview process, the researchers identified three common themes in the metacognitive
strategies employed by the mindful principals: reflection, building relationships and perpetual
renewal (Kearney et al., 2013). They concluded that principals who took time to be reflective,
who worked with teachers to analyze data about teaching and learning, who listened and who
thought before rushing to judgment, were most effective. Their findings indicate there is a
connection between a principal who engages in mindful activities and improved academic
outcomes of the students in that principal’s school. This finding supports the research of Helsing
et al. (2008) who found that adaptive work is necessary for a successful principal and involves
the ability to construct a personal filter, belief system or standard that allows the person to make
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

28

meaning of him/herself and his/her work in new ways. The findings of the Kearney et al. study
(2013) are in line with the research on strategies that foster metacognition by promoting self-
monitoring and self-assessment (Baker, 2006), which help principals become more reflective
practitioners. Ultimately, metacognitive practices have the potential of helping all aspects of a
principal’s knowledge, as they facilitate reflection and learning (Baker, 2006).
Williams (2008) examined 12 outstanding and eight typical principals from a large
Midwestern urban school district. Outstanding principals were those who were nominated by
two or more peers and received a 2.75 out of 3 rating from teachers, while typical principals had
no peer recommendations and received 2.0 or less from teachers. Although a relatively small
sample, William’s research strongly suggested that emotional and social competencies are what
make a difference in the success of principals. Williams (2008) reported that highly successful
principals had significant differences for five of the emotional intelligence competencies (self-
confidence, self-control, conscientiousness, achievement orientation and initiative) and four of
the social intelligence competencies (organizational awareness, leadership, conflict management,
teamwork/collaboration). While this study does not particularly call out metacognitive practices,
Baker’s (2006) findings about self-control, conscientiousness and organizational awareness,
indicate a level of reflection, internalization and adaptive behavior that is indicative of
metacognitive strategies.
Helsing et al. (2008) undertook a study to call attention to a need for professional
development that was informed by theories of adult development and showed the potential of a
particular professional development framework that lead to transformative learning. Their
research involved 16 program participants over a 2-year period using the Immunities to Change
framework. Although this is only one case study, Helsing et al. (2008) reported that adaptive
work was necessary for a successful principal and involved the ability to construct a personal
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

29

filter, belief system or standard that allowed the person to make meaning of him/herself and
work in new ways. The Four Column Immunity map, constructed by Kegan and Lahey in 2001,
involved characteristics that seemed to require metacognitive strategies, although the authors did
not label them as such. In order to make meaning and adapt (Helsing et al., 2008), principals
must make sense of information, organize knowledge, connect with prior knowledge and
construct meaning, all of which are metacognitive strategies (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006) a
principal must employ in order for the principal to make sense of their practice and what is
impeding it. This is in line with the research on strategies that promote metacognition by
promoting self-monitoring and self-assessment (Baker, 2006), which help principals become
more reflective practitioners. Ultimately, metacognitive practices help all aspects of a principal’s
knowledge, as they facilitate reflection and learning (Baker, 2006).
Motivation
The motivation of principals to support teachers in improving student learning is a critical
component of improving student outcomes. Motivation, the beliefs and thoughts that propel us
to work hard and do something well (Mayer, 2011), is important in the ability of a principal to
inspire and persevere in the hard work of closing the achievement gap. As Bandura (2000)
explained, unless a person believes he/she can produce the desired effects and deter the
undesirable ones, he/she is not motivated to act. Rueda (2011) explained that more recent work
on motivation, especially around achievement, defines motivation as the “beliefs that a person
develops related to themselves as learners” (p. 38). If principals are to be seen as life-long
learners who need to constantly add to their professional repertoire and be motivated to do the
hard work of improving student achievement, this is a very relevant definition.
Self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy, the judgment people have about their own abilities to
learn and act, is believed to be one of the most important elements in human motivation
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

30

(Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 2006). High self-efficacy can positively influence motivation, and
learning and motivation is enhanced when learners have positive expectations for success
(Pajares, 2006). When people believe they are able to change an outcome, they will persist, even
in difficult circumstances, because they believe that what they do as individuals will affect the
outcome (Pajares, 2006). Learners need to believe they are capable of performing a task
(Pajares, 2006) if they are to be motivated to complete it. Individuals also need support, multiple
opportunities for practice and frequent, specific, credible feedback on progress in performance if
motivation is to be increased (Pajares, 2006). Working with others (Stajkovic et al., 2009) and
having delayed feedback for complex issues (Borgogni et al., 2011) are also strategies to employ
to develop a learner’s self-efficacy.
Principal self-efficacy. Research suggests that not only can self-efficacy be important at
the individual level, it can be elevated to the group level and it can also impact the entire
organization and have an impact on shared mental models, perhaps creating a more efficacious
climate and culture (Hannah, Avolio, Luthans, & Harms, 2008). However, literature regarding
principals’ motivation is not as prevalent, with the literature tending to focus more on teachers’
motivation than principals’ (Eyal & Roth, 2011). Therefore, I presented literature that was
available on this topic.
Leithwood, et al. (2007) found that districts played a vital role in creating the conditions
that promoted principals’ collective self-efficacy. In a mixed-methods study of 31 principals that
was a follow-up to an earlier study by Leithwood and Jantzi (2006), Leithwood et al., (2007)
found that when districts established clear purposes, gave high priority to improving instruction
and made sure teachers and administrators had meaningful professional development aimed at
assisting in developing the capacities to achieve these goals, there was a positive impact on
principals’ sense of self-efficacy. The authors were clear, however, that this impact was greater
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

31

on the collective self-efficacy than on individual self-efficacy. Leithwood et al. (2007) used a
21-question, semi-structured interview protocol with the 19 females and 13 male principals
representing elementary, middle and high schools. The researchers found that, in order of effect,
a district wide focus on quality instruction and student achievement, district provided
professional development for teachers, district focus and support of instructional leadership at
the school and district levels and certain district personnel policies were the most important in
making an impact on leaders’ self-efficacy.
Some of these areas, however, could also be found to have a negative effect. For
example, a district wide focus on student achievement, professional development and personnel
policies, were found to have a negative influence, depending on how they were implemented.
Analysis of responses indicated that when focuses were narrow and inflexible, respondents
viewed them as negative (Leithwood et al., 2007). In a Florida study of the state’s principals,
researchers found that all principals felt self-efficacious in their ability to reach the academic
goals of Florida regardless of the demographics of their schools and despite where their schools
were currently performing (McCullers & Bozeman, 2010). The authors also found a relationship
between purposeful leadership action and strong self-efficacy beliefs. The 112 principals
surveyed did not feel similarly self-efficacious in their ability to reach the federal mandate of No
Child Left Behind (McCullers & Bozeman, 2010).
Frederici and Skaalvik (2012) examined principals’ self-efficacy and its relations to
burnout, job satisfaction and the desire to quit. With a large sample size of 1,818 Norwegian
principals participating in the survey, the study confirmed their hypotheses that principals with
high self-efficacy in a number of areas such as instructional leadership, economic management,
administrative management and school environment, were less likely to burn out and had higher
self-reported levels of job satisfaction. Another finding was that high self-efficacy was an
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

32

indicator of the motivation to quit and speculated it could be because those principals believed
they could also succeed in other areas (Frederici & Skaalvik, 2012). Conversely, an Italian study
found that job resources as well as personal resources had an effect on whether or not a principal
developed burn out for his or her job (Guglielmi, Simbula, Shaufeli, & Depolo, 2012).
Additionally, self-efficacy and job autonomy have been found to have a strong relationship to
job satisfaction (Federici, 2013). While this addresses principals’ self-efficacy, it does not
connect self-efficacy of principals to improved academic achievement; however, the literature
suggests that leadership efficacy has an impact on collective efficacy, which ultimately effects
collective performance (Hannah et al., 2008).
Goal orientation theory. A focus on individual improvement, learning, monitoring
progress and mastery has a strong correlation with motivation (Yough & Anderman, 2006).
When individuals are focused on their own self-improvement, not comparisons to others, they
are more motivated to achieve their goals (Pintrich, 2003; Yough & Anderman, 2006). In order
for this type of motivation to occur, structures need to encourage social and personal
responsibility, as well as be predictable and safe environments (Pintrich, 2003). Supportive,
heterogeneous learning environments that are conducive to peer interaction and encourages risk-
taking work best (Yough & Anderman, 2006).
Principal goal orientation. Goal setting is a vital part of any school or district
organization as it allows staff to focus attention and operationalize efforts (Hallinger, 2005). In
fact, studies have found a positive correlation between clear goals and student achievement
(Marzano et al. 2005; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). Leadership practices must be focused
on student learning (Goldring et al., 2007) and to do that requires goal setting on the part of the
principal.
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

33

In a study to determine if goals set by principals in principal evaluations correlated with
higher goal achievement, New Zealand researchers studied 54 volunteer principals in an 18-
month pilot program to determine to what extent teaching and learning were part of the
principals’ evaluation goals, what types of goals they were, how principals responded to those
goals and what the predictors of student achievement were (Sinnema & Robinson, 2012). Using
document analysis and questionnaires, the researchers found about 48% of goals were related to
teaching and learning. However, they were often vague (71%) and only 5% were learning goals.
Principals were deeply committed to their goals and the researchers found that task goals were
the most likely to be achieved (52%) while only 17% of learning goals were fully achieved
(Sinnema & Robinson, 2012). Increased achievement was correlated to increased effort and
commitment, but there was a negative relationship between degree of challenge and goal
achievement. The finding that learning goals were not the first focus of principals supports the
notion that further development of this skill should be a focus of principal training.
Another study of the impact of principal expectations for essential goals of standards-
based instruction in mathematics and the impact on student outcomes (Katterfield, 2013) found
that principal vision did have an effect on teachers’ perceived expectations and the clearer that
message was, the stronger the connection to the teachers’ expectations about instruction
(Katterfield, 2013). This demonstrates that there is a connection between principals’ vision and
expectation setting, specifically when that goal or expectation is clearly defined. Additionally,
there is a relationship between the professional development and principals establishing
challenging goals for student learning (Sun & Youngs, 2009).
Principal professional development. School districts engage in professional
development for principals in an effort to make them more efficacious in their jobs (Grissom &
Harrington, 2010). Teachers, however, receive about three times the amount of professional
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

34

development as do principals and significantly less research has been conducted on the effects of
professional development on principal outcomes (Grissom & Harrington, 2010). Still, research
has found that principals do impact student outcomes (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood et al.,
2004) indicating that there is a need for further research on impactful principal professional
development.
Some research has found a positive correlation between principal efficacy and mentoring
and coaching programs (Grissom & Harrington, 2010). Using data from the Schools and
Staffing survey that was administered every 4 years by the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) and was a nationally representative stratified random survey of schools,
Grissom and Harrington (2010) examined data from 37,960 teachers in 7,410 schools to
determine the relationships between teacher ratings of principal performance and the type of
administrative professional development the principals had. The authors also correlated the
teacher responses with student performance on state achievement tests in order to determine if
teacher ratings corresponded with student achievement outcomes (Grissom & Harrington, 2010).
Their study found a significant positive correlation between positive teacher ratings of principal
performance and student outcomes and principals who had participated in mentoring and
coaching programs (Grissom & Harrington, 2010). Conversely, teachers viewed principals who
obtained university coursework as less effective, and teachers viewed those principals who
participated in formal principal networks even more poorly (Grissom & Harrington, 2010).
While coaching and mentoring have been reported as effective practices for professional
development (Goldring et al., 2012; Grissom & Harrington, 2010), others have elaborated on the
elements that need to be in effective principal professional development programs. Darling-
Hammond et al. (2007) found that among the effective practices for principal professional
development there was a focus on leadership, teams, and collaboration in practice-oriented
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

35

situations, supervised field-based experiences, connections of theory and practice and an
emphasis on reflection. This also aligns with the needs of adult learners that should be addressed
in professional development. In his andragogic theory, Knowles (1973) stated that the
assumptions about adult learners needed to be different than those made about children.
Knowles (1973) postulated that there were four important assumptions about adult learning: 1)
changes in self-concept, 2) the role of experience, 3) readiness to learn, and 4) orientation to
learning. Knowles (1973) speculated that adult learners needed to be self-directing, to utilize
their experiences in their learning, and to organize the learning around life problems, all of which
correspond to the professional application outlined in Darling-Hammond et al. (2007). While
there is a lack of empirical data regarding andragogy (Taylor & Kroth, 2009), scholars agree that
reflection (Grissom & Harrington, 2010; Helsing et al., 2008), collaboration and relevance are
important factors for adult learning (Knowles, 1973; Mezirow, 2000) and professional
development (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007) overall.
Organization
General theory. Despite having outstanding employees who have the knowledge and
skills necessary to do their jobs well and who are motivated to do so, many organizations still
suffer from performance gaps because they lack the necessary processes and materials to be
effective (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) state that there are three areas
organizations need to investigate to determine which organizational influences might be
impeding change and progress: work process, material resources and value chains and value
streams. If work processes are not supported by organizational policies, or if these processes are
not aligned with the organizational goals, performance gaps will result (Clark & Estes, 2008). If
the materials and tools do not fit the need of the organization, there will be problems (Clark &
Estes, 2008). And, if the departments and divisions do not interact effectively (value streams) or
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

36

the information from those departments and divisions (value chains) breaks down, performance
gaps will also occur (Clark & Estes, 2008). Ultimately, according to Clark and Estes (2008), in
order to improve an organization, one must address the totality of the organization, examining
these areas and keeping in mind both the organization’s culture and the impact that a given
change strategy will have on that particular culture.
The final portion of this literature review examines organizational influences and the role
cultural models and settings play in creating a successful learning organization. The goal of this
study was to analyze the professional development provided by BSD and how it influenced
principals’ knowledge and motivation in pursuit of improved outcomes for students. In doing
this, it was important to examine the reality of the current structure; in order to change and
improve structures, and corresponding policies and strategies, it is important to understand what
currently exists as well as the alternative options (Bolman & Deal, 1995). Given that
communication breakdowns, negative workplace culture, lack of input, and order are negatively
associated with change (Waters & Grubb, 2004), it was important to monitor these aspects as the
district implemented professional development to improve student achievement. Monitoring
communication and feedback is important in an organization if the goal is sustained change that
creates improvement. When something changes in an organization it creates cognitive
dissonance and a desire to return to the status quo (Tagg, 2012) which is also why monitoring of
instruction at the school level of the organization is important if long-term instructional
improvements are to be made (Goldring et al. 2007).
Culture
General theory. Culture, in a broad sense, as defined by Schein (2010) is the pattern of
behavior and shared basic assumptions that are considered valid by a group, enough so that the
new members are acculturated into that way of thinking and feeling as they respond to internal
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

37

and external issues. Schneider, Brief, and Guzzo (1996) describe climate and culture in terms of
how the organization feels, how it carries out its daily work and the goals the organization
chooses. Over time, organizations develop deeply held beliefs and patterns and many are
unconscious or exist in symbolic forms (Bolman & Deal, 1995; Clark & Estes, 2008). However,
inasmuch as culture reflects the way things are, no culture is ever static (Senge, 2006).
While much of culture may be invisible, employees need to understand the desired
culture, the values necessary to support the purpose and strategy, so they clearly understand what
is expected of them (Lipton, 1996). Often organizational leaders believe that the desired culture
is conveyed to employees through vision and mission statements, however, this is not enough as
those statements are often only visible to certain members of the organization (Clark & Estes,
2008) and those statements alone will not suffice to change culture (Schneider et al., 1996).
For the purpose of examining culture and its impact on organizational influences that
foster or impede improved practices, I used Gallimore and Goldenberg’s (2001) definitions and
separation of culture into two concepts: cultural models and cultural settings.
Cultural models. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), particularly for use in educational
research and practice, define cultural models as a subset of this overall cultural definition. They
define cultural models as the shared mental schema or common understandings of how the world
operates or should operate. The cultural model addresses both mental and emotional
components. Cultural models, according to Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) are invisible; they
are ways of thinking and responding that are so familiar to the people who have those thoughts
and responses that they are unable to see that their ingrained cultural models imbue their
thoughts and responses.
In a small study of 28 teachers at six schools, the importance of cultural models as an
ingredient for professional learning was evident (Thessin, 2015). In high-functioning
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

38

Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), Thessin (2015) found common characteristics and
several of them related to the idea of cultural models: The PLCS were collaborative; teachers had
a shared vision and purpose of improving student learning; teachers were focused on evidence of
student learning; and the PLCs had supportive and shared leadership. Additionally,
administrators were found to have a strong impact on the PLC work and their strong support of
PLCs was a characteristic raised to a level above the other characteristics (Thessin, 2015).
Administrators created an environment where teachers knew they were supported and there was
a clear expectation of accountability. These conditions were not present in lower functioning
PLCS (Thessin, 2015). This study demonstrated the role of the principal in creating a culture of
collaboration and accountability.
In a study designed to explore the qualities of schools’ teacher cultures, Hsin-Hsiange,
and Mao-neng (2015) conducted interviews, observations, surveys and document analysis to
determine the role of the school principal in creating a school culture that fostered teaching
effectiveness and a positive school culture. Acting as participant-observers, the researchers
engaged in a two-stage, 6-month process at two Taiwanese schools. Their findings suggested
that while the principal had a role in the cultural setting, the shared ideas and responses of
teachers were critical to their success. For example, in the award-winning teaching team, team
members felt their successes were a joint effort with the other teachers. They also reported
sharing educational ideals, such as each member of the team having an important role to play
(Hsin-Hsiange & Mao-neng, 2015).
Understanding these cultural models is critical for leaders who are working to enact
change and create sustainable cultures of continuous improvement. According to Schneider et
al. (1996, p. 7), it is the “feel” of the organization that impacts employee efforts. They posited
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

39

that if there is no change in how people think and feel about the organization, there is no real
change in the organization.
Cultural Settings. Whereas models are the shared schema and ways of thinking, cultural
settings are the natural situations in which those models are operationalized (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001) and the two are inextricably linked. If, as Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001)
propose, culture exists in those places and times when people are engaged in doing something
meaningful to them, the importance of the organizational setting and its relationship to
organizational culture creation is clear.
In Thessin’s study (2015) of high functioning Professional Learning Communities
(PLCs), her research had cultural setting implications as well. In addition to the connection to
cultural models that existed in high-functioning PLCs, Thessin (2015) noted that high-
functioning PLCs also had structural and cultural conditions that made them effective. For
example, in addition to providing a place and time for collaboration, administrators provided
professional development in the PLC work on their campuses so it was part of their on-site work.
These high-functioning PLCS also had clear communication and expectations set by the school
leaders for the work of the PLC (Thessin, 2015). The cultural setting, with demonstrated acts by
the administrators, supported and influenced the desired organizational culture. Similarly, in the
research by Hsin-Hsiange and Mao-neng (2015), principals contributed to a positive
organizational setting by communicating effectively, creating organizational structures so the
work could be done and creating reward and recognition systems. This research is relevant to
both the principals at their school sites and the district-provided professional development.
Inferences employees make about the work culture are based on policies, practices,
procedures and kinds of behaviors that are expected and rewarded, all of the daily elements of an
organization (Schneider et al., 1996) that constitute the cultural setting. This cultural setting can
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

40

be changed by focusing on climate, which requires adjusting the routine practices and procedures
and changing policies, all to show employees that lasting change can occur. The importance of
the responsiveness of the organizational leaders to this adaptability cannot be underestimated. In
one study, trainees failed to use what they learned in training unless their bosses responded
appropriately to the new training (Schneider et al., 1996), demonstrating the high importance all
aspects of the cultural setting play in creating the desired cultural context.
Change and Culture
If the goal is improvement in an organization, the implication is there will be a change to
create that improvement and that the culture will play a critical role in the change’s initial and
long-term success. As Hendry (1996) noted, one of most difficult aspects of change is simply
getting it started. An existing culture that is not primed for that work can create a barrier to
change and improvement processes (Senge, 2016). When aspects of the setting are changed,
such as the introduction of new technology, the change only matters if it actually impacts how
employees think (Schneider et al., 1996).
Krosgaard, Brodt, and Whitener (2002), examining change and trust in management,
found that when managers were trustworthy, it not only engendered trust, but also encouraged
employees to take on extra roles and responsibilities that were observable to others. With a
sample size of 115 employees from three credit unions and using a Likert scale survey, the
researchers found that when disagreements occurred, managers were held less responsible if they
communicated openly and demonstrated concern. Ultimately, the policies and practices
implemented in an organization created context for employees to view situations as fair within
the organization (Krosgaard et al., 2002).
Large-scale change may be daunting for organizations to consider, however, in a mixed-
methods, longitudinal study in Canada conducted over a period of 4 years with 1804 teacher
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

41

participants, researchers found that structural system changes had a strong positive impact on the
design of the learning environments in which the teachers worked (Sheppard & Dibbon, 2011).
Their results indicated that all aspects of the public system (government, local school board and
district and site leaders) played an important role in improving school outcomes. Sheppard and
Dibbon (2011) report that school-district leadership (with an effect size of 0.46) had an impact
on how school administrators were viewed as collaborative leaders. The principal as a
collaborative leader had a medium effect on teacher professional collaboration (0.30) and
community engagement (0.30), and even slightly larger effect on the focus on student learning
(0.40). That the study found a relationship between school-district leadership and a principal
being viewed as a collaborative leader is bolstering news for school districts considering large-
scale changes as it validates the role school districts play in system-wide learning.
Leaders must also remember, when implementing change, that there is a natural response
within the organization to resist it. Agocs (1997) defined this organizational resistance as having
a pattern of behavior that actively denies, refutes, bars implementation, or even works to
sabotage change proposals or initiatives. Knowing this, leaders must recognize that dramatic
action is required throughout the organization and that the manner in which the change is
introduced and initiated often determines if it will endure (Schneider et al., 1996). In
implementing a successful professional development plan, a well-articulated, motivating vision
for the work as well as specific, clear ideas about what resources and processes are needed in the
organization are required (Guskey, 2000). Leadership is central to all improvements in an
organization and leaders must not only learn and develop themselves, they must teach and
develop others (Fullan, 2013; Senge, 2006). School districts strive to improve our organizational
culture and system to develop courage, commitment and empathy and grow new educational
leaders for the future (McGowan & Miller, 2001). At the school level, leadership can be a
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

42

catalyst for school improvement, but the context of the school also plays a key role as other
research also suggests (Goldring et al., 2007; Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996).
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
Constructing a conceptual framework allows the researcher to explain the key aspects of
the study and creates an initial theory about the topic being investigated (Maxwell, 2013).
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) prefer the term theoretical framework to better emphasize that this a
larger encompassing of any thoughts, ideas, and concepts the researcher might have. Ultimately,
this framework, whether identified as conceptual or theoretical, becomes the structure around
which a study is designed (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). While each of the
knowledge, motivation and organizational influencers was presented independently, the reality is
they are all connected and intertwined; the conceptual framework, then, provides an illustration
of the overlaps and complex interrelationships the various aspects of the study have on each
other.
The literature covered in this chapter explored the general literature on principal
leadership and the more specific literature related to the knowledge and skills, motivation and
organizational influences that play a role in principals’ perceptions of their ability to improve
outcomes for students. Based on the literature review, I conceptualize that there is an
intersection between the professional development provided by the district, the principals’
knowledge and skills and motivation to do their work, the view of their leadership role and the
culture of the organization. The relationship between these factors is represented graphically in
Figure 1. The elements of the conceptual framework did not change from my initial proposal,
however, the graphic representation did. I now envision professional development and the
principals, nested within the organization as a whole; culture and leadership now frame the
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

43

organization and its elements but are not nested within the other elements. Finally, all of the
elements interact and influence each other to impact student outcomes. I will further explain
each of these elements and their relationships to the study below.
Principal Knowledge, Skills and Motivation and Professional Development
Drawing on the literature about professional development (Guskey, 2000), for the
purposes of this study, within my conceptual framework I assert that effective professional
development should focus on the knowledge and skills principals need to be effective
instructional leaders. Goldring et al. (2007) have given us a framework for the knowledge and
skills principals need as learning-centered leaders and this became a cornerstone of my
conceptual framework. Principals need to be focused on the goals of the school and the needs of
the students (Fullan, 2001; Jacobsen, 2010), understand collaborative leadership (Heck &
Hallinger, 2010) and the structures necessary to make it work, while also crafting a vision and
goals and focusing on people (Hallinger (2011). In Goldring et al.’s (2007) framework, the first
skill involves high expectations for student learning which is defined as setting individual team
and school learning goals.
Knowing that motivation is important for performance (Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011), I
propose that the district should consider the motivational needs of the principals if the goal is to
motivate principals to engage in the learning and transform their practice. For the purposes of
this study, I focus on two aspects of motivation, self-efficacy and goal orientation. If high self-
efficacy can positively influence motivation, and learning and motivation is enhanced when
learners have positive expectations for success (Pajares, 2006), I argue that this should be
considered when creating principal professional development. Mastery experiences, modeling
and vicarious learning (Hannah et al., 2008) as well as persuasion and positive feedback
(Bandura, 1997) have all been found to have a positive impact on self-efficacy. As research
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

44

shows, districts are a part of creating the conditions that promote principals’ collective self-
efficacy (Leithwood et al. (2007), therefore, I assert that the professional development provided
by the district can be a focal point for developing principal self-efficacy. Knowing that goal-
orientation (Yough & Anderman, 2006) plays a role in the principals’ work, it seems that this
aspect of motivation should also be tied to the professional development
Organizational Culture, Leadership and Professional Development
Based on the literature review of effective professional development and the role of both
culture and leadership within the organization, in this conceptual framework I argue that there is
an intersection between these elements that impacts the effectiveness of the professional
development provided to principals.
Making sure professional development for principals is effective is important, I offer in
my conceptual framework, because research indicates that principals affect student outcomes
(Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood et al., 2004). Based on the literature review of effective
professional development for principals, I argue that professional development that involves
reflection, mentoring and coaching (Grissom & Harrington, 2010) and collaboration (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2007) will be most effective. Additionally, the professional development
should focus on relevant topics for the principals, an important factor in adult learning (Knowles,
1973; Mezirow, 2000). I also assert that the implementation of the professional development
plan is important; if the professional development is too narrow or inflexible, there can be a
negative impact (Leithwood et al., 2007).
Regarding leadership, drawing on the work of Hannah et al. (2008), my conceptual
framework shows that both the leadership and particularly leadership efficacy have relationships
to the culture and the professional development provided by the district. Leader self-efficacy, as
defined by Hannah et al. (2008) is the belief in one’s abilities to motivate others, the cognitive
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

45

ability and the ability to take the necessary steps to meet whatever situation one encounters.
Leadership efficacy is the ability of the leader to build followers and the collective efficacies of
others (Hannah et al., 2008). Understanding and creating the structures for success with PLCS,
for example, as described by Thessin (2015), is an example of the knowledge and skills a
principal needs (Goldring et al., 2007). The ability to then monitor and support and motivate
those in the PLCS would be an example of leadership efficacy. Both of these aspects of being a
leader and leadership, I suggest, are impacted and inform the culture and the professional
development. As Fullan (2013) and Senge (2006) relate, leadership is key in all improvement in
an organization and leaders must not only learn they must develop others.
I also argue that cultural models, the shared ways of thinking and the cultural settings—
the natural situations in which those models are operationalized (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001)—are important aspects to consider for district-provided professional development, both in
how it is provided and how it is received.
Ultimately, as is evidenced by the graphic representation, I propose that each of these
areas (principals, professional development, culture and leadership) sit within the context of the
organization as a whole; they are interactive and responsive to each other. As the dynamic of
this interaction changes, it influences the stakeholder knowledge, motivation, communication
and accountability, and as a result, changes the organization itself. It is the collection of this
dynamic, the interchange between these various areas and stakeholders, that when executed well,
impacts student outcomes.

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

46

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Bayside Professional Development

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

47

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This study was an examination of the district-provided professional development for
principals at Bayside School District.
The questions that guided this study were:
1. What are principals’ perceptions of their ability to improve instruction at their school
sites as a result of the district provided professional development they attended?
2. How does district provided professional development prepare principals to lead
instructional change?
In this chapter I present they research design and methods that were used for sampling,
data collection and analysis. In the remainder of the chapter I identify the stakeholders in the
study, the sampling criteria and rationale and the observation sampling strategy and rationale.
Additionally, I describe the data collection and instrumentation as well as the data analysis.
Finally, I address the efforts that were made to make the study credible and trustworthy as well
as ethical considerations and the limitations and delimitations of the study.
Participating Stakeholders
The 16 school district principals in the Bayside School District comprise the stakeholder
population of focus for this study. The study sought to better understand how professional
development influences principals and used an evaluation model to examine the PD being
offered by the school district. As the evaluation was of the professional development provided
by one school district, the evaluation involved a bounded system, making it a qualitative case
study (Merriam, & Tisdell, 2009).
Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale
The sampling strategy for this study was purposeful sampling. Purposeful sampling is
used when the researcher wants to develop understanding, gain insight and discover and so
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

48

chooses a sample that can provide the data most meaningful to the study (Merriam & Tisdell,
2009). All elementary and secondary principals in the district were identified as potential
participants. There was also some two-tier sampling in this study. A two-tier sampling strategy
is one in which a case is selected for study and then there is some sampling within the case
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). All 16 of the elementary and secondary principals were invited to
participate and all agreed to participate; however, only eight were selected to be interviewed. In
order to narrow the sample from 16 to 8 principals, I first determined that I would select 4
elementary and 4 secondary principals. With this in mind, I then selected principals who
represented both communities and selected principals who worked in both of the district
communities. I included all of the newest principals in order to have a representation of both
experienced and inexperienced principals and then evaluated my selection to ensure that the
principals included a balance of male and female principals and represented a continuum of
experience within the school district.
Interview Sample
Criterion 1. As the focus of the study was an evaluation of the how the professional
development provided by this district influences their perceptions of their work as principals at
their schools, eight elementary and secondary principals were selected to participate in the
interviews. All 16 principals agreed to participate; eight were selected in order to have a
manageable sample size and because they met criterion two and three.
Criterion 2. To better understand how the PD provided by the district affected their
perceptions of their efficacy and goals, both the elementary and secondary principals
participated. Four secondary principals (representing schools with 7-12 grades) and four
elementary participated.
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

49

Criterion 3. Study participants varied in their years in the school district, years as a
principal and years of relevant educational experience. Three principals had fewer than 5 years
of experience and five principals with more than 5 years.
Observation Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. Observations were conducted with the same purposive sample of
elementary and secondary principals in the school district. As the focus of the study was an
investigation into how the professional development provided by this district affects their
perceptions of their work as principals at their schools, these elementary and secondary
principals, as well as the other principals, observed during PD provided by the district to better
gain an understanding of their response to the professional development. I observed three of the
regularly planned, district-provided professional development that is provided approximately two
times per month in full-day and half-day settings.
Criterion 3. I observed at one location, the Learning Complex, the place where
principals participated in their regular district-provided professional development meetings.
Principals attended these meetings on at least two Tuesdays per month. All principals were
expected to attend each session.
Observation Sampling Strategy and Rationale
Observation locations were selected based on where the selected elementary and
secondary principals received professional development. As the original sample was small, this
“two-tier” sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009) allowed for data collected about those who
participated in the observation to be kept confidential. I attended principal meetings where
elementary and secondary principals were receiving professional development, both together and
separately.

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

50

Data Collection and Instrumentation
This qualitative study was an investigation of the existing professional development plan
at Bayside School District. It sought to examine principals’ perspectives of the influence of the
district-provided professional development on their leadership at their schools. In an effort to
gather multiple sources of data, this study included interviews, observations and document
collection so that the data could be reviewed, analyzed and sorted into themes across all data
sources (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013). Interviews were conducted with eight principals in
order to glean their impressions and assessments of the impact this professional development had
on their leadership, their self-efficacy and their goal orientation. In addition to conducting the
interviews, I also observed professional development provided for the principals. I attended
three of the district’s professional days, which were typically 6-hour professional learning days,
and observed the training and their interaction and responses in the training. Additionally, I
collected the agendas the district provided for the professional development days as well as other
meeting materials that were handed out during the meetings. Although eight principals were
initially interviewed, one principal had surgery and was not in attendance at the two subsequent
professional developments, therefore was not interviewed again. Another principal was not in
attendance at the second PD and therefore was not interviewed after the observation. At the final
observation, another principal was not in attendance and therefore was not interviewed in the
follow up interview. Finally, a different principal, although observed at all three PDs, was
unable to make time for the final interview.
Interviews
Although interviews are most commonly done in face-to-face settings (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2009), for this study, the eight principal interviews were conducted by telephone. While
in-person interviews might have been preferable, due to the time constraints and distance, phone
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

51

interviews were the only way in which I could ensure that I could conduct all of the interviews
and create the same conditions for all eight of the principals interviewed. These interviews
allowed me to collect data that could not be collected in another form of data collection (Patton,
2002) and after analyzing the data I believe that the data I collected was as substantive as it
would have been had I had the opportunity to interview the participants in person. The interview
protocol was semi-structured and open ended, which allowed for some flexibility to explore
topics that emerged during the interview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). In order to ensure that all
areas of the knowledge, motivation, and organization (including professional development for
the purposes of this study) framework were explored in the interview, a protocol was developed
and followed so that each area was addressed. This semi-structured protocol, or combination
approach, included probe questions that allowed for participants to go deeper on points that
could provide new insights or viewpoints (Patton, 2002; Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). A semi-
structured protocol was most appropriate because it allowed for a combination of the three types
of interviewing—structured, semi-structured, unstructured—so that new information was
allowed to emerge in the interview while still collecting some standardized information (Patton,
2002; Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). As my conceptual framework explored the relationship
between district-provided professional development and principal knowledge and skills,
motivation and organizational culture, the interview questions were crafted to address these
areas. Regarding the requisite knowledge and skills, the interviews explored the areas effecting
learning-centered leadership from the Goldring et al. (2007) framework. Regarding motivation,
the interviews sought to develop an understanding of principals’ self-efficacy and goal-setting
regarding improving student outcomes. In terms of professional development, the interviews
were designed to elicit more about the professional development and the opportunities principals
had to be reflective, explore meaningful topics, practice and receive feedback. Finally, the
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

52

interviews explored the influence of the district culture on the principals’ professional
development experiences.
Each of the eight participants participated in an initial interview that covered background
information regarding their histories in education and principal experience, as well as questions
related to the first observed principal professional learning day. The duration of these interviews
was 60 to 90 minutes each. After the subsequent two professional learning days, principals were
also interviewed regarding the particular content of the professional learning they were afforded
on that day These second interviews ranged from 20-40 minutes each. Due to personal
circumstances and/or other commitments, only of six of the principals were able to participate in
the last two interviews. Of the six who participated in all three interviews, three were
elementary and three were secondary. The participants who were not able to participate in all of
the interviews represented both experienced and inexperienced principals and had varying
degrees of longevity in the district. I do not think I would have had different findings had they
participated, although their voices would have definitely added to the data collected.
Observations
I conducted three observations of district-provided professional development. The
shortest was a 4-hour observation; the longest was 6 hours. During the observation, I observed
the topic being presented and the connection to principal knowledge and skills and motivation.
In my field notes, using my research questions and my conceptual framework as guides, I noted
the amount of time principals collaborated with each other in the professional development, as
well as the time they had to reflect, plan and apply their new learning to their own school sites. I
also observed the cultural setting and looked for shared thinking (cultural models). Observing
the principals both in the natural settings of the professional development allowed for first-hand
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

53

data to be collected that cannot be gleaned from the secondhand version in an interview
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2009).
Entry to the data site (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam & Tisdell, 2009) was fairly
simple as I am familiar with both the physical setting and the majority of the participants and
permission had already been granted. For data collection, I was an observer as participant
(Bogdan & Biklen 2003; Merriam & Tisdell, 2009) with an emphasis on observer, although I
was aware that due to my past relationship with many of the participants, my role could have
been mixed or perceived as mixed. I did not audio or video record the observations, but relied on
extensive field notes, where comments, perceptions and impressions were recorded as well as
physical setting, dialogue and activities and events (See Appendix B). The challenge was to
focus my data collection during that time so that I was thinking of questions I would like
answered from the data collected and then use the data collected in the first observation to inform
the kind of data collected in the next observation (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003).
My conceptual framework pertained to the knowledge, motivation and organization
elements connected to the professional development provided by the district and its effect on
principals’ perceptions of their abilities to improve instruction, feel self-efficacious and be able
to set goals as a result. I was looking to see the type of knowledge or skill being developed in
the training. I was listening for statements from the principals about their efficacy as well as any
opportunities or direction regarding goal setting that may occur in the professional development
setting. Additionally, my conceptual framework explored the relationships between ongoing
professional support and the professional development provided by the district. In taking my
field notes, I captured all relevant data that caused me to test or adapt my thinking (Maxwell,
2013) and that could later be reviewed and analyzed to determine its relationship, if any, to the
elements in my conceptual framework.
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

54

Documents and Artifacts
Documents and records can be a good source of information often easily accessible by a
researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). For this study, two types of artifacts were collected:
district-made agendas for professional development as well as other handouts given to principals
during the 3 observed professional development days. While agendas were not better than
interviews or observations for this particular study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009), they were an
important companion piece of data that enhanced the other data collected for the study.
Data Analysis
For interviews and observations, data analysis began during data collection. I wrote
analytic memos after each interview and each observation. I documented my thoughts, concerns,
and initial conclusions about the data in relation to my conceptual framework and research
questions. Once I left the field, interviews were transcribed and coded. In the first phase of
analysis, I engaged in a priori coding, the first phase of open coding. Keeping in mind my
research questions and my conceptual framework, I highlighted the words and phrases that stood
out. In the next phase of the open coding, I then approached the task deductively and organized
the words and phrases I extracted from the interviews based on the elements in my conceptual
framework. For example, I had phrases from the interviews like, “I felt lost as to how to bring
back to my staff,” and “not important to me,” and “nobody knows how to do it,” and categorized
them under the conceptual label of “professional development.” During this second phase of
determining the analytic/axial codes, I used Corbin and Strauss’s tools (2008), particularly
questioning, to delve more deeply into the significance of the words and phrases I discovered as I
determined if and where they should be categorized. For example, I grappled with whether a
principal saying that he did not pay attention during a portion of the PD because “my AP does
that” was about his motivation or about the way the professional development was offered. In
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

55

the third phase of data analysis I identified pattern codes and themes that emerged in relation to
the conceptual framework and study questions. For example, the absence of principal interview
data about an agreed upon framework for effective principals and data coded from the
observations of the principal meetings that showed a lack of focus on improving principals’
instructional knowledge base, became a finding. I analyzed the documents and artifacts for
evidence consistent with the concepts in the conceptual framework. An example of this is that I
examined the agenda and compared the printed agenda to my observation field notes and what
principals said afterword, to appropriately code and categorize the information.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility and validity are inextricably related. While validity may not demonstrate an
absolute truth, it does connect to an overall credibility of any conclusion or explanation that is
ultimately drawn by the researcher (Maxwell, 2013). Knowing that validity threats exist, such
as ignoring certain data or alternative explanations or allowing your biases to impact your
analysis of the data collected (Maxwell, 2013), it is crucial that the researcher consider what
these threats may be so that they can be appropriately addressed.
Having the appropriate methodology for a study is perhaps the best way to facilitate
credibility and trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). In thinking about my study, it
became clear to me that my relationship to the organization and the participants was an obvious
potential for bias even though those relationships were complex and changed as the study
progressed (Maxwell, 2013). Being aware of the impact these previous relationships could have,
constructing the appropriate methods was the best way to address any potential biases that may
impact the quality of the study. As a result, I constructed questions for the interviews that
adhered to the conceptual framework I had developed and the questions were written so as to be
non-biased and to elicit information about the participants’ experiences, opinions and knowledge
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

56

(Merriam & Tisdell, 2009; Patton, 2002). Additionally, the questions were piloted with other
principals who understood professional development, but were not serving as principals in this
district, to ensure that the questions made sense and could be answered (Maxwell, 2013).
As I spent several years in the district, I was well aware of the potential influence my
experience could have on my collection and analysis of the data. When I began the
investigation, I was a senior district office leader; however, by the time I began collecting data, I
had taken a position as a senior leader in another district. Although I was no longer in a direct
supervisory role of the principals, I remained aware that my relationship with the principals
could influence the data I collected and my analysis of the data. In order to be thoughtful about
what I thought I might hear versus what I actually heard, I was reflective after each interview. I
developed and kept a list of questions that I used after each interview to evaluate the data
collected and address any potential biases. As Maxwell (2013) noted, the relationship between
researcher and participant is inherently complex. As the former supervisor of these principals,
my relationship was even more so. Maxwell (2013) suggests that when going into interviews
with people known to the researcher, the researcher should be prepared with the assumptions the
researcher brings to the setting and have a plan to address them. Reflecting after each interview
with prepared questions for myself helped me reflect, recognize and address my potential biases.
After each interview, I reflected on whether or not participants answered in a particular way due
to my past relationship with them and the district. I questioned whether I had elicited a certain
response because they might think they knew the response I was looking for or seek to have a
particular impact on me. Throughout this process, I engaged in ongoing peer discussions about
the coding and the coding process and revised and rethought when the discussions and feedback
caused me to look at the data in a new way.
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

57

Although triangulation is considered one of the best ways to address potential threats to
validity (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009; Patton, 2002), it is important to note that simply having
various sources of data does not automatically increase a study’s validity (Maxwell, 2013).
Given the topic of this study, having a variety of sources, coupled with considering the other
sources of potential bias, assisted in improving validity (Maxwell, 2013). Maxwell (2013) also
defined respondent validation, or member checking, as one of the most important things a
researcher can do to make sure there is no misinterpretation or misunderstanding. Therefore, I
had the participants check the data I collected and talk to me about my conclusions as I went
through the research process, in an effort to improve the validity of the conclusions drawn from
the collected data. I used their feedback to validate the findings and the analysis done with their
interview data. Again, when feedback was given regarding the strength of wording, for example,
I went back and modified the verbiage so that there was clarity without judgment.
I triangulated the data by a couple of means. For one, I used multiple methods of data
collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For this study, I collected documents and artifacts,
conducted observations and interviews. I looked to see if a pattern I elicited from the interviews
was supported by the documents and the observations, or if something I saw in the observations
was verified through the interviews and the documents. I also used multiple theories to confirm
the findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). When the principal interviews revealed a lack of
collaboration and job-embedded learning, I returned to the literature to confirm the findings as
they emerged. This triangulation of data assists in addressing validity threats and helps reduce
the risk of drawing conclusions that reflect biases, allowing for a more thorough understanding
of the topic being studied (Maxwell, 2013).

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

58

Ethics
It is important that research results can be trusted and while much of that credibility has
to do with the validity and reliability of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009), the issue of trust is
also based on whether or not the study was conducted in an ethical manner. Care must be given
to ensure that however the data are collected, it is done so in an ethical manner that protects the
privacy and rights of all participants (Glesne, 2011; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). These ethical
considerations can involve everything from working with an institutional review board (IRB) to
simply showing respect when interacting with the participants (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
The University of Southern California has established policies and procedures that are
designed to protect human participants in research studies and adhere to federal policies (USC
Human Subject Protection Policy and Procedures, 2015). This study conformed to the
expectations outlined in the USC Human Subject Protection Policy and Procedures. These
policies include such expectations as ensuring that there is no conflict of interest on the part of
the investigator, that participants have given informed consent, that the privacy of participants
will be kept confidential, that data will be kept secure and private, that researchers have adhered
to institutional guidelines for compensation and recruitment, and that the investigator’s role and
responsibilities are adhered to throughout the study. As the investigator for this study I can attest
to having completed the CITI training and following the guidelines for an investigation as
outlined in the USC Human Subject Protection Policy and Procedures manual (USC Human
Subject Protection Policy and Procedures, 2015).
Knowing that as the researcher, I was the primary source through which all data was
collected, it was inherently important that I also confronted any relationships, power imbalances
or biases that might in any way have threaten the validity of this study (Creswell, 2014).
Therefore, it was important that I was clear with those who participated that for several years I
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

59

served as a district leader in the Bayside School District and supervised most of the principals
who participated in this study. Although at the time of the study I no longer supervised any of
these employees, it was important to acknowledge these prior relationships as well as the
possibility that I would continue to encounter these individuals through various educational
organizations to which we belong, as well as the potentiality of working together in the future,
should any of them choose to apply in my current school district. The idea that any of these
principals would again be under my supervision was remote, however, the possibility of that
situation needed to be acknowledged. The other factor to consider was that the principals would
not want to hurt our relationship or my feelings by being critical of any aspect of the professional
development plan if they think I had ownership of it. In order to address this, I emphasized at
the beginning of each interview how important it was that they give honest responses so I could
gather the best data possible so that we can learn from it.
A further consideration regarding these relationships was that there may be concern that
any information participants provided would be communicated to the current district staff at
Bayside School District. In collecting data, I reiterated to the participants that I was an objective
data collector and that all data would be kept confidential. However, it was important to discuss
any potential or perceived repercussions with all participants (Creswell, 2014) so that they could
feel comfortable and at ease when I interviewed and observed them.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are three limitations of this study that need to be addressed. First is the honesty of
the responses from the participants. Although I have no reason to doubt the participants’ honesty
in any of the interview settings, the idea that not all responses were completely honest and
forthright must be considered. The second limitation is that this study is not generalizable to any
other district. There is no assumption of equivalency (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and therefore
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

60

this study reflects findings that pertain to this particular district and is not meant to be seen as
transferable to another setting. Finally, only six of the eight principals selected were able to
participate in all three interviews. I do not know what they might have contributed to the data
collected for those two interviews, however the loss of their voices to the full study must be
recognized as potentially impacting the data analysis and findings.
There are several delimitations that limit the scope of this study. First is the length of
time to collect the data. Because the data was collected in only a few months, the observations
were limited to the professional development provided by the district during that time frame
which may have limited the type of data collected. Additionally, all of the interviews were
conducted over the phone due to time and distance, and this lack of face-to-face interaction has
the potential of impacting the data collected. As stated above, the focus on a single district has
the effect of defining a narrow sample and is another delimitation to this study. Another
delimitation is the fact that I am a novice researcher. The interview and observation protocols as
well as the process for data analysis were developed and conducted by me; which means I may
not have asked the right questions, been able to recognize something important being offered by
a respondent, nor captured the best information in my observations. Finally, I may not have
analyzed the data as well as I could if I were a more experienced researcher.
I am aware that how I structured my data collection tools, how I conducted myself in the
field, and how I analyzed the data have shaped the understandings developed in my study. I also
understand the importance of having followed all legal and ethical requirements so that my study
has credibility now that it is completed.

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

61

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of the study was to examine the ways district-provided professional
development for principals provided principals with the knowledge and support they needed to
achieve the organizational goals. While a complete performance study would focus on all
stakeholders, because principals have the direct responsibility for supervising and supporting
instruction, improving school climate and learning environments and allocating resources, all of
which are known to be factors that affect the outcomes of students (Brown, 2006; Jimenez-
Castellanos, 2010; Rivera-McCutchen, 2010), they were the focus of this study.
The questions that guide this study are:
1. What are principals’ perceptions of their ability to improve instruction at their school
sites as a result of the district provided professional development they attended?
2. How does district provided professional development prepare principals to lead
instructional change?
Participating Stakeholders
Over the course of two months, three principal professional development sessions were
observed. After each observation, principals who participated in the professional development
were interviewed by telephone using a structured interview protocol. The eight principals
selected for the interviews were selected from a pool of 16 eligible participants. All eight were
willing to be a part of the study. Four of the principals were elementary and four were secondary
principals and represented both new and experienced principals (Table 3).

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

62

Table 3.

Participant Sample

Research Question One
1. What are principals’ perceptions of their ability to improve instruction at their school
sites as a result of the district provided professional development they attended?
As described in my conceptual framework, Goldring et al. (2007) suggest that there are
six core components and six key processes principals need to engage in as learning leaders. The
components are: high standards for student learning, rigorous curriculum, quality instruction,
culture of learning and professional behavior, connections to external communities, and systemic
performance accountability. The key processes are planning, implementing, supporting,
advocating, communicating and monitoring and they are recursive, interconnected and reactive
to one another (Goldring et al., 2007). For example, if principals are monitoring teachers for
high-quality instruction, they will have engaged in other processes before and during the
monitoring process: they plan for the data they will be collecting; they communicate to staff both
the needs for the data and the results; they implement changes based on what they learn; and they
support teachers to improve the instruction, as they engage in this cycle of instructional
improvement (Goldring et al., 2007). The data revealed that the principals were not prepared to
Participants Years
in
Education
Principal
Less than five years

Current
Principal
Assignment

Rochelle 21 No Secondary
Pat 20 Yes Elementary
Michael 22 No Elementary
Susie 23 Yes Elementary
Veronica 35 No Elementary
Maria
Kathy
Dave

20
17
17
No
Yes
No
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

63

engage in these six processes in relation to two components—instructional quality and creating a
culture of learning and professional behavior. More specifically, they did not believe they could
apply what they learned from professional development to lead change in instruction at their
school sites. What becomes clear from their interviews is that the district did not provide
professional development that a) was focused on leading instructional change, b) helped them
develop the content knowledge they needed in relation to “good instruction,” and c) was in a
format that supported their ability to apply what they were being “taught.”
Finding #1: Principals Did Not Believe the Professional Development Provided by the
District Prepared Them to Lead Instructional Improvement at Their School Sites.
Theme 1: Instructional leadership. The first theme within this finding is that the
principals believed that when the content of their professional development was about
instruction, it was not about leadership in relation to instructional change. All of the principals
who participated in this study communicated their perception that the district used professional
development time to inform principals and when the information was instructional, it was about
the professional development being delivered to their teachers. They did not believe they
received PD that prepared them to better engage in the processes of planning, implementing,
supporting, advocating for, communicating about and monitoring quality instruction at their
schools.
For example, Michael, an elementary principal, said,
I think that principals may feel that it’s a jack-of-all trades master-of-none approach right
now. That we are given different things to just keep us abreast of what teachers are
doing.
With the “jack-of-all trades, master-of-none approach” comment, Michael was describing how
the district’s general approach to professional development for principals provided him with a
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

64

superficial level of knowledge and skill regarding the instructional professional development
being received by teachers. Michael indicated that the PD did not focus on developing any
particular knowledge base or skillset for the principals, and instead provided them with many
different topics. Moreover, the content of the PD for principals was focused on keeping the
principals “abreast” of the PD provided to teachers. This PD limited the principals’ actions to
being aware of the new strategies and curricula being implemented by teachers and not being
able to engage in the key processes (Goldring et al., 2007) needed to ensure that teachers were
able to improve the instruction they provided in their classrooms at their schools. Michael’s
statement suggests that the focus was not, therefore, on developing principals’ capacity to enact
their roles as learning leaders who were responsible for creating a more comprehensive approach
to instructional improvement.
Similarly, Maria, a secondary principal, stated,
I think the PD often ends up being more informational. And really maybe more aligned to
what the teachers are doing as opposed to how we are developing as principals.
Here, Maria indicated that the principals received PD that was similar to what the teachers were
receiving, not differentiated for their roles as instructional leaders. She also distinguished the
approach as informational rather than developing their knowledge and skills as principals in
relation to what the teachers were doing. While Michael alluded to the fact that he would have
liked more as a principal by saying that principals are “just” being kept up to date with what
teachers were doing, Maria went further and stated that this kind of PD was “opposed” to PD that
would have helped them develop as principals.
Dave added another voice to the theme that principals did not believe that the
professional development was tailored in a way that met the learning needs of principals; that is,
it was not specifically designed to support their endeavors, as principals, to engage in any of the
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

65

principal key processes (Goldring et al., 2007) when they returned to their school sites. Dave
addressed directly the issue of the current PD and its relation to improving their ability to lead
instruction.
I don’t know that the PD that the district provides is going to play any real role in
improving instruction. I don’t know what that will be. I get more out of when it’s just
the PLC, the principals as far as what helps more to improve the instruction of it. When
we get down to the specific department and we’re talking about outcomes or something.
When we get to specific things, I think sometimes that may help. I don’t know because I
don’t know if they understand why they’re doing what they’re doing, how that impacts
the future and the students.
Here Dave explicitly stated that he did not believe the PD was designed to improve instruction; if
anything, the PD was only helpful to him as a principal when it came from a specific department
or was about a specific outcome. Dave went further to say that he “gets more out of it” when he
is working in a Professional Learning Community setting with his principal colleagues. He
stated that the “conversation” he gets in the PLC is more helpful to him as a principal than the
PD provided by the district. He also said that when the principals get “specific things,
sometimes that may help.” With this statement, Dave indicated that when the district adheres to
professional development about specific things, whether those be about instruction or
expectations of the principals relating to other facets of their jobs, “that may help.” This
statement does not demonstrate that he viewed the PD as building his capacity as a principal,
rather it showed that Dave wanted to credit the district for in some way contributing to his
knowledge. He did not say that as a principal he needed instructional leadership or leadership
development, but with this statement he also indicated that the PD the district provided did not
increase his professional capacity or ability to improve instruction at his school. Yet, with his
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

66

statement, “I don’t know if they understand why they’re doing what they’re doing,” Dave went
further and articulated a strong statement about his lack of confidence or belief that the PD
provided to principals by the district will contribute to his knowledge and skill in order to be an
effective principal. It is not clear if he knows where the district plays a role in developing his
abilities as an instructional leader. His comments added to those of the other two principals who
articulated that principals did not believe the PD has been intentionally designed with principals
and their roles in leading instruction in mind. Instead, he articulated that the best the district-
provided professional development can do is to address “specific” areas, rather than impact his
role as an instructional leader.
Maria also described the difference between the professional development she received
and what she believed would have benefited her and her peers more. She said,
So rather than the kind of general, we’re going to work on observation, providing
monitoring and feedback, it would really be more about work instructionally, and it
might be how we’re going to support teachers. And I think when we find those
meaningful times that we actually operate like a PLC I can definitely tend to say, “Well,
that was valuable.” You know where it’d be a real learning walk, a method to kind of a
theory-to-practice.
Maria suggested that the professional development she received lacked specificity and
transferability. She pointed to general categories of observation, monitoring, and feedback as
what she had been given in PD instead of opportunities to focus more specifically on instruction
and the hands-on actions of supporting teachers. In this statement Maria expressed that although
the district included topics in PD (observation, monitoring, feedback) that were a part of the core
components and key processes used by learning leaders (Goldring et al., 2007), the PD content
and structure was not such that it allowed her to understand and experience how these processes
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

67

were part of her work as a learning leader. Instead she saw a disconnect between observation,
monitoring and feedback, in either the content or the way they were provided, and the work of
supporting teachers. The district-provided PD did not allow her to see the integrated practice,
the relationship between the topics she identified (observation, monitoring and feedback) as part
of the holistic and complex work of improving instruction at her school (Goldring et al., 2007;
Reardon, 2011). Her comments echoed those of Dave in that she described the opportunities she
had to “operate like a PLC” with her principal colleagues as valuable learning experiences. She
went further to say that when she had an opportunity to walk a school campus, which she
described as “a real learning walk,” and see instructional practice, it was the most meaningful
type of professional development for her in her instructional leadership role. Although this
quotation demonstrated that she valued the ability to walk classrooms and have the opportunity
to process her observations with her peers, it was not clear that she developed a deeper
understanding of how to establish high standards for student learning, ensure there was an
ambitious content being provided to all students, and monitor instructional delivery to ensure that
teachers were adapting their instruction to address to both what students already knew or did not
know (Goldring et al., 2007).
The complex, challenging work of building teacher capacity to improve student
achievement is a fundamental role of the principal (Goldring et al., 2007; Heck & Hallinger,
2010; Helsing et al., 2008; Marzano et al., 2005) and principals’ ability to engage in learning
leader practices can improve outcomes for students (Reardon, 2011). The data from my study
suggested that principals in the Bayside School District did not believe the current PD offered to
them as principals was focused on preparing them for their roles as instructional leaders by
developing their knowledge and skills in the core components and processes of effective
principals (Goldring et al., 2007). PD focused on the components and processes in which
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

68

effective principals engage has the potential of developing principals so they are able to improve
educational outcomes at their schools (Reardon, 2011). However, neither the observations nor
the principal interviews indicated that the PD provided for the Bayside principals was focused on
developing these capacities in the principals. Although principals did not address the core
components or key processes (Goldring et al., 2007), per se, in their interviews, they indicated
that they were not afforded adequate learning opportunities that directly pertained to their roles
as principals. Their interviews indicated that they understood that their role, as principals, was to
lead teachers to improve teaching, which Fullan (2014) suggests, requires purposeful interaction
between and among teachers and their principal. Preparing principals for this important role is
not, however, the focus of the current district offered PD.
Observations of district-provided professional development for principals supported the
interview findings that the district-provided professional development does not focus on
developing them as instructional leaders. Observations of three district-provided professional
learning days showed that approximately two-thirds of the time was devoted to compliance or
managerial expectations. Four of the six hours explicitly dedicated to instruction were facilitated
by outside consultants; one provided training in leading for excellence and equity, the other in
math, and the other two hours were devoted to topics within either an elementary or secondary
focus and led by district or site staff. The excellence and equity training comprised two hours
out of approximately 16 hours of PD observed. Of the six principals interviewed after that
training, five described it in very favorable terms including Pat who called it “the best we’ve had
all year,” and Susie who said it was, “one of the more valuable ones.” Still principals described
wanting to know more about the expectations regarding this information in their role as
principals and the district perspective or expectation regarding this PD was notably absent in the
principal comments subsequent to the training. Michael stated that he still wanted a “road map”
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

69

and “clear targets and goals” regarding the expectations around equity and Kathy, a principal
new to the district, expressed her challenges because her staff does not believe there is an equity
issue at her school. This PD, the second observed of the three, was not referred to in the
subsequent PD, nor was there any district commentary at the end regarding the expectations for
the principals in their instructional leaders’ roles to lead equity work for student learning at their
school sites. Although this was clearly a portion of the observed PD in which principals were
engaged, animated and participatory, other than reflection about their roles and next steps in the
work, which they spent 5 minutes writing and 15 minutes sharing, there was no discussion about
what components or processes they needed to engage in as effective leaders in leading that work
at their schools, nor was there any clear expectation set as to what the district expected them to
do.
Theme 2: Focus on compliance. Another theme that emerged in the interviews was
that principals perceived the district as having a focus on compliance to the exclusion of leading
for change. While the district stated that it was focusing on the principals as a professional
learning community as stated on PD agendas, in fact, the focus on leadership was lost to
compliance. During the three observed professional learning times for principals, approximately
two-thirds of the time with the principals was focused on areas that addressed issues of
compliance, from human resources requirements to federal program monitoring. For example, at
the first observed professional development, 60 minutes was devoted to a PLC activity about
classified evaluation and the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA). Principals were
given data from their own schools, however it was not relevant data to work the principals were
currently engaged in at their schools, as evidenced by the interviews. The principals were
organized into “PLCs” by schools for the discussion. One of the school district leaders explained
that she had been under federal monitoring before in another district and she “wasn’t happy,”
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

70

however, she went on to say that the process ended up being “good for students and you learn so
much.” Although my field notes reveal information about the plan writing and the strategies and
minutes that needed to be reflected in the plan, there was also language around the instructional
needs of English language learners. The district administrator, for example, said, “ELs need
instruction in the ELD standards and in content. How many times do you see teachers making
adjustments around the ELD standards?” Still, the principals, when interviewed subsequent to
the meeting, did not portray the learning as about instruction. Rochelle, an experienced
principal, said,
It’s all about the state audit and making sure that we come closer to compliance over
time. I feel like if we’re really looking at how to best serve our students instructionally,
there’s other PD we’d be doing, but the PD we were given is a more specific way around
trying to get more in compliance for a state audit purpose.
She went on to further elucidate her concern about the document she is required to create.
I don’t know what the target looks like. I’ll be one who writes a 20-page plan because I
don’t know what to write and somebody else will write 5 pages and that might be the
better way to go. I want to know what does it look like and how do we make it
meaningful for our teachers in the district.
For me I want to know what it looks like and I want to know why. Why and how to do
it…. We’re getting SPSA training and I was already done. I had my last ... My site
council meeting was the next night to approve our last school plan and now I just need to
edit it online. I don’t know that anyone is going to look and see whether I got everything
like it says trained or not. They’re just going to look and see that I actually got it in on
time.
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

71

Here, Rochelle, an experienced principal shared her understanding that although the PD was
offered in a way to appear focused on English learner instruction, that was not the intent of the
training. Even though she is a veteran principal, she expressed uncertainty as to what the district
was looking for when she said, “I don’t know what the target looks like,” and she stated she was
unclear if her work will meet district expectations. She further explained that the timing of the
training was out of sync with her own work processes at the school as she was “already done”
and had held the last meeting at her school. As she had already completed the task the new
training had addressed, this meant that the new learning provided her with two options: hold an
additional meeting, receive input and then finalize the plan or ignore the new information and
finish and edit her plan as she was already doing. She also expressed her desire to know “why”
the district was asking schools to make a change in their school plans and she wanted to know
“how to do it.” Despite her expressed concern about understanding the why and making it
meaningful for teachers, Rochelle stated that the quality and reality of the plan will not be
examined, but rather the importance was placed on meeting the deadline.
When asked why the district offered the training it did, another principal, Veronica,
stated, “Compliance drives a lot of it now.” During two observed PDs, for example, although
district staff did discuss the needs of English learners, when principals were interviewed
subsequently, what they conveyed in the interviews was the importance of ensuring that the right
number of minutes for English language development was documented on the SPSA not that
they recognized the reason why this was important. Veronica described her frustration regarding
the school plan portion of one of the PDs.
There were a couple other things that were a little more frustrating to me. For example,
the SPSA and what we were supposed to put for goal for our ELL (English language
learners) became very confusing. I don’t know that anybody there fully understood what
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

72

was going on. I walked away from that, totally confused. I don’t know that the rest of
it... I totally misunderstood. I appreciated Sarah for speaking up and saying it pretty
much how it was. But I don’t know that we walked away from it getting anything out of
it. We’ve had on the agenda the SPSA training several times and yet we haven’t really
done anything with that.
The SPSA thing bothers me a lot because ... When I have no idea what mine looks
like compared to somebody else’s and therefore, I don’t know if I’m doing the right
thing. You don’t get any feedback and with no feedback it’s like we’re turning in 20
pages. What good is that? It’s so frustrating to me. And then if it’s going to change
again, then really what good is that? If we’re going to go to the SSC (school site council)
then let me do it now because it’s already the middle of the year anyway. It’s just
frustrating.
In addition to the focus on compliance, Veronica here expressed that the district lacked
clarity on expectations even when delivering what she considered “compliance” training for the
principals. She echoed Rochelle’s concern regarding the timing of the training, as she had
already held her school council meeting and she further echoed Rochelle’s desire to see what
others had done because she did not know if she was “doing the right thing.” While the district
has an interest in ensuring that the principals adhere to legal guidelines and compliance
expectations, the view that the district was more focused on compliance than their professional
growth as leaders, was conveyed by the principals. In addition to this focus on compliance, the
trainings for principals were not delivered in a timely or clear manner that would enhance how
principals were able to meet the district expectation. Both Rochelle’s and Veronica’s comments
also illustrated that they had engaged in several processes of effective leaders, such as planning
and communicating (Goldring et al., 2007), but those processes were not validated or supported
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

73

through the PD they had received. In fact, the district training they received could instead serve
to confuse and interrupt the processes in which they had already engaged at their schools.
Susie added a different perspective regarding compliance and the district focus and
expectations. When asked who would know if she implemented what was taught and who would
care, she connected the question about teaching, learning and accountability to compliance. She
said,
Will anyone know? I tend to have a big mouth and I guess because I’m such a rule driven
person they might not know unless I tell them, or perhaps when we get audited, they find
out that I was or wasn’t doing what I was supposed to do. Will they care? They’ll care, I
think, if the audit shows that I’m not doing it. I don’t know what the repercussions would
be if I didn’t do what I was supposed to do, but I think the caring comes about whether or
not we’re in compliance.
Here Susie reiterated the perspective of Rochelle that the emphasis in this particular meeting was
not about improving instruction or improving the principals as leaders of instruction at their
school, but was instead about the upcoming federal audit and ensuring that the documented
minutes for English learners were happening both in the classroom and on their school plans in
order to meet state and federal audit requirements. Her statement that the “caring comes” from
being in compliance supported the statement made by Rochelle that getting the plan in on time
was the most important aspect of the plan itself. While timeliness and deadlines are important to
school districts for many reasons, the principals here, representing both new and experienced
school leaders, were not able to see a connection between a plan focused on improving outcomes
for English learners and the steps they would need to make at their schools to improve English
language development for English learners. The district, by spending two-thirds of the observed
professional development time devoted to compliance or managerial expectations, appeared to be
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

74

conveying to principals that compliance and management were meant to be the focus of their
school leadership.
Theme 3: Developing and Fostering a Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior
The third theme that emerged under this finding is that principals in the district were not
taught how to develop and foster a culture of learning in order to create the conditions that
support the instructional changes necessary to improve student outcomes. For new principals
and those new to the district, this included the initial challenges of navigating new school
cultures that contained factors such as strong parent groups and a union that might present
challenges as principals worked to implement changes to school and teacher practices. For other
principals, including one of the most experienced principals, this also included addressing a
school culture that was hard-working and believed they were doing the right things only to be
asked to shift their current practice as a result of both instructional improvement and district
accountability requirements.
Principals described their current challenges in developing professional learning cultures
in existing school cultures and this was particularly true of principals who were new to the
district. Developing and fostering a culture of learning and professional learning requires the
procedural knowledge of appropriate processes (Goldring et al., 2007; Marzano, Waters and
McNulty, 2005). Of the eight principals interviewed, four had been with the district for less than
three years. All four of the new principals mentioned the cultures of their schools as particularly
challenging and two also mentioned the culture of their communities as areas in which they
wished they had more knowledge about how to address the existing culture and proceed with
necessary changes. Additionally, three of the experienced principals alluded to the challenges of
implementing instructional changes within the context of culture.
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

75

Of the four newest principals to the district, three of the four explicitly identified learning
culture and professional behavior issues as something they perceived as a specific challenge for
themselves and an area of need for more support. The fourth principal, Pat, did not identify
culture explicitly, but did raise concern about the next steps she needed to take to get teacher
buy-in and move instruction, indicating her need for assistance in some of the core processes,
such as communication, to assist her in furthering a professional learning community at her
school. Even one of the most experienced principals discussed the challenges in trying to move
a staff from existing behaviors to new, desired behaviors. Michael, a principal with more than
five years of experience, yet newer to the district, explicitly identified his own concerns
regarding the challenges of moving his staff to create the culture necessary to improve student
achievement. Michael said,
I’m not a new principal. I’m new to the district. You feel like you’re brand new because
of some of the cultural things that are going on.
Michael explained the challenges in moving from one culture to the next. Coming into a
new culture can be challenging for any leader as it requires the leader to identify his or her own
areas for growth that might make moving the culture challenging (Schein, 2010). Michael
described the challenges he experienced as he worked to move his culture to a professional
learning culture that uses assessments and is focused on improving student achievement, both of
which are essential components of an effective school (Goldring et al., 2007). Michael, who had
worked in several different school settings prior to coming to Bayside, used the word “struggle”
several times as he discussed getting his staff to use formative assessments and look at data and
identify trends. Here, he described the process he engaged in at his school to have his teachers
use pre-and post-writing assessments as they taught new writing genres across the grade levels.
We’re still having a conversation around, okay, you’ve got a baseline, baseline data. Now
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

76

they’ll say, “They (students) don’t even know what a narrative is.” “Great. Now that’s
one thing you know you have got to teach.” “Well, they don’t even know ... “They kept
saying all the things that they didn’t know and we kept saying that’s a good thing
because, now, it informs your instruction. They didn’t like that.
After we did, we gave them mini lessons and all of that and they talked, talked, talked,
talked for six weeks and then the post exam, the post assessment, it was like, “Oh my
goodness! Look at the growth and look how much ... “Exactly! Now, we can see that
there was growth between the pre-and the post. We kicked off the opinion writing, and
the same foolishness cropped up. “Our kids don’t even know about how to state an
opinion. I can’t believe it but you’re going to want me to do this ... You’re going to
judge me.” It was all about not wanting to share work and judgment and so we’re still
struggling with that.
Little by little, though, it’s coming ... It’s a trust issue. No one has ever asked teachers
on my campus to share their work, to share student work not for competition but for
learning. I went back to the why and I asked, “Why do we do this? Let’s talk about
narrative writing.” We did a debrief and we asked every grade level to chart what went
well, what didn’t go well, and how to fix that and then next steps. We went through it
and put it up around the library, look at the trend. What trend did we see? All of them
said that the kids made growth, that this was a process. Parents really liked it during the
parent-teacher conference, that they were able to see the growth in their kids.
Even with all of that, they (the teachers) still went back to, “Oh, my God! I can’t do this
again.” We’re just going to have to keep beating that horse to say, “I understand this is
uncomfortable for you. You grow when you’re outside your comfort zone.” We’ll just
have to continue to examine student work. “Let’s debrief and let’s talk about what the
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

77

process was.” That’s been the greatest struggle, is just getting out of the adult issues. It’s
not about you. It’s about what you’re learning and what your kids are learning. We’re
not a learning school.
Here Michael explicitly expressed the challenges he faced in developing and fostering a
professional learning culture and creating the appropriate climate necessary to support student
learning (Goldring et al., 2007; Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2005). In this quote, Michael
shared the process of working with his staff, over a period of weeks, to encourage them to
examine student work to determine areas for growth and then continue to teach and reassess. He
stated that no one before had asked his staff to engage in this kind of professional learning and
expectation regarding professional behavior, which is exemplified by the quotes he attributed to
teachers that demonstrated their recalcitrance. It also represented that he was alone in this
endeavor; if he was the first principal to expect this kind of a professional learning culture and
the requisite behaviors, then this was not the overall expectation of the district organization.
Further, this makes it clear that a focus on fostering a culture was not supported by the current
district PD. His example illustrated the difficulties of trying new ways of doing things and
attempting to shift behaviors in an existing culture (Schein, 2010). The professional learning for
which Michael needed support as he worked to improve the professional culture and behaviors at
his school, was not on the agendas of the district-provided PD, nor did he indicate it had ever
been addressed formally by district leadership; developing and fostering a culture of professional
learning and behaviors, is not something that the district has determined should be focused on at
principal PD opportunities.
Michael described the student performance growth the teachers were able to observe and
discuss. Still, despite these successes, the teachers’ reacted to the next iteration of the instruction
and assessment cycle with the statement, “I can’t do this again.” In sharing this statement,
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

78

Michael illustrated the challenges he encountered in working to move his school to a student-
centered culture, which contrasted with the focus on “adult issues” he described. With the
statement, “We’re not a learning school,” Michael expressed his doubts that his school
community has the ingrained learning gene (Schein, 2010) that is necessary for improvement;
that is, the shared belief that the environment is manageable and that approaching problems with
creativity and possible solutions can lead to success. In this example, the district neglected to
speak to and address for principals how to foster and support a culture of professional learning
and behaviors. Effective instructional leaders foster the development of learning communities
and establish an understanding within staff that the continual expansion of knowledge and skills
focused on improving student success is the expectation at the school (Murphy et al., 2007).
Here, as exemplified by one school, the district-provided PD did not focus on helping principals
like Michael understand how to foster and support a professional learning culture and behaviors
(Goldring et al., 2007).
Another experienced principal and also one new to the district, Dave described a lack of
understanding by a district leader about the PD being provided to principals and what he
perceived as the needs of his school.
First of all, we’ve got to get to the culture before we can do any of the stuff that you’re
talking about. She (a district leader) was not in agreement necessarily because she was
going along with what once used to be in the 90s or whenever she was there. It’s not the
same school.
Dave’s quote again demonstrated that the district was not focused on and understanding
of the importance of developing cultures at schools. His quote offers insight into a disconnect
between district assumptions about what principals can translate into action and a principal’s
understanding or beliefs about his or her own staff and their ability and receptivity to new
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

79

learning. As an experienced principal who is new to the district, Dave had some prior experience
with moving school cultures and in his interview gave examples of what he described as his
effectiveness with leading instruction at his former school. Here, he explained that he believed
that at least one district leader did not understand what his current school setting looked like,
instead ascribing it with attributes from her previous experience with the school. As a principal,
Dave did not see a connection between his own school’s needs and the district professional
development provided (Zepeda, Parylo & Bengston, 2014), making him less receptive to the PD
being offered.
Navigating school culture is particularly important when working to improve instruction
(Lee & Li, 2015) and the majority of principals interviewed expressed the challenge of working
to improve instruction at their schools. Pat, one of the newer principals, gave an account of
working with a teacher to improve practice via observation and feedback only to follow up later
with an observation of the teacher’s classroom to find nothing had changed. She described her
own uncertainty about how to best work with the teacher who is a long-time member of the
school community.
To see it not happening, it feels—so then, I think, “Okay, what am I going to do next?” I
have a little trouble with that, depending on the personality of the teacher. If it’s a super
strong personality of a teacher I have to be so careful.
This year, this one in particular that I had talked to her a few times about some things
she’d done in her classroom. They were very positive conversations and I was so happy
to see changes. The last time we had a conference in my office, I could tell she was super
nervous and defensive. I really didn’t know what to do with that. I just tried to calm her
down, I said “Look, this is not something I’m upset about,” or I guess she thought that I
was upset with her or she felt like she’d been caught not doing something that was
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

80

supposed to be happening in the classroom. It was a very awkward conversation for both
of us, her energy was really nervous and upset, almost to the, kind of to the point where
I’m like, “Wow,” I really didn’t know where to go next. I just basically calmed her down
and said, “You know what, we’ll have this discussion another time when things are a
little more calm,” and I told her that, just like that. So, I’ve left it alone since December,
since the meeting in December, I haven’t asked her to come back into my office. I’m still
trying to figure out what to do with that. I’m not quite sure how to move her along, and
she’s a very veteran teacher, she’s been here for a long time. I feel like if I shake the
cage, what if she goes to the union rep? She has a very, very strong personality. And
what do I do with that? I’m not trying to start a fire. I’m just trying to improve
instruction. I’m a little uncertain I have to say. Not sure where to go with her. Now
she’s on alert.
In this passage, Pat described her uncertainty about how to efficaciously engage in a
dialogue about improving instruction with an experienced teacher, especially as she described
this teacher as “veteran,” which implied that the teacher might have long-standing relationships
with others on campus, and that she may bring in the union. Pat described the emotionality of
the encounter and then explained that she had not spoken to the teacher again, which could be
due to the emotional nature of her last encounter. She used the metaphor “shake the cage” to
describe her interactions with the teacher and expressed her concern about the union being
involved. As a newer principal, Pat displayed her lack of belief in her ability to act in way that
will be efficacious, given the strength of the teacher’s personality and the implications of union
involvement, both of which indicated she may not currently have the requisite skills to address
the cultural implications of the situation. Her lack of knowledge about the potential impact of
the culture on the work she is trying to do with the teacher are implied by her concerns about
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

81

both the senior status of the teacher on campus and what may be union opposition to the changes
being implemented. This lack of knowledge is evidenced in her question, “What do I do with
that?” and her statement, “I’m a little uncertain, I have to say.” Additionally, she had not
returned to this conversation with the teacher, reflecting low motivation that could be because of
her lack of expectation of a positive outcome (Pajares, 2006). This passage indicated that Pat has
uncertainty about the shared thoughts and beliefs at her school and is unclear as to how much
this individual teacher represented the attitudes and feelings of the learning community overall.
In another portion of the interview, referring to a particular change for English learner instruction
being required by the district, she asked, “How do I get the teachers to have that buy-in?”
Changing a culture requires that members of the culture unlearn something and this can create
discomfort and some anxiety (Schein, 2010), but Pat does not convey that she understood this as
a natural component of organizational change, nor did she convey that she understood the right
steps to take as the school leader to move the culture forward. Rather, she demonstrated that this
negative reaction left her unable to know how to proceed with this individual and potentially her
staff as a whole and there was no indication that any past or upcoming professional learning at
the district level would support her in acquiring new skills to foster the necessary professional
behaviors at her school.
School leadership plays a critical role in elevating the focus of the entire learning
community on rigorous expectations and positive outcomes for students (Goldring et al., 2007).
However, this challenge of navigating a school culture in order to improve instruction was not
situated strictly among the new principals. One of the more experienced principals, Veronica,
also expressed the challenge of navigating an established culture in order to implement a new
district expectation or improve instruction. Veronica expressed the challenge of moving an
experienced staff toward an understanding that improvements needed to be made to the current
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

82

instructional practices in order to improve student achievement as well as address accountability
requirements.
How do I do the technical part, too, currently, without out upsetting the culture that’s out
there? The other part of it is I have a staff that’s going to be culture-shocked – not that
they shouldn’t be doing what they legally should have been, but it’s going to be a culture
shock to them to just come in and say, “You know what, you’re supposed to have in your
lesson plans, this … There are supposed to be this many minutes that you’re doing such-
and-such…We have a long way to go and they’re (teachers) not all at the same
place…but they are talking about kids and they are talking about instruction. I think
they’ve come a long way. I don’t think they still quite understand the urgency though…I
don’t think they really understand how poor their test scores are…because they’ve really
got to change, they’ve really got to make sure these kids improve.”
Improving instructional practice and learning environments for students is at the core of the work
principals do (Goldring et al., 2007; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005) and it is complex and
challenging and impacted by the individual personalities and circumstances inherent in each
school setting. In addressing the technical part of the change that needs to be made, Veronica
exemplified the challenges she, as a veteran principal, had in explaining to her staff that they
needed to stop doing work they had been doing and change their current practice to be legally
compliant. While the district had set the expectations for the compliance change, Veronica did
not indicate that the district PD around this change, prepared her to address the cultural
implications at her school. Approaching this change, she said, would create “culture shock,”
illustrating that these current practices are ingrained in the thoughts, beliefs and actions of her
staff and therefore changing the actions will have an impact on the school culture. Later in the
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

83

interview, Veronica gave a specific example of a challenge she had in changing a teacher’s
approach to handling a particular student.
For this teacher, who is fabulous, I mean she really does great things, letting loose and
letting kids have a little more choice, that’s ... She has become a little more difficult. And
yet she is one of my best teachers, too. Working on her is my biggest challenge this year.
It’s wanting this really great teacher to become a little greater. Not let this poor little girl
not be a part of some things, she’s showing great improvement. This little girl’s greatest
goal is to be back in that class and she really loves that teacher. I want that teacher to go,
“I want her to be in here, too.” I want her to love her back.
Here Veronica explained the challenges a principal encounters when working with a teacher to
address the conditions for learning in her classroom. In this specific example, which is in a
primary classroom, Veronica explored the difficulty a principal has in influencing the
interpersonal relationships a teacher has with her students; yet Veronica acknowledged that as
the instructional leader she has responsibility for the overall climate and culture of her school
(Goldring et al., 2007). On the one hand, Veronica stated this is a “fabulous” teacher and on the
other described her as “more difficult.” This example illustrates the complexities inherent in
improving professional practice of a staff. Veronica then described how professional
development could help her with these difficult conversations with teachers.
I think what would be really great would be to have ... What I would really like is to have
more training on ... You do teacher observations and stuff like that but sitting down and
having those conversations with people, or when we’re doing these walkthroughs and
these informal ones, more practice in those feedback kinds of things that help teachers
with feedback and not just in evaluation.
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

84

In this passage, Veronica directly expressed her desire for PD that would give her greater
knowledge and skills in having the conversations necessary to improve instruction. She
acknowledged the importance of her role in improving teaching and learning on her campus
(Murphy, et al., 2007) and that she needed support in improving her professional practice in that
area. Instructional leaders facilitate the conditions necessary to support effective teaching, build
capacity in others and create the conditions for change necessary to improve student outcomes
(Heck & Hallinger, 2010) and those skills, particularly as they assist principals in navigating
their schools’ cultures, are not directly being developed through the current professional
development offerings.
Conclusion
Taken collectively, the observations and the principal interviews illustrated that PD for
principals did not focus on the elements of leadership that are necessary for principals to improve
learning outcomes at their schools. The district-provided PD was not directed at building the
core components and key processes necessary for principals to be effective learning leaders
(Goldring et al, 2007). Instead, the focus of many of the professional learning opportunities for
principals was on compliance, such as updating and submitting school plans and preparing for
state audits, and managerial tasks such as completing forms, performing evaluations and writing
discipline letters, without intentionally drawing a connection to the leadership actions required to
engage in any of those practices. Finally, the district-provided PD was not focused on assisting
principals in developing and fostering cultures of professional learning and behaviors even as
district staff asked principals to change instructional elements at their school sites, such as the
delivery of English language development time. District leadership was focused on meeting the
very real demands of state and federal program requirements, rather than leading and directing
the expectations of developing the core components and key processes principals need to be
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

85

effective instructional leaders. As a result, the district-provided PD was absent from the
principal commentaries when they discussed their own professional growth as instructional
leaders, leaving the principals to turn to each other for support.
Finding #2 The PD Did Not Build the Principals’ Knowledge to Be Able to Articulate What
the Concepts of Academic Discourse or Student Engagement Mean or What They Would
Look Like in the Classroom.
Over the course of the three interviews, participants expressed concern about a perceived
lack of focus in the district, which they connected to a lack of focus for their professional
development. Principals need a shared depth of understanding about the purpose, nature and
pathway for the work (Fullan, 2016) and the principals of Bayside conveyed that they did not
have a shared understanding about district expectations. When asked about district expectations,
the majority of principals interviewed reported two areas: academic discourse and student
engagement (although neither of these were discussed in the three observed professional
development days). Of the eight principals interviewed, seven identified academic discourse and
student engagement as areas that all principals were expected to know and understand; one
principal did not identify student engagement and a different principal did not identify academic
discourse. Yet, although seven of the eight principals identified the terminology, the principals
expressed a desire for the district staff to more explicitly engage in expectation setting and
definition in those two areas that were identified by seven-eighths as district areas of focus. Pat,
one of the newer principals, said,
Some things that I’m not feeling clear about, like the student engagement and the
academic discourse from a while back. That I felt really lost in how to bring that back to
my staff…What does academic discourse look like to them and what would they be doing
to improve that in their classrooms?
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

86

Even though seven of the eight of the principals interviewed specifically identified in the first
interview that student discourse and engagement were areas in which they as principals were
expected to have knowledge, they operated on a continuum of knowledge about what this would
look like at their schools and what the expectation was for them, as principals, to act on these
areas of focus. Pat’s comments indicated a lack of knowledge as to how to define academic
discourse and student engagement and share that knowledge with her teachers. Her lack of
understanding of this area makes it difficult for her to execute the processes necessary for her to
improve teaching and learning (Goldring et al., 2007; Marzano et al., 2005) at her school. She
needed clarity in not only the definition of these two concepts, but also the expanded knowledge
of what her teachers will be doing and how to monitor and support that work (Stein & Nelson,
2003). Without the basic agreed upon definition, she cannot engage in the more complex work
of instructional leadership which includes understanding the needs of her professional learning
community and creating the environment to support learning, while monitoring, motivating and
providing resources (Goldring et al., 2007; Stein & Nelson, 2003).
Susie, also a newer principal, described her experience with academic discourse this way,
I think there’s not a lot of clarity from Ed services. I don’t think they understand all the
way what we’re supposed to be looking for. They just know that it should happen. For
example, we took on this new academic discourse, and as we were doing a walk-through
with the interim superintendent and one of the assistant superintendents and then
everyone else, there were five different understandings of what academic discourse
should look like. They fought among themselves in front of us as to what it was.
Although Susie indicated that the district staff is unclear on a definition of academic discourse,
she also implied this resulted in her own lack of clarity. This anecdote served to further illustrate
that not having a clear definition of the conceptual knowledge she was expected to act on
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

87

contributed to her own lack of understanding about how to define academic discourse and then,
subsequently, be able to implement and support it in her school. As instructional leaders, Pat and
Susie lacked a clear conceptual understanding (knowledge) of the district focuses, which
contributed to their uncertainty as to what is expected of them as instructional leaders and how
they can begin to act on those expectations in their principal roles.
In addition to the new principals and their lack of clarity on the agreed upon knowledge
base, as it relates to academic discourse and student engagement, the more experienced
principals did not have any greater coherence on their conceptual understanding of those two
concepts nor what their role should be as instructional leaders.
Michael, an experienced elementary principal, said,
I know that student engagement and academic discourse is an expectation right now but
how to get there ... We have the “what” but the “why” and the “how” have not been
formally communicated. The viable curriculum, student engagement guaranteed by the
curriculum high-end performing team, all of those things are in place to some level across
our district, all of those things are an expectation, I think, of the district but beyond
saying this is what we want, a formalized way of how to get there was just, you know ...
Although Michael stated that principals have the “what,” it was not clear from the principal
interviews that the principals defined or understood the two areas of district focus in the same
way. While it was clear that the majority of principals understood that these two areas were the
focus for the district, there was no evidence from the interviews that the principals shared the
same knowledge base; they were not operating on the same definitions or understanding of what
those two concepts looked like in practice. Michael went on to say that they do not have the
“why” or “a formalized way of how to get there.” This showed that Michael did not believe
principals have been offered any specific information on the procedural knowledge base they
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

88

need as principals to enact these two strategies in their schools. Michael explained that as an
instructional leader, he lacked an understanding of the best way to take the next steps at his
school and that the PD provided did not further his understanding of how to effectively move
forward in these two areas.
Conclusion
Although seven of the eight principals interviewed identified academic discourse and
student engagement as areas of district focus, they were unable to articulate what academic
discourse and student engagement are and what they should look like in classroom. Successful
organizations clearly communicate expectations to employees (Clarke & Estes, 2008) and when
communication is not clear, it is negatively associated with the implementation of a change in an
organization (Waters & Grubb, 2004). Here the Bayside School District has not effectively
defined or communicated the knowledge base upon which it expects its principals to act in their
roles as instructional leaders at their schools.
Research Question Two
2. How does district provided professional development prepare principals to lead
instructional change?
As discussed in the conceptual framework, principal professional development needs to
be structured in a way that addresses the learning needs of the district principals. Darling
Hammond et al. (2007) found that effective practices for professional development for principals
included a focus on leadership, teams, collaboration in practice-oriented situations, connections
between theory and practice and an emphasis on reflection. Additionally, Knowles (1973) stated
that adult learners want to be self-directing, use their experiences in their learning and want the
learning to be organized around real-life problems. Data from this study revealed that the
structure of the PD offered to principals did not provide the systems of support the principals
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

89

needed to transfer their learning into practice. This included a lack of follow-up and support, the
ability to collaborate and to connect the learning to the context of their practice. Moreover, the
data showed that the lack of differentiation did not support the needs of new or secondary
principals in further developing and applying their learning. Finally, the data revealed that the
adult learning needs of the principals, including the opportunity to collaborate and reflect, were
not sufficiently being met with the current PD structure.
Finding #3 The Structure of the Professional Development Offered Does Not Provide
Ongoing Systems of Support for Principals to Carry Over What They Learned into Their
Practice, Support the Needs of New or Secondary Principals, nor does it Address the Adult
Learning Needs of the Principals.
Theme 1: Systems of support. A prominent theme that emerged within this finding is
that principals did not have formalized collaborative structures for their professional learning nor
did they understand the expectations the district had for them to apply their new learning and
how they would be supported and followed up with by district staff. Consistent with the
literature, principals want feedback (Goff et al., 2014) and opportunities to develop human and
conceptual skills (Leon & Davis, 2011). Principals need opportunities to connect their
leadership to the real-world application of their schools (Leon & Davis, 2011) and need to have
opportunities for collaborating and networking with their principal counterparts (Elmore, 2000;
Stein & Nelson, 2003).
Maria, a secondary principal, suggested that the format of the professional development
provided by the district was not supportive of her ability to gain the knowledge and skills she
needed. She stated that as a principal she would like to not just understand information at a
general level or at the level of a classroom teacher, but to actually learn how she can best support
her teachers. Supporting teachers is a necessary process for a learning leader (Goldring et al.,
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

90

2007). In explaining what professional development would look like that made her feel prepared
to implement and supervise instruction, she described it as having a “think” partner. She
described how a conversation with a think partner would sound.
Like, “Oh how might you do that? What might you do?” Like strategizing. “Where
might you start with that? Where are the land mines?” Really more kind of a think
partner rather than, not a whole lot of like tangible support coming out, or real tangible
accountability either. But more like, “Let’s get you set off in the right direction. It could
come in the form of validation, it could come in the form of questioning, it could come in
the form of, “Well let’s think about what could happen first.” So, really kind of talking
and thinking and planning and strategizing.
In this passage, Maria described what she would experience as a principal if, in the context of
professional development, she had the opportunity to dialogue with a colleague so that she could
think about her role as a principal and engage in an exchange of ideas, questions, and
affirmations about her approach to her job as principal at her school. She indicated here that the
current professional development did not provide her with this learning structure. Maria further
described that a system of support for her would be to have a mentor or colleague with whom she
could process her ideas about how she would enact her role as an instructional leader, a structure
for professional learning that is supported by the literature (Goldring et al, 2012). She explained
that instead of receiving general information regarding an aspect of her practice, she would
rather have the opportunity to delve deeply into how to apply that practice at her school, which is
also supported by the literature that principals should be able to better direct their own learning
based on their own school needs (Zepeda, Parylo, & Bengston, 2014). Here Maria reflected her
need to share ideas with someone so that she could explore her role as an instructional leader.
As a principal, she needed to understand how to assume responsibility for understanding what
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

91

her staff would need as she, as principal, created an accountable environment for teachers while
providing the appropriate resources for them (Elmore, 2000; Stein & Nelson, 2003). In this
passage, Maria suggested that this was not her experience in the professional development she
received as a principal.
Another aspect of this theme was the principals’ lack of understanding of the district
expectation setting when the professional development was delivered without a plan and process
for follow-up. Michael described it this way,
Having the principals come together around a common topic and be evaluated and go
back and communicate it to our staff and ... It’s having that systemized approach and
cyclical approach to learning has not happened.
Michael explained that the district staff had not clearly communicated expectations to principals
for what they were supposed to do with their learning, nor did they have a “systemized” or
“cyclical” approach, indicating a lack of connection between the learning and follow up once
concepts have been presented. Clarke and Estes (2008) state that organizations must be goal
driven and the organization’s goals must be clearly communicated to all within the organization,
something the interviews indicated is not happening in Bayside School District. Two of the eight
principals interviewed specifically stated that the district had not clearly articulated the
expectation for the learning nor pushed principals to reflect on how the learning would impact
their schools. This demonstrates the principals’ recognized need to be reflective about the
learning (Baker, 2006). Two of the principals, Dave and Pat, used the same analogy in their two
separate interviews to explain how they felt the district needed to present information more in the
format of what a classroom teacher would do, by clearly stating the objective. Dave said,
I think one of the things they could do is, it’s almost like going in a classroom…this is
why we’re doing what we’re doing. This is how it connects…think about how it may
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

92

benefit your school. Ask yourself these three questions. That would help I think a great
deal, instead of, “Okay, we’re going to the next piece. We’re going to the next one.”
Talk about how they connect, because in reality all of them connected.
Pat said,
You know when you go to teach a lesson and you state the objective of the lesson and
you ask your students, “Why is this important to know this?” I think if we could have
our presentations, during our principal meeting be more purposeful in that direction, it
would help us to remember the information, know why it’s important and really pay more
attention, be more engaged.
In both of these quotations, the principals expressed that the district provided PD lacked
clearly stated district expectations as to what they were supposed to learn so they knew what to
do with the new information. Clearly communicating expectations to employees is a key
component of successful organizations (Clarke & Estes, 2008). Dave explained that questions
were not asked that would make him connect his learning to his own school site, thus the
transferability of the new learning was not understood, nor was he afforded the opportunity to
understand why the learning was important. Instead, he described the PD as moving rapidly
from one topic to the next. Pat reinforced that the “why” of the learning during the PD, the
importance of that particular topic, was not made. Her comment illustrated that not having this
expectation clearly set impeded her ability to retain the information and stay engaged in the
learning.
Principals went further to express frustration with the lack of clarity around expectations
and follow up. The continuum of responses ranged from seeing improvement in the district’s
focus to still not seeing a clear establishment of the expectation. Michael explained,
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

93

We’re talking about a lot of things, but we’re not charged to do anything with the
information concretely, and then there’s no follow-up. In my little brain, there’s no
follow up to come back to say, now that we’ve done this, and we’ve done whatever
specifically, come back with evidence of X, Y, Z so we can discuss it and see how well
we did, so we can evaluate our programs and then that will determine what further PD we
need.
Michael’s comment “We’re talking about a lot of things” connected to the statements made by
Dave who described the PD presentation as, “Okay, we’re going to the next piece. We’re going
to the next one.” Both of these statements described a topic-oriented PD approach, rather than a
PD structure that allowed for a deeper level of understanding of the material presented and where
principals explored the new learning and its application to their schools. Michael’s comment
illustrated that the lack of clear district expectation for his application of the new learning as well
as the lack of follow up, left him unclear about what the district expected him to do. He implied
that he had no anticipation that there would be a collective discussion of how the principals had
implemented that particular learning at their schools, meaning that the district would not follow
up with the new learning he had been given. He further said he would not know if he was
achieving an expectation or not and he had no expectation that further PD would be driven by a
true need, as nothing was evaluated. These statements indicated his own disconnect from the
learning as it was not offered to him with goals for his own learning nor was he expected to
reflect on the learning and its implications for him as a leader or his school as a whole.
Rochelle indicated that no one would know if she implemented any of the district
learning at her school and described the lack of clear expectations for principals and the structure
of the PD as not supportive of principals’ needs.
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

94

Well, I’m not sure that anyone outside of my school campus really knows as I never am
not meeting those things, which is one thing I feel sad about in our district. One, because
I think the greatest momentum happens when you cement your intentions about
achievement and you reflect on it and you celebrate it so I don’t know that we do that
specifically enough outside of our own school campuses. Two, because when there’s
anxiety or things aren’t going smoothly, it would be so great to have more problem-
solving meetings and plan with the brilliant people who are at schools and at the district
office. I don’t know if it’s just because I’m at a site that’s very healthy so I don’t need
that, but I certainly am aware of people at other sites that are struggling and on a personal
level I’ve reached out, but because I don’t feel like we have the expectation and a routine
or setup, I don’t know that people are so honest with me about where they’re struggling.
I think that the way the principal meetings are structured, we bounce from presentation to
presentation and I know because I’m always struggling with it at our site as well.
Rochelle’s comments added to the other principal voices regarding a lack of clear district
expectations as to what and how principals were supposed to apply their learning. She conveyed
her own personal disappointment that the district does not invest more in setting expectations and
following up with them. She talked about how important it is to “cement your intentions,” an
important piece of goal setting, echoing Clarke and Estes (2008) assertion that goals must be
clearly defined. She reiterated Dave and Michael’s assertions that the district moves from one
PD to the next without making clear connections for principals, when she said, “we bounce from
presentation to presentation.” She stated that she believed her principal colleagues were
struggling with knowing what is important and what to focus on, because she, too, as one of the
most veteran principals, struggled as well. She indicated that the PD was not designed to be
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

95

collaborative, problem-solving meetings that addressed the needs of adult learners (Knowles,
1973) and principal professional development (Zepeda, et al., 2014).
Other principals expressed a sense that the district was working to narrow its
expectations, however, there was a consensus that rarely was there a conclusion or follow up.
Goals that are time bound, specific and monitored can be motivating for individuals in an
organization (Clarke & Estes, 2008). Principals stated that rather than having agreed upon
learning necessary for all of the principals to have as it was tied to a specific outcome the district
had identified, the district provided professional development was never tied to a strict
expectation, requirement or desired outcome. Rochelle put it this way,
Often things are offered as options and invitations here, but it’s hard to say expectations.
Things that have been offered that are very much congruent with what we care about, like
the Reading Workshop, so there’s this idea that there can be student voice and choice
meeting in the middle with adult provocations around essential learning standards. That
was offered and that’s true to what we care about, but it’s not an imposed expectation. It
was more an offering that matched what we already had strong convictions about, similar
to the CGI (cognitively guided instruction) training that’s been happening which I’m
thrilled is now happening pre-K-12 in the district. I feel like it’s offered, but I don’t
necessarily see the same follow through in expectation that it be in every classroom…The
difference is, by the way, I don’t always have to be asked what I need, but I need a
through line and the “why” behind things needs to be consistent so it’s not just “why”
dropped in here and then we forget about it and come back to it. Ideally, going forward,
there’d be continuity, that those thoughts, what we do in the management retreat, will still
be picked up through the principals’ meetings or site learning walks or how will it be
connected.
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

96

By using the phrase “through line,” Rochelle identified what was lacking in the current structure
of how PD was offered; there was no specific outcome or goal, no clearly defined expectation
and no specified follow-up by the organization. Rochelle articulated that the district provided
“options and invitations,” implying a loose structure of PD offerings that did not define clear
expectations for outcomes, continuity or consistency. Rochelle described a structure that
allowed principals to choose PD based on their own values, but not necessarily on any identified
need, either for students or principals in their own professional learning. Rochelle also indicated
that the “why” of what the district was doing was “dropped in” indicating a superficial effort to
make a connection as to the importance of the learning. Again, the lack of a “through line”
comment evidenced the lack of continuity in the district-provided PD. Principals need to
understand the alignment of the organization if they are to understand their roles in improving
student outcomes (Elmore, 2000). Without these clearly stated expectations, the principals were
left to set their own individual goals and outcomes, if they chose to do so.
In the third interview, after the third PD, which included a content portion facilitated by
local university staff, Rochelle said this,
I have faith, I have faith in the people who were, I mean, I have faith in the people who
were there that it’s well facilitated by the university and that we all are learners and will
make use of it, but you’re asking more like, will someone come around and check and see
how we’re doing? Yeah, I don’t, I don’t feel like there is any expectation, specifically, of
what we’ll do.”
In this statement, Rochelle reiterated her statements from the previous interview. She described
her “faith” in the quality of the PD because staff from a respected university provided it, yet she
lacked clarity on the district’s expectations for the learning. She did not know, at the conclusion
of the PD, what the expectations were for her as the instructional leader at her school.
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

97

Susie, further connected her lack of clarity to a lack of clarity on the part of district staff.
I think they bring us things that are not finished in their own tents. They haven’t
completely thought out what the plan is or where we’re going. Then we start it and it’s
changed because then someone gets a little more clarity and a little more clarity, so by the
time we finish, we’ve done 15 steps when we could’ve done one. I also think that a lot of
times they bring in people from the outside that know less about us than we do, and
there’s people internally who could’ve done it just as well and given us a consistent
message that we could’ve followed through on.
In this statement, Susie described the confusion caused when, from the principal perspective, the
district message and expectation were not clearly stated. Learning without expectation of
implementation was not creating the urgency necessary for change at the school sites (Kotter,
1996). Without a clearly crafted expectation on the part of the district, even long-term principals
like Rochelle, whose interviews indicated that she had great respect for and ties to the district
administration, did not feel that the district had established a need for principals to attend to and
implement what was offered to them in district PD as no clear expectation parameters have been
established, nor had there been an expectation for implementation and follow up.
Theme 2: Meeting the needs of new and secondary principals. Principals have
different professional development needs based on their experience and the level at which they
serve. My study revealed that two subsets of principals, the newest principals and those who
served at the secondary level, did not believe the current structure and delivery of the
professional development met their learning needs. Two of the three newest principals indicated
that the current structure of professional development did not address their needs as new
principals. Similarly, the secondary principals did not find the PD enhanced their principal skills
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

98

and in fact created their own professional learning time in order to gather the input and support
they believed they needed.
Two of the three new principals (defined as principals for fewer than five years)
expressed their difficulty in understanding the district expectations around new learning and how
to execute that new learning at their schools, demonstrating that the current PD structure was not
supporting new principals in developing these skills. This finding manifested itself in different
ways with two of the new principals.
Susie, an elementary principal, expressed the challenges she experienced in improving
instruction in her current school setting. When asked about her knowledge and skills in relation
to improving instruction, she described herself as “not as knowledgeable as I’d like to be,” and as
someone who “struggles” with making sure all of the components of a good lesson are in place
when visiting classrooms. Susie then explained what has helped her in the professional
development setting.
I like the idea that we’re (principals) finally ... Although it’s not very concrete, we’re
finally getting to talk to each other. I think if someone’s doing it right or doing
something good, I don’t want to reinvent the wheel. I want to do what they’re doing. It
makes my life easier. I know I have an example to take back. I can go ahead and tell my
teachers, “You want to see it in action? Let me send you over to this school.” We’ve
been doing that a lot more. For example, over the summer, we had that alternative
dispute resolution in special ed, the whole in-service that probably could have been done
in four hours, and it was done in two days, but that’s a whole other issue. I said I would
go to another school and train their staff, and they’re going to come to my IEPs to watch.
Then I know if that staff is doing something with RTI I’m curious to go see. I think
that’s really positive, and the more we get to network, the more we can find out how are
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

99

you doing it, how are you doing it, let me do it your way, and see if it works, or works
with my staff, and then we become more one district.
Here, Susie explicitly stated that she was helped when she had models and examples and could
exchange ideas with other principals. She stated that she was helped when she had the
opportunity to hear from other principals as to their actions at their own schools. She said she
wanted models that she could take back and apply at her own school. Taken collectively, her
comments illustrated that as a new principal she had the same challenges as other principals
without the experience to guide her. Given her comments that reflected her lack of confidence in
her knowledge and skills, providing something different for her in professional development as a
new principal could afford her the opportunity to process her learning and ponder and practice
her next steps as an instructional leader. Her colleague, Pat, in the first interview, went further
with what she would like to see as a new principal.
It would be really nice if you could dive into that (school plan) a little more. Or we could
all get together and work on our plans and be able to ask questions of somebody and
collaborate with other people. Maybe some people would think that’s a time suck, but I
think it’d be really great to be a little more collaborating or just go in depth a little more.
In the third interview, Pat further explained,
It would be really valuable if they could put a new principal cohort forward that also
speaks to time organization and how to prioritize your time, how to prioritize the tasks at
hand. It would be really helpful to just hear what people have to say about that and what
they’re doing so that I have these strategies moving forward to not be wasting my time….
I’m just trying to figure out how do other principals make that work for them? What do
they do for time organization?”
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

100

Here Pat explained that a collaborative PD structure would assist her as a new principal. Pat’s
voice joined that of Susie as she articulated that she would benefit from asking questions of her
principal colleagues and having models. In both of her interviews, Pat demonstrated that an
opportunity to collaborate with her peers would contribute to her confidence as a new principal.
When leaners are able to practice and work in a setting with specific, credible feedback and work
with others (Pajares, 2006; Stajkovic, 2009) it can increase motivation and further develop a
learner’s self-efficacy.
Susie and Pat’s assertions about PD structures that would better support them are
supported by the literature that finds that principals are often not adequately prepared to take on
the challenging and complex job of the principalship (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Elmore,
2000). Principals, as instructional leaders, must have the knowledge, skills and courage to hold
teachers accountable for implementing district programs and strategies for which they have been
provided professional development and this is more complex than simply understanding the
subject matter or concept (Stein & Nelson, 2003). Two of the three newest principals
interviewed indicated that the structure of the current PD was not designed to support their
learning needs.
Similarly, all four of the district secondary principals interviewed for this study either
explicitly or implicitly stated that they did not find the district-provided professional
development contributed to their knowledge and skills as instructional leaders. Rather, they
relied on each other to develop those skills and abilities. Dave, a high school principal,
expressed the lack of impact the professional development had on him as an instructional leader.
When asked how he thought the professional development he received from the district
contributed to his instructional leadership he said,
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

101

PD, it really, for me it doesn’t. This doesn’t do anything. It actually doesn’t do anything
for me as far as growth. In my past, I was a part of ... like ASCD and NASSP, I attended
those as far as conferences are concerned. I grew from that, brought ideas back and we
actually utilized things and administrative teams as far as three or four of us would go. I
still feel like ... We’re told what to do but it’s not necessarily what our school needs.
Dave explicitly stated that he did not find the PD enhanced his ability to grow as a principal. He
instead described a time, in a former district, when he was able to attend other training and that
he was able to be efficacious in bringing back those ideas and working with his staff. On the
other hand, regarding the PD he received in this district, he stated that it was “not necessarily
what our school needs.” Although he distanced himself from this personally, by connecting it to
his school as a whole, if it was not what his school needed then by association it was not what he
needed as a school leader. This statement, coupled with the first statement, indicated that he saw
no relationship between the district-provided PD and the competencies and processes he needed
as a principal.
Maria was the most specific in identifying an area of needed growth for herself in the
area of math. She stated that she needed more support in “consistent monitoring and feedback”
for her math teachers.
So, I think part of it, I think kind of continually coming back to school improvement is
above results improvement, that coherence is an equity issue and it’s essential that there
are things that we can be doing that have much bigger returns in terms of student growth,
in terms of instructional strategies. So, I think that PD (at his school) has been effective,
I think the building of systems to giving the time has been effective. I think my next step
really though, that will really help all of this, to me this has been part of the problem with
the math, is the consistent monitoring feedback. It is kind of an area where I think that I
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

102

can grow and that will really, I think, that’s a lever that really raises the trajectory of the
whole thing.
Here, Maria identified areas of need for growth, and she believed that she would be able to grow
and effect change at her school. She stated that she could grow and that when she did it would
“raise the trajectory,” meaning math achievement would improve at her school. Her motivation,
then, was high to do this work as she had a positive belief in her own ability to impact her school
setting (Pajares, 2006). She did not, however, see the current PD she had received as
contributing to that growth and improvement. She went on to describe how she viewed the
impact of two recent PDs she received as impacting her role as an instructional leader,
I don’t see either of those areas, not discounting the importance of either of them, like I
said, if I’m not remembering anything real tangible out of it, it’s probably not going to
impact my practice.
Here, Maria, explained that she could not remember the PD she received, therefore it could not
have an effect on her role as a principal. Although she did not discount the value of what had
been offered her by the district PD, which was training on English language learners and
classified evaluations, she did not remember the PD, therefore there was no connection to her
efficacy as an instructional leader.
Principals in the secondary settings have different contexts for their instructional
leadership than do their elementary school counterparts (Hallinger, 2003) and this was reflected
in both of these participants’ comments. Dave, on the one hand, said explicitly that the district
did not understand the needs of his school; therefore, the PD provided by the district was not
serving to improve his perceptions of his leadership at his school. Maria, on the other hand, had
identified a specific content area where she did not feel as successful in her leadership role (math
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

103

instruction supervision), however she was unable to connect the currently provided PD to her
own identified area of potential growth.
Although all four of the secondary principals demonstrated high levels of interest in
improving the instruction and student learning outcomes in their interviews, the secondary
principals in particular, addressed the lack of collaboration and of job-embedded learning
(Darling-Hammond et al. 2009; Zepeda et al., 2014) in the current PD structure as an
impediment in their interest in and connection to the PD provided.
Theme 3: Adult learning needs. As adult learners, interviews revealed that principals’
needs are not being met in the current structure of the PD offerings. The idea that their needs are
not being met pertains not only to what they stated would be ideal settings and structures for
them in the principal meetings, but also to what the literature says about what the structure and
approach should be in order to have a meaningful learning experience (Knowles, 1973; Mezirow,
2000). Adults have developed self-concepts, life experiences that impact their reaction to
learning, and they want to solve problems, particularly those that have immediate applications,
and they are motivated by internal factors (Knowles, 1973). Some experts have said that
rigorous professional development for principals should be given to them over time, should be
job-embedded, engaging, collaborative and varied (Fogarty & Pete, 2004). Meanwhile, adult
learning theorists have postulated that adult learning environments need to emphasize making
meaning in context and asking the adult learners to engage in deep reflection that requires them
to validate their thinking by examining the reasons for it (Mezirow, 2000). Transformative
learning for adults involves creating a space where adults can challenge their assumptions and
habits of mind, in an often-disquieting way, so the learners can evaluate their own assumptions
while examining and wrestling with the need to change (Mezirow, 2000). Ultimately, in order
for principals to fully engage in PD being offered to them, content delivery needs to meet their
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

104

needs as adult learners (Knowles, 1973; Mezirow, 2000; Sparks & Hirsh, 2000). The principal
interviews indicated that when their articulated criteria for appropriate structures, such as
collaboration, were met, principals were more engaged in the learning offered to them. The
principals did not, however, indicate that they experienced district-provided PD in a way that
allowed for transformative learning experiences.
Principals expressed that current PD offered to them by the district was not job-
embedded and collaborative. The secondary principals described the value they found in visiting
each other’s schools as well as visiting schools in other districts as a team, however, they were
left to pursue this structure as it was not regularly afforded them as part of the district structure.
Instead, they created their own learning opportunities, organized by Rochelle, for example, for
the other principals. Dave commented on a visit he and the other secondary school principals
had just done with Rochelle to another district.
We just went to a Big Thinkers school visit this past Thursday, which was pretty
awesome. And you’re thinking we can’t do all of it, but yeah, we can do something
different. Where ninth grade can look different. …That gave me insight. That was so
valuable, where I didn’t have that in the last school district.
Dave explained how a visit with colleagues outside of his district allowed him to imagine what
he could do differently at his school. He described the experience as giving him “insight” and
being “valuable.” In his interviews, Dave stated that he didnot believe the district-provided PD
was valuable for him, yet here he described the value of a professional learning experience with
his peers in the district. Dave’s comments indicated that the setting and structure of the district
PD was part of what he did not find helpful and that he was a learning principal, looking toward
continuous improvement. When provided with what he perceived as a relevant learning
experience to his job as principal, Dave described the learning as meaningful and applicable to
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

105

his work. His colleague, Susie, an elementary principal, had the same reaction to visiting other
schools.
I always like when we do walk-throughs together because it shows me kind of what
they’re look at, what I’m looking at. I think for me, the most valuable is sitting with my
colleagues and hearing what they’re doing. Because then I know how to put things into
practice. Sometimes I’m struggling with, “I know this as an instructional leader, but
what am I really looking at? What are you looking for? What do you see improved
practice in?” Using their ideas oftentimes creates something for me that…it might not
work exactly, but I can use it to create a new idea.
With this comment, Susie demonstrated the need to have the opportunity to collaborate and have
the opportunity to see the learning in her work context (Darling-Hammond et al, 2007; Zepeda et
al., 2014). When this happened, she explained, it sparked her ability to have an idea in relation
to her own work context that she would not have had otherwise. Effective professional
development connects the learning to the practice and develops teamwork and furthers
relationships (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Sanzo, Myran, & Clayton, 2011) as Susie
described this experience did for her. Professional development that is job-embedded and allows
for on-site practice, is interactive with partners and small groups working together and that is
collegial in nature, allowing for bonding of the group of learners, best supports adults in their
learning process (Fogarty & Pete, 2004), and it was this structure of PD that Susie described as
missing from her current setting.
Beyond the need for collaboration, Rochelle described the need to have an opportunity to
evaluate her practice in a safe space with her peers.
I also wish that in our principal meetings—I put in eval because they asked us for it—I
would like more public practice in that safe circle of people, I don’t know how safe other
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

106

people feel, for example, coming up with the statements that I am going to write in my
newsletter to parents because I think it’s a safe place, to bring like a letter to parents.
Getting some partner feedback around this is the kind of message I’m trying to get across,
what stronger message could I use? I’d like us to pick an area, I don’t care what area it
is like academic discourse, meaningful curriculum, whatever, and say does everyone have
article or book something around the topic that you’ve been wanting to look at, and bring
it. Have 20 minutes to read and actually go through a protocol together and it doesn’t
have to be the same text but it can be shared topic like we do at school with students.
Here, Rochelle, a veteran principal, indicated that “public practice” and “partner feedback” when
engaging in a key process such as communicating to stakeholders (Goldring et al., 2007) would
allow her to glean other professional perspectives as she worked to improve her own abilities in
that particular area. Mezirow (2000) explained that free adult discourse requires safety, both
physical and mental, as well as acceptance of others with different perspectives and options,
which is what Rochelle appeared to describe by using the words “safe place” and then describing
a democratic setting where ideas could be exchanged. This reflected her need to engage in
communicative action that will allow her make meaning with others while testing her own
understanding and learning in relationship to others’ viewpoints. She also stated that she would
like to have the opportunity to engage in professional reading with her colleagues that is not part
of her current professional learning. In her comments, Rochelle asserted her need for training
that was collegial and will support the principal community of learners, both of which are best
practices in professional development for adult learners (Fogarty & Pete, 2004).

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

107

Conclusion
Principals did not feel that the district’s current approach to professional development
further developed their ability to apply the new information at their schools in their roles as
learning leaders, nor did they appear to be engaged in adult learning structures that provoked
deep thinking and reflection about their roles as principals which was necessary for learning and
growth. Principals stated that the current PD lacked the opportunity to process the new learning
with other principals and to see the learning in action at schools. The principals conveyed that
they needed something the current district-provided PD lacked: focused learning and subsequent
opportunities to see that learning applied in a real-world application. They also expressed that
the current PD structure did not allow them to receive feedback in a safe space that allowed for
them to grow as learners. While not all learning is meant to be transformative (Mezirow, 2000)
there are certain conditions that must be met in order for the adult learners to be engaged so they
have the opportunity to making meaning and transfer new learning to their work setting (Fogarty
& Pete, 2004.). The current structure of the district-provided PD was not providing the
principals with sufficient opportunities for collaboration, context and work application (Darling-
Hammond et al. 2009; Zepeda et al., 2014) that would make the experience more meaningful for
principals. Further, it was not designed in a way that allowed for the deep reflection, challenging
of beliefs and assumptions and social discourse and interaction that could lead to transformative
learning experiences for the principals (Mezirow, 2000).

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

108

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH
This study examined how principals perceived district-provided professional
development influenced their ability, as school leaders, to improve instruction at their school
sites. Effective principals possess certain competencies and understand how to engage in
specific processes to improve instruction at their schools (Goldring et al., 2007). Additionally,
the study examined how the district’s approach to professional development equipped principals
to become instructional leaders who could improve instruction at their schools. Designing
principal professional development with the structural and cultural implications in mind can
make a difference in the impact the PD has on principal leaders (Normore, 2007; Peterson,
2002). Principals play a key role in the complex work of improving instruction and learning
outcomes for their students and they must be supported as they work to support teachers at their
schools. In order to improve their effectiveness, the district-provided opportunities for
professional learning must be well designed to meet the diverse needs of the principals who are
at varying stages of their careers (Goldring et al., 2012) and serve students in different levels of
the K-12 system. The PD must not only inform principals about new curriculum being taught
and strategies being used by teachers at their schools, it must also give them an opportunity to
explore their responsibilities and actions as learning leaders in relation to the curricula and
strategies. Finally, it must give them opportunities to network, observe and collaborate with
other principal leaders so that they can push their own learning and do so in a manner that meets
their needs as adult learners.
This study employed a qualitative case study methodology to answer the following two
research questions:
1. What are principals’ perceptions of their ability to improve instruction at their school
sites as a result of the district provided professional development they attended?
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

109

2. How does district provided professional development prepare principals to lead
instructional change?
To answer these two research questions, eight principals were interviewed and district provided
professional development that they attended was observed. the principals represented new and
experienced principals and served at elementary and secondary schools. Three principal
professional development meetings were observed and principals were interviewed after each of
the PD meetings. Additionally, agendas for each of the meetings and handouts were collected
for each meeting. Pseudonyms were used for the district, the schools and the principals.
Observation data was scripted and interview data was recorded and transcribed. An inductive
analysis of all data collected was performed. This chapter is the result of the understandings and
insights gleaned from that data analysis. The chapter is organized as follows: summary of
findings for the two research questions, implications for practice, policy and future research.
Summary of Findings Research Question #1
Goldring et al. (2007) suggest that there are six core components and six key processes
principals need to engage in as learning leaders. The data revealed that in terms of two particular
components of the Goldring et al. framework (2007)—instructional quality and creating a culture
of learning and professional behaviors—the principals were not adequately prepared by the PD
provided to engage in those two components at their schools. The data also illustrated that
principals did not see the connection or an improved ability to apply what they learned from
professional development to lead instructional improvement efforts at their schools. The
interviews revealed that the district-provided professional development was not focused on
leading instructional change nor was it focused on developing content knowledge about what
“good instruction” is or furthering the principals’ understanding of their role in improving the
quality of instruction.
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

110

Summary of Findings Research Question #2
In order for adult learners to have meaningful learning experiences, the structure and
approach are important factors (Knowles, 1973; Mezirow, 2000). The data from this study
revealed that the structure of the principal learning opportunities as provided by the school
district was not meeting the adult learning needs of the principals nor was the structure
enhancing the principal perceptions that they were able to apply what they learned in PD at their
schools. The data showed that the structure of the district-provided PD did not allow for the kind
of problem-solving connected to immediate applications that motivates adult learners (Knowles,
1973), nor was there a clear establishment of expectations, differentiation for new and secondary
principals, meaningful collaboration or deep contextualized learning that would allow principals
to be better positioned to fully comprehend and apply their new learning at their schools
(Goldring et al. 2012).
Implications and Recommendations
For Practice
The findings in this study suggest several implications for practice in the area of
professional development provided by school districts that could improve the professional
learning of principals. The primary areas are: clear expectations; feedback, reflection; and
contextual learning.
Clear expectations. One of the implications of the findings is that principals desire to
clearly understand what the district expects of them. The principals expressed that even when
the district had identified areas of focus for instructional practice, the principals were not clear
about definitions of those areas, nor were they able to understand what their role should be in
furthering those areas of focus at their schools. Rather, they were routinely instructed in what
teachers were going to do, not what their leadership in support of those teacher actions would be.
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

111

Strong organizations clearly and effectively communicate expectations to their employees (Clark
& Estes, 2008) and principals need to be clear about their roles and responsibilities in improving
student outcomes (Goldring et al., 2007; Marzano et al., 2005). Another implication is that when
the professional learning time is focused heavily on compliance, without a clear connection to
the expectations for the principals as learning leaders at their schools, the principals are less
likely to engage with the material or understand what and how to take the new learning back to
their schools. District staff, in designing principal professional development, need to be
cognizant of what they are asking principals to do with new learning and then communicate
those expectations, clearly and consistently, ensuring that principals leave the PD with a clear
understanding of the expectations for application of the new learning. The district must
communicate how the new learning is connected to their roles as instructional leaders, not just
how the information addresses a mandate or compliance requirement. Consistent with the
literature on principal professional development (Zepeda, Parylo & Bengston, 2013), the
principals should have an opportunity to determine their growth areas and have choice in what
learning opportunities are afforded them, within the context of the agreed upon framework.
More than just the definition of an effective leader, principals need clear input regarding the
specifics necessary for them to implement the required practices (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). This
clarity will help focus the principals and give greater meaning to the information being learned,
In order to make this meaningful for principals, the district would benefit from the use of
a framework for defining the skills and abilities (knowledge) of an effective school leader.
Krathwohl (2002) defined knowledge in the following ways: 1. factual knowledge, the basic
information that individuals must have to understand a discipline or solve problems in that
discipline, 2. conceptual knowledge, the understanding of the interrelationships between these
pieces of information; 3. procedural knowledge, any step-by step process; and 4. metacognitive
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

112

knowledge, the knowledge and control a person has of his/her own cognitive processes. To
develop mastery in any area, individuals must attain the requisite skills, practice integrating
them, and know the situation (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Job aids, information, training and
education can help employees acquire, transfer and deepen knowledge, depending on the need
and level of the task (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Building on these definitions and concepts, principals must have the specific knowledge
of what is required of them as instructional leaders and must know the core components and key
processes of a learning leader (Goldring et al., 2007) if they are going to be able to improve
instruction at their schools. However, simply knowing the core components and key processes is
not enough. Principals are the learning leaders of their schools and as such they must
demonstrate the process of learning, the practice, the struggles, the reflection. The framework
can be the guide for this learning, but it must be accompanied with the time and structure that
allows principals to grapple with the framework’s implications for their practice. Without
careful structure of the PD to provide an opportunity for principals to engage deeply with the
content of the framework and assess and monitor as they work at their schools, the adoption of a
framework will be nothing more than another good idea that becomes yet an additional
compliance piece instead of an opportunity to deepen principals’ leadership knowledge and
skills. A carefully structured use of the adopted framework can embody the accountability cycle
for principals so that they understand they are to continually grow and learn as principals while
modeling these practices for the teachers and students in their schools.
In all job settings, building knowledge and skills is necessary for improved job
performance when employees do not know what to do to accomplish their performance goals and
when the future may hold challenges that will only be addressed through creative problem
solving (Clark & Estes, 2008). Principals need to know and understand the effective principal
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

113

practices that contribute to improved student achievement. This includes the factual knowledge
or basic information as well as the conceptual information that shows how the pieces of
information work together (Krathwohl, 2002). Research has shown that there are certain skills
and abilities possessed by effective principals who improve outcomes for students (Goldring et
al., 2007; Hallinger, 2003, 2011). Therefore, in order to do the hard work of improving
outcomes for students, principals must have a solid understanding of the factual and conceptual
information about effective principal characteristics and also understand that the organization
expectation is that they will be learning leaders who are modeling the value of ongoing learning
and improving one’s skills and abilities.
Having such an agreed upon framework and communicating it to principals could assist
principals in delving into their leadership practices while also guiding the district staff in
designing professional development. Frameworks or standards are often used to communicate
expectations for principal evaluation; however, using them to guide learning, both from the
principals’ personal perspective as well as the district staff’s design of the PD, could make them
a more powerful tool for principal growth. Using the framework as a foundation for designing
professional development and then clearly communicating the expectations the district has
around the execution and outcomes of those skills as well as the requisite support to assist
principals in improving their leadership skills would give both principals and the district clarity
about the expectations for application of new learning. The recommendation is that the district
adopts and implements an agreed upon framework for defining principal effectiveness and then
uses that framework as a guide for designing PD that identifies those essential skills and abilities
and creates learning opportunities that explicitly foster and develop those skills.
Colleague feedback. The principal interviews indicated the need for professional
development to be crafted in a way that incorporates feedback, which could lead to an authentic
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

114

opportunity for reflection. Therefore, principal professional learning time should be crafted
around feedback, either from principal colleagues or district staff. Principals conveyed that
although they wanted to know if they were meeting district expectations, whether it was a school
plan or implementation of a curriculum, they did not know if their work met the expected
standard nor did they understand the connection from one PD to the next. Districts must ensure
that professional development for principals does not feel random and episodic, but is connected
to their work and followed through by the district with feedback appropriately given in a
systematic way (Goff et al., 2014; Zepeda et al, 2014). Additionally, this follow up provides a
natural opportunity for reflection on the part of the principal. If principals are going to get
feedback in some way from colleagues and supervisors, they will be more likely to reflect on the
work they did, how it compares to the expectations and what they can do to make it better. A
structured setting and expectation for feedback and follow up will allow principals to engage
productively with district staff and their colleagues in a purposeful way that will not only build
collaboration and relationships between and amongst district administrators and principals, it will
also allow principals to deeply explore their work as instructional leaders and create more
ownership for the learning, knowing they will be accountable not just to district staff, but within
their peer group as well. This structure will serve as a model for the professional culture and
learning behaviors principals seek to develop within their own school staffs.
Coaches and mentors for feedback. As stated earlier, district-provided professional
development for principals should contain many opportunities for practice of the new skill or
concept. Therefore, another recommendation is that principals have assigned coaches and/or
mentors. To support the retention and application of the new skill or concept, new principals, in
particular, should have coaches and mentors who can support their initial practice and
incrementally release them to an independent practice. Currently, there is research that supports
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

115

a positive correlation between principal efficacy and mentoring and coaching programs
(Goldring et al, 2012; Grissom & Harrington, 2010). Grissom and Harrington (2010) explored
the relationships between teacher ratings of principal performance and the type of administrative
professional development the principals had. The study found a significant positive correlation
between positive teacher ratings of principal performance and student outcomes and principals
who had participated in mentoring and coaching programs. Conversely, teachers viewed
principals who obtained university coursework as less effective, and viewed those who
participated in formal principal networks performed even worse. Grissom and Harrington’s
finding (2010) that teachers found principals who had been in mentoring and coaching programs
to be more effective, supports the recommendation of using coaching and mentoring in district-
provided professional development.
Principal reflection. A further recommendation is that all professional learning time for
principals allow time for principal reflection. While time is of the essence in most professional
development settings, reflection time is necessary so principals are able to think deeply about the
subject and reflect on their practices, as we know the use of metacognitive strategies facilitates
learning (Baker, 2006). To be effective, principals must be able to reflect on their practice and
motivate teachers to provide the learning environment necessary to improve achievement of all
students (Brown & Chai, 2012). Principals need to monitor and evaluate their own practices so
they can implement changes necessary for improved student learning (Darling-Hammond et al.,
2007) Helsing et al. (2008) report that adaptive work is necessary for a successful principal and
involves the ability to construct a personal filter, belief system or standard that allows the person
to make meaning of him/herself and one’s work in new ways. This is supported by research on
strategies that promote metacognition by promoting self-monitoring and self-assessment (Baker,
2006), which could help principals become more reflective practitioners.
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

116

Knowing that principals who take time to be reflective, who listen and who think before
rushing to judgment are most effective (Kearney, Kelsey, & Herrington, 2013), it is important
that this become a part of the professional development culture. All learners need to be given
opportunities with new material and information to transfer the new knowledge that promotes
and furthers learning (Mayer, 2011). When designing professional development, district staff
members should consider crafting this time for employees. Great effort must be made to create
authentic reflection opportunities for principals; should this become something that merely exists
on the PD agenda and does not delve deeply into reflective practice, again, this time will be
underutilized and not valued by the principals as the meaningful time it could be. Critical self-
reflection is foundational in leadership and has the potential of helping principals address their
biases and judgments, transforming their leadership (Khalifa, Gooden & Davis, 2016), but it
must be ongoing and meaningfully constructed.
Contextual learning. Principals in this study expressed a desire to learn information in
the context of their roles as principals. They expressed that, for example, it would be helpful to
work with other principals when working on their school plans or a parent newsletter that carried
a complicated message. Principals also expressed the desire to walk other schools’ campuses
with principals and to have the opportunity to exchange ideas. Collaboration is an important
aspect of principal professional development as is the opportunity to learn in a job-embedded
way and professional development done in a collaborative format that allows for support of
others is beneficial (Fullan, 2001; Senge, 2006). Knowing that information is better retained
when there are opportunities for guided practice and feedback (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda,
2011) as well as the opportunity for authentic learning (Rueda, 2011), professional development
for principals should involve real-life case studies and scenarios (Rueda, 2011) so that principals
have the opportunity to attempt the application of the skill or the exploration of its application in
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

117

the context of their own school setting. This is supported by the work of Goldring et al. (2012)
who found that key elements of professional development for principals includes job-embedded
instruction that allows the learners to apply their new learning. In addition to working with their
peers in a collaborative setting, a more formalized approach of working with assigned mentors or
coaches, as discussed earlier, can provide principals with the opportunity for feedback in a
contextualized setting that can deepen their understanding (Goldring et al. 2012) and leverage
growth and change. Principals must not only be able to know and understand the characteristics
of effective principals, they must be able to take the appropriate steps as effective leaders. While
studies do not demonstrate a template or formula for success, the research indicates that in order
to be successful, principals need strong procedural knowledge of the appropriate steps they must
take to build instructional capacity in teachers, monitor teaching and learning and create an
environment conducive to change (Jacobson, 2011; King & Bouchard, 2011). If, for example,
effective principals must build teacher capacity to improve student outcomes (Heck & Hallinger,
2010), then they must receive training or education (Clark & Estes, 2008) on the appropriate
steps to take to build that capacity in the teachers at their schools.
In order to help principals develop their procedural knowledge about appropriate steps to
take in improving instruction at their schools, the use of coaches and mentors to provide that
timely, private feedback (Della Sala et al., 2013) in a training setting (Clark & Estes, 2008), will
assist principals in acquiring the ability to apply that procedural knowledge. Additionally, peer
support, through job-alike meetings and school walk-throughs (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001;
Pintrich, 2003; Yough & Anderman, 2006) as well expert models (Rueda, 2011; Scott &
Palincsar, 2006) can allow principals to construct new knowledge and promote learning and
transfer. In principal training programs, these mentoring relationships have built trust and
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

118

relationships, in addition to skills (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004), and could have the same
effect in a school district with more experienced leaders.
With any knowledge base, continued practice of the knowledge or skill develops
automaticity and takes less capacity in working memory making it easier for the individual
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). When learning information and routines that are similar to those
common to the individual’s cultural settings, learning and transfer are promoted (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Coaching and feedback should be a routine part of the district-provided
professional development to develop that automaticity for principals and should be delivered in a
manner that develops teams and relationships while providing a connection between learning and
practice (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Sanzo, Myran & Clayton, 2011). In summary, the
recommendation is that the district administrators provide PD when possible through
collaborative, contextualized learning structures that includes less-structured opportunities for
collaboration as well as more-structured opportunities working with mentors and coaches.
Conclusion
If districts are to improve the ability of their principals to improve student outcomes at
their schools, principals must be viewed as the lead learners at their sites and the district must
clearly communicate to all that this is the expectation and that the district, as a whole, is a
learning organization. In this learning-centered environment, it must be clearly conveyed that
principals are expected to continuously learn and apply that learning to their practice. This must
be the expected district cultural norm. In order for this to happen, there are a few things the
district can do set this expectation. First, the professional development for principals must be
tied to clear expectations and a framework for effective principal characteristics and processes,
and it must include feedback, coaching and real-world scenarios conducted in a social setting.
There are particular competencies possessed by effective principals as well as particular
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

119

behaviors in which effective principals engage to improve outcomes for students (Goldring et al.,
2007; Hallinger, 2003, 2011). The district, then, must ensure that an agreed upon framework that
identifies the skills and abilities is at the core of its professional learning time. The district must
also clearly communicate its expectations to the principals regarding all new learning and create
a structure that signals the importance of the learning to principals, provides support for them as
the acquire and practice new skills and hold them accountable for being the lead learners at their
schools. Adults are more motivated to participate and better able to learn when they see the
relevance of information or a task given to them, as they are goal oriented and can then
understand the goal to be accomplished (Knowles, 1980). Research has shown that feedback that
is specific, timely and private (Anderman & Anderman, 2009; Shute, 2008) is most effective in
learning, indicating that mentors or coaches can assist principals in their own professional
growth. While feedback alone may not change behavior (Goff et al., 2014), performance
coaching can develop specific practices and attainment of goals (Goff et al., 2014; Mayer, 2011),
which has the potential of improving the principals’ effectiveness. Changing PD for principals
in a meaningful way will be slow, challenging work, as the context in which the districts
function, such as meeting local board expectations for student performance, as well as state and
federal expectations and mandates, is not likely to change in the near future. However, in order
to break through and improve achievement for all students, by establishing clear expectations
about learning leadership and a careful and deliberate change in providing professional
development for principals, the district has the potential of impacting school environments and,
ultimately, student outcomes.
For Policy
The findings from this study lend themselves to several recommendations for policy, at
the local, state and federal level. The district administrators in this school district are providing
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

120

the best professional development they can, given a variety of constraints that involve resources
and requirements set by state and federal education departments. Local school board support for
principal development at schools is the first recommendation for policy. By making a statement
in local policy that the professional development of principals is important, the board of
education of a local school district can signal that they see the important of professional learning
of their schools’ principals, which sends a strong message to the principals and the community as
a whole. Additionally, the local board can use resources to support principal coaches and
mentors, again demonstrating the organization’s support in the further development of their
school leaders.
Knowing that learning, motivation and performance are enhanced when participants have
clear, current and challenging goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996), district staff
delivering the professional learning should also examine the district policies and procedures that
frame the goals they have for principals and make them clear to principals at the beginning of the
professional training. District staff must explicitly tie professional development to the policies,
procedures and goals for which the principals are responsible, will make the learning more
relevant to them. If there is a mismatch between those district policies and the real work of the
principals, then district administrators and the school board must revise the policies to make
them relevant to the expectations they have for principals at their schools.
Employees are constantly making inferences about the work culture based on policies,
practices, procedures and the kinds of behaviors that are expected and rewarded, all the daily
elements of an organization (Schneider et al., 1996). In order to effect cultural change, the
routine practices and procedures and policies must be altered to demonstrate to employees that
lasting change can occur (Schneider et al., 1996). The district could make a strong statement in
policy about principal learning and expectations that sets a high standard and places great value
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

121

on that work. That policy may include a statement that principal choice and voice is an
important aspect of developing professional learning plans. Knowing that adult learners resist
learning when they feel others are imposing information, ideas or actions on them (Fidishun,
2000) and a strong organizational culture can block changes the organization needs to make
(Schein, 2004), such a policy statement could make a strong assertion that the district
organization values and endorses a meaningful, relevant approach to professional learning for the
principals in the district. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) propose that culture exists in those
places and times when people are engaged in doing something meaningful to them, hence
creating a cultural setting that involves principals in developing their own professional
development and delivering the professional development in a manner that values both the
principals’ and the organization’s needs will further the learning of principals and better meet the
organization’s goals. By ensuring that high priority work goals are supported with effective
work processes and procedures, there will be alignment with the culture and the performance
objectives. By communicating to the staff and the community at large that principals are seen as
learning leaders, not just plant managers, and are supported and held accountable as such, the
local board of education can clearly communicate its values as a learning community.
At the state and federal level, there should be an ongoing examination of accountability
requirements and use of resources to support principal learning. Overall, policies at both levels
tend to undervalue the complexity of the work involved in improving student achievement,
particularly the challenges in closing the achievement and opportunity gap. Accountability
measures that require tremendous amounts of district staff time to the exclusion of developing
principals and having the opportunity to improve learning outcomes for students is also an area
for policy considerations. State and federal policy makers must carefully examine federal and
state requirements that may inhibit development of principals. If the goal is to improve student
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

122

learning, then there must be an examination of the current expectations of principals and how we
can best ensure that they continue to grow as learning leaders. State and federal policy makers
need to examine how resources are allocated for professional development and need to ensure
that PD is well-funded, signaling through policy and resource allocation that principals and staff
cannot lead change and improvements at their schools if they are not learners themselves. Policy
makers, additionally, can recognize, through their grant and funding entitlements, that principal
PD and learning is as important as that for teachers. In fact, in an era where teacher shortages
are projected to be a real concern for public education, well-trained principals can make a
difference in teachers staying in the profession and in attracting and retaining qualified teachers
(Khalifa et al., 2010). As long as ongoing principal professional growth is neither an expectation
or a requirement made clear through policy and resource allocation, creating the kind of systemic
shift necessary in public education to truly improve outcomes for all students is unlikely to
occur.
Suggestions for Further Research
Given the findings revealed in this case study, I present implications for future research
and recommendations for further investigation about professional development for principals that
impact their abilities to apply that learning as school leaders. This study offered a look at how
principals viewed their ability to apply what they learned in district-provided principal
professional development at one K-12 school district as well as how the structure of that PD
impacted the principals’ perceptions of their ability to apply the new learning. There are a
number of areas regarding principals and their professional development that further enhance our
understanding of what works in building principal professional capacity.
While there is a body of literature on the professional development of principals
(Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2009; Goldring et al., 2012; Houle, 2006; Peterson, 2002) further
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

123

research is needed regarding professional learning of principals at various stages of their careers.
There is existing research regarding new principal development (Davis & Hammond, 2012), but
further exploration of building capacity in principals at various stages of their careers seems
warranted. Districts spend many hours and resources each year supporting the learning of their
staff, yet there seems to be a dearth of research about how they should be focusing those scant
resources to support the learning and effectiveness of their instructional leaders. Knowing that
principals needs different content based on their experience and setting, research that helps
districts identify what this content should be would be beneficial. By focusing research on the
districts and their professional learning opportunities, versus the university preparation programs,
research could benefit district decision makers as they work to improve student-learning
outcomes. Specifically, further studies of what mid-career and late-career principals need to
improve their practice should be examined. While researchers have found that principal
professional development content should meet the unique needs of principals based on the
various stages of their careers (Goldring et al., 2007), districts do not necessarily have a strong
grasp on what that content should be. Principals are working in an educational environment that
has changed greatly in the past 20 years, yet not all principals may have the skill set or the desire
to adapt to this change. Research that explores the needs of principals who work in a rapidly
changing technological environment is necessary as is ensuring that the principal frameworks for
effectiveness have been updated to address these changes in the educational setting.
Similarly, further case studies should be done in order to identify districts that have
implemented successful PD for their principals. These real-world examinations can propel
district leaders to examine the possibilities of what can work in their districts and give them
models for improvement and changes over time. As we are now implementing the Common
Core in most states, have new and different measurements of student success and standardized
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

124

achievement, understand the need for culturally relevant practices, have charter schools and
blending learning environments, are using technology in unprecedented ways both for education
and communication, and still have an achievement gap that must be closed, examining principal
development in these new contexts is both necessary and imperative. Studies that were done 10
to 15 years ago may not be as relevant to understanding the requirements for developing current
principals who are facing a rapidly changing landscape in student populations and learning
environments.
Additionally, although I did not have findings regarding principal motivation, particularly
in the areas of self-efficacy and goal setting, this is an area of principal research that would be
beneficial for further study. Retaining and further developing principals is important to the
future success of students and a greater understanding as to how principals view their self-
efficacy and how they set and work to achieve goals, could give district leaders greater insight
into how to build capacity and reach the achievement goals they have for students.
Metacognition is yet another topic that bears further study. In the study, the data revealed
that not all principals were engaging metacognition, nor was their evidence that fostering this
skill was a component of the district-provided PD. Knowing the importance of reflection to
facilitate learning (Baker, 2006), this area could be explored to determine the effects of
metacognitive practice on retention of learning for principals as well as districts can encourage
and support this practice.
Social and emotional competencies make a difference in the success of principals
(Williams, 2008), and this area of principal knowledge and skill is also worthy of further
exploration. It would seem that these competencies effect the ability of principals to enact the
competencies and processes of effective leaders (Goldring et al., 2007). Studying how social and
emotional learning could be fostered and supported through professional development would
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

125

give insight into yet another opportunity to build capacity in principals at all stages of their
careers.
The role of culture, including organizational resistance to change, which has been defined
as behavior that bars implantation or even sabotages work (Agocs, 1997) is another area for
further study. In a school district, how employees will respond to change and the new learning
that comes with it is an important consideration when implementing a professional development
plan. Having greater understanding regarding the principal culture and culture of a school
district overall could help guide district leaders as they seek to make changes that are important
to improve outcomes for students.
Conclusion
The work of a school principal is complex and challenging as they strive to improve
student outcomes for all in their schools, with a particularly emphasis on improving outcomes for
their most underserved students. Principals play an important role in creating the conditions for
teachers to learn and grow in a true professional learning community. In order to build the
capacity of principals as learning leaders, districts need to create professional development
opportunities that clearly set expectations, are focused on building the competencies and process
of effective principals and that meet the needs of adult learners. Policy makers can set the tone
for this by establishing policies and practices that set a high expectation for principals to be the
drivers of continuous improvement by committing to engaging in the practices and learning that
will improve student outcomes. Finally, researchers need to continue to study the relationship
between principals’ knowledge and motivation and the district-provided learning they receive, so
that district organizations are better able to use resources to support principals in the complex
work of leading instructional improvement.

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

126

References
2012-13 Accountability Progress Reporting (APR). (n.d.). Retrieved June 6, 2015, from
http://api.cde.ca.gov/Acnt2013/2013GrthAPIDst.aspx?allcds=19-64980-1938000&c=R
Agocs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction, and
repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 917-931.
Ahram, R., Fergus, E., & Noguera, P. (2011). Addressing racial/ethnic disproportionality in
special education: Case studies of suburban school districts. Teachers College Record,
113(10), 2233-2266.
Alliance for Excellent Education (2011). Boosting the Nation’s Economy by Improving
High School Graduation Rates Among Students of Color and Native Students. Retrieved
from http://www.otlcampaign.org/sites/default/files/resources/ EdEconBrief_sebsoc.pdf
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://ww.education.com/ reference/
article/metacognition/
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78.
Bayside Unified School District (2015, May 21). Meeting of the Bayside Unified School
District, p. 81-106. Retrieved from http://www.busd.org/brd1415/agn052115.pdf
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bol, L., & Berry, R. Q., III. (2005). Secondary mathematics teachers’ perceptions of the
achievement gap. The High School Journal, 88(4), 32-45.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., & Latham, G.P. (2011). The relationship of employee
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

127

perceptions of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5-13.
Brown, G. T. L., & Chai, C. (2012). Assessing instructional leadership: A longitudinal
study of new principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(6), 753-772.
Brown, K. M. (2006). Leadership for social justice and equity: Evaluating a transformative
framework and andragogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(5), 700-745.
Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (2004). Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: Role
socialization, professional development, and capacity building. Educational
Administration Quarterly 40(4), 468-494.
BUSD: Board of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved June 6, 2015, from
http://www.busd.org/board/index.html
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:
Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr, M. T., & Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing
school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development
programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
Della Sala, M. R., Klar, H. W., Lindle, J. C., Reese, K. L., Knoeppel, R. C., Campbell, M.,
& Buskey, F. C. (2013). Implementing a cross-district principal mentoring
program: A human resources approach to developing midcareer principals’ leadership
capacities. Journal of School Public Relations, 34, 162-192.
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

128

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. The Albert Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, D.C.:
Albert Shanker Institute.
Eyal, O., & Roth, G. (2011). Principals’ leadership and teachers’ motivation: Self-
determination theory analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(3), 256-275.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A
meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-22.
Federici, R. A. (2013). Principals’ self-efficacy: Relations with job autonomy, job satisfaction,
and contextual constraints. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 73-86.
Federici, R. A., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2012). Principal self-efficacy: Relations with burnout,
job satisfaction, and motivation to quit. Social Psychology Education, 15(3), 295-320.
Foley, R. M. (2001). Professional development needs of secondary school principals of
collaborative-based service delivery needs. The High School Journal, 85(1), 10-23.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2013). Motion leadership in action: More skinny on becoming change savvy. (2013).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

129

Goff, P., Edward Guthrie, J., Goldring, E., & Bickman, L. (2014). Changing principals’
leadership through feedback and coaching. Journal of Educational
Administration, 52(5), 682-704.
Goldhaber, D., Lavery L. & Theobold, R. (2015). Uneven playing field? Assessing the teacher
quality gap between disadvantaged students. Educational Researcher, 44(5), 293-307.
Goldring, E., Porter, A. C, Murphy, J. Elliott, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2007). Assessing
learning- centered leadership: Connections to research, professional standards, and
current practices. Vanderbilt University: The Wallace Foundation.
Goldring, E. B., Preston, C., & Huff, J. (2012). Conceptualizing and evaluating professional
development for school leaders. Planning and Changing, 43(3/4), 223-242.
Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap:
Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59-68.
Grissom, J., & Harrington, J. R. (2010). Investing in administrator efficacy: An examination of
professional development as a tool for enhancing principal effectiveness. American
Journal of Education, 116, 583-612.
Guglielmi, D., Simbula, S., Schaufeli, W. B., & Depolo, M. (2012). Self-efficacy and
workaholism as initiators of the job demands-resources model. Career Development
International, 17(4), 375-389.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that
refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221-239.
Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: lessons from 40 years of empirical
research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), p. 125-142.
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership, and
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

130

student reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 527-549.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191.
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Harms, P.D. (2008). Leadership efficacy:
Review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 1-25.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2008). Distributed leadership: Democracy or delivery? Journal of
Educational Administration, 46(2), 229-240.
Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2010). Collaborative leadership effects on school
improvement. The Elementary School Journal, 111(2), 226-252.
Helsing, D., Howell, A., Kegan, R. & Lahey, L. (2008). Putting the “development” in
professional development: understanding and overturning educational leaders’
immunities to change. Harvard Educational Review, 78(3), 437-465.
Hendry, C. (1996). Understanding and creating whole organizational change through learning
theory. Human Relations, 49(5), 621-642.
Hitt, D.H. & Tucker, P.D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence
student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 531-
569.
Hsin-Hsiange, L., & Mao-neng Fred, L. (2015). Principal leadership and its link to the
development of a school’s teacher culture and teaching effectiveness: A case study of an
award-winning teaching team at an elementary school. International Journal Of
Education Policy & Leadership, 10(4), 1-17.
Jacobson, S. (2011). Leadership effects on student achievement and sustained school
success. The International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 33-44.
Jimenez-Castellanos, O. (2010). Relationship between educational resources and school
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

131

achievement: A mixed method intra-district analysis. The Urban Review, 42(4), 351-371.
Katterfield, K. (2013). Setting instructional expectations: Patterns of principal leadership for
middle school mathematics. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12, 337-373.
Kearney, W. S., Kelsey, C., & Herrington, D. (2013). Mindful leaders in highly effective
schools: A mixed-method application of Hoy’s m-scale. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 41(3), 316-335.
King, M. B., & Bouchard, K. (2011). The capacity to build organizational capacity in
schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(6), 653-669.
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job
satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102(3), 741-756.
Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing
Company.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into
Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Krosgaard, M., Brodt, S., & Whitener, E. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict: The role of
managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 312-319.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt:
Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.
Leithwood, K. (2010). Characteristics of school districts that are exceptionally effective
in closing the achievement gap. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(1), 245-291.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform:
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

132

Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School effectiveness and
School Improvement, 17(2), 201-227.
Leithwood, K., Strauss, T., & Anderson, S.E. (2007). District contributions to school
leaders’ sense of efficacy: A qualitative analysis. Journal of School Leadership, 17(11),
735-770.
Lipton, M. (1996). Demystifying the development of an organizational vision. Sloan
Management Review, 37(4), 83–92.
Lynch, R., & Oakford, P. (2014). The economic benefits of closing educational
achievement gaps: promoting growth and strengthening the nation by improving
the educational outcomes of children of color. Retrieved from https://
cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11 Winning Economy Report2.pdf
Mandara, J., Varner, F., Greene, N., & Richman, S. (2009). Intergenerational family predictors
of the black-white achievement gap. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 867.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McCullers, J. F., & Bozeman, W. (2010). Principal self-efficacy: The effects of no child left
behind and Florida school grades. NAASSP Bulletin, 94(1), 53-74.
McGowan, P., & Miller, J. (2001). Management vs. leadership. School Administrator, 58(10),
32–34.
McKinsey & Company, Social Sector Office, (2009). The Economic Impact of the
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

133

Achievement Gap in America’s Schools. Retrieved from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/
downloads/ reports/Education/ achievement_gap_report.pdf
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Normore, A. (2007). A continuum approach for developing school leaders in an urban district.
Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 2(3), 1-45.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Peterson, K. (2002). The professional development of principals: Innovations and opportunities.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 213-232.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student
motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4),
667–686.
Powell-Moman, A. D., & Brown-Schild, V. B. (2011). The influence of a two-year
professional development institute on teacher self-efficacy and use of inquiry-based
instruction. Science Educator, 20(2), 47-53.
Pringle, B. E., Lyons, J. E., & Booker, K. C. (2010). Perceptions of teacher expectations by
African American high school students. The Journal of Negro Education, 79(1), 33-40.
Reardon, R. M. (2011). Elementary school principals’ learning-centered leadership and
educational outcomes: Implications for principals’ professional development. Leadership
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

134

and Policy in Schools, 10, 63-83.
Rivera-McCutchen, R. (2014). The moral imperative of social justice leadership: A critical
component of effective practice. The Urban Review, 46(4), 747-763.
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.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Sanzo, K. L., Myran, S., & Clayton, J. K. (2011). Building bridges between knowledge and
practice. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(3), 292-312.
Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Roehlkepartain, E. C., Sesma, A., Jr., & van Dulman, M. (2006).
The role of developmental assets in predicting academic achievement: A longitudinal
study. Journal of Adolescence, 29(5), 691-708.
Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a culture and climate for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7-19.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York: Doubleday.
Sheppard, B., & Dibbon, D. (2011). Improving the capacity of school system leaders and
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

135

teachers to design productive learning environments. Leadership and Policy in Schools,
10, 125–144.
Sinnema, C.E.L. & Robinson, V.M.J. (2012). Goal setting in principal evaluation: Goal quality
and predictors of achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11, 135-167.
Sparks D., & Hirsh, S. (2000). A national plan for improving professional development. Oxford,
OH: National Staff Development Council.
Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143-150.
Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency,
and group performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation
model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 814–828.
Stein, M. K., & Nelson, B. S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 423-448.
Stuart, L., & Hahnel, C. (2011). A report card on district achievement: How low-income, African
American, and Latino students fare in California school districts. The
Education Trust-West. Retrieved from http://reportcards.edtrustwest.org/
sites/default/files/rankings/ETW_DistrictReportCard_2011.pdf.
Sun, J., & Leithwood, K. (2012). Transformational school leadership effects on student
achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11, 418-451.
Sun, M., & Youngs, P. (2009). How does district principal evaluation affect learning-centered
principal leadership? Evidence from Michigan school districts. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 8(4), 411-445.
Tagg, J. (2012). Why does the faculty resist change? Change: The Magazine of Higher
Learning, 44, 6-15.
Taylor, B., & Kroth, M. (2009). Andragogy’s transition into the future; meta-analysis of
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

136

andragogy and its search for a measureable instrument. Journal of Adult Education,
38(1), 1-11.
Thessin, R. A. (2015). Learning from one urban school district: Planning to provide essential
supports for teachers’ work in professional learning communities. Educational Planning,
22(1), 15-27.
Van, den Bergh, H., Denessen, E., Hornstra, L., Voeten, M., & Holland, R. W. (2010). The
implicit prejudiced attitudes of teachers: Relations to teacher expectations and the ethnic
achievement gap. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 497.
Waters, T., & Grubb, S. (2004). Leading schools: Distinguishing the essential from the
important. Aurora, CO: McREL.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. McREL.
Williams, H. (2008). Characteristics that distinguish outstanding urban principals. Journal of
Management Development, 27(1), 36-54.
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/
Zepeda, S.J., Parylo, O., & Bengston, E. (2014). Analyzing principal professional development
practices through the lens of adult learning theory. Professional Development in
Education, 40(2), 295-315.

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

137

APPENDIX A
Interview Protocol
1) Tell me a little about yourself. How long have you been in education? How long have you
been a principal? What level? What made you want to be a principal in the first place?
Culture/Organization
2) How would you describe the professional learning culture of the district, particularly as it
pertains to principals?
Probe: How is new learning valued? Shared?
3) How would you say principals feel about district-provided PD?
Probe: Why do you say that?
4) What are values you share as principals about PD?
Probe: What experiences make you say that?
5) How does the PD affect your principal culture?
6) Describe how district staff set expectations about what you are supposed to do with the
professional development?
Probes: What is your reaction to that? What kind of conversations do you and the
principals have about new learning and the expectations the district has?
Knowledge and Skills
7) How does the professional development provided by the district connect to your work in
improving instruction?
Describe how you connect the learning from PDs to your work as a school leader.
8) What kind of feedback do you get from the district staff regarding your use of the PD?
9) Is there ongoing support for you after you’ve learned a new skill/strategy?
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

138

If yes, describe what that looked like, felt like? If not, what do you think that would look
like?
10) What knowledge and skills would you say the district PD has helped you improve?
9) What knowledge and skills would you have liked to work on to improve student learning?
Probe: Why are those skills important to you?
Motivation
Improving student outcomes is a complex and challenging endeavor.
10) How effective do you feel as a school leader who can improve student achievement?
11) Can you describe a time when professional development was provided and it really made a
difference in how you felt about your ability to use that training to improve student outcomes?
12) Can you describe a time when professional development made a difference in how you felt
as a leader?
Probes: What made that so successful?
If no, what do you think that would look like?
13) Take me through what happens with you after you’ve been to district professional
development. What do you do immediately after professional development?
Probes: Do you reflect? Plan? Do you set goals?
What do you do right after a meeting where you’ve been given new
material/information?
14) How does the district solicit your input about professional development and what you need?
15) Does the PD provided meet your needs as a learner? If not, what would you like the district
to provide that they don’t? What do they do that you think you don’t need?

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

139

APPENDIX B
Observation Protocol
Research Questions:
1) What are principals’ perceptions of their ability (knowledge and motivation) to apply, as
school leaders, what was offered to them during district provided professional development?
2) How are principals’ perceptions of their ability (knowledge and motivation) to apply, as
school leaders, what was offered to them during district provided professional development
shaped by the district’s approach to professional development?
Comments Name/Content of Professional Development:

Date: Location:

Time Observation Began: Time Ended:

Setting of the observation (physical description, number of
participants, etc. )

Professional Development Beginning (who starts/what they say)
Research Questions:
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

140

1) What are principals’ perceptions of their ability (knowledge and motivation) to apply, as
school leaders, what was offered to them during district provided professional development?
2) How are principals’ perceptions of their ability (knowledge and motivation) to apply, as
school leaders, what was offered to them during district provided professional development
shaped by the district’s approach to professional development?
Comments Name/Content of Professional Development:

Chronology of PD—note information from presentation/sidebar
conversations that can be heard/descriptions of principals during
training. (note time in 5 minute intervals)

PD Ending—note time/comments/what happens directly after

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

141

APPENDIX C
Informed Consent/Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3740 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

PRINCIPALS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR ABILITY, AS SCHOOL LEADERS, TO
APPLY LEARNING FROM DISTRICT-PROVIDED PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study is designed to evaluate the extent to which the district-provided professional
development for principals impacts principals’ perceptions about their abilities to apply, as school
leaders, what was offered to them during the professional development and how those perceptions
are shaped by the district’s approach to professional development

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

142

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will participate in a 45-60-minute audiotaped interview.
You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer; if you do not want to be
taped, handwritten notes will be taken. Additionally you may be asked to provide documents you
create for staff that are connected to the district-provided professional development.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your employer will not be affected
whether you participate or not in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. Your
responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The audiotapes
will be destroyed once they have been transcribed.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies
to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

143

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator Sandra Lyon via email at sandraly@usc.edu or phone at
(661) 810-8225.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

144

APPENDIX D
Recruitment Letter

August 22, 2016
Principal
Bayside, CA 90404

Re: School District Professional Learning Plan for School Principals to Close Access and
Opportunity Gaps: An Evaluation Study

Dear Principal,

I am writing to seek your participation in a research study about district-provided professional
development. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the extent to which the district-provided
professional development for principals impacts principals’ perceptions about their abilities to
improve outcomes for students at their schools and to what extent the professional development
impacts principals’ perceived self-efficacy and goal orientation in improving student outcomes.

This study is being conducted by Sandra Lyon at the USC Rossier School of Education This
study will involve interviews with school principals in the Bayside School District, as well as
some observations and a document review, to evaluate the district’s current professional
development plan for principals.

EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

145

Agreement to be contacted or a request for more information does not obligate you to participate
in any study.

If you would like additional information about this study, please call Sandra Lyon at (661) 810-
8225.

Thank you again for considering this research opportunity.

Sincerely,

Sandra Lyon

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study explored the relationship between principal knowledge and skills and district-provided professional development in one school district that is working to close achievement gaps between White and Asian students and African American, Latino and students from low socio-economic backgrounds. Research suggests that principals can impact the outcomes for underserved students and potentially help close the achievement gap. This study is a qualitative case study that examined one K-12 school district's professional development for principals. The investigation analyzed how the district-provided professional development affected the principals' perceptions of their ability to apply what they learned in PD at their schools and how the structure of the PD affected those perceptions. The data was collected through observations, principal interviews and examination of artifacts. The findings revealed that principals did not think the district-provided professional development prepared them to lead instructional improvements at their schools nor did they feel they could apply that new learning at their schools. The findings further revealed that the structure of the PD did not meet the differentiated needs of the principals nor their needs as adult learners.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Professional development at an international school

PDF

Role of a principal supervisor in fostering principal development to support instructional improvement and a positive school climate

PDF

The secondary school principal's role as instructional leader in teacher professional development

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions and implementation of instructional strategies for the gifted from differentiation professional development

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents in developing collective efficacy in public secondary school...

PDF

Learning the language of math: supporting students who are learning English in acquiring math proficiency through language development

PDF

The impact of resource allocation on professional development for the improvement of teaching and student learning within an elementary school in a centrally managed school district: a case study

PDF

STEM integration: a case study of a 21st century skills professional development program for math and science teachers in an urban school

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of site and district leaders in developing collective efficacy in public secondary schools in southern California

PDF

How urban high school principals implement social and emotional learning (SEL)

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

The role of student affairs professionals: serving the needs of undocumented college students

PDF

An evaluation study: quality contextual professional development

PDF

Investigating the enactment of professionald development practices in a high performing secondary school setting: a case study examining the purpose, process, and structure of professional development

PDF

Creating conditions for Teacher Flow: supporting student-centered learning through design of optimal P-12 professional development

PDF

Digital learning in K12: putting teacher professional identity on the line

PDF

Creating effective online educational content: an evaluation study of the influences affecting course developers’ abilities to create online content with engaging learning strategies

PDF

School integration as a reform strategy: the principal’s role, an evaluation study

PDF

Reaching the middle: an exploration of guidance support services in pursuit of college readiness for all students

PDF

Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

Asset Metadata

Creator Lyon, Sandra Lynn (author)

Core Title Principals' perceptions of their ability, as school leaders, to apply learning from district-provided professional development

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 09/05/2017

Defense Date 07/31/2017

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

Tag district-provided professional development,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,principal knowledge and skills,principal professional development,principals,professional development

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Normore, Anthony (committee member), Pascarella, John (committee member)

Creator Email pslyon@gmail.com,slyon.tm@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-427309

Unique identifier UC11264781

Identifier etd-LyonSandra-5705.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-427309 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LyonSandra-5705.pdf

Dmrecord 427309

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lyon, Sandra Lynn

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