University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The role of principal leadership in achievement beyond test scores: an examination of leadership, differentiated curriculum and high-achieving students

(USC Thesis Other)

The role of principal leadership in achievement beyond test scores: an examination of leadership, differentiated curriculum and high-achieving students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

1

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT BEYOND TEST SCORES:
AN EXAMINATION OF LEADERSHIP, DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM AND HIGH-
ACHIEVING STUDENTS

by

Danielle F. Else

_______________________________________________________________________

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

May 2013

Copyright 2013 Danielle F. Else

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

2
DEDICATION

To my family…
My parents, who believe in me,
My siblings, who encourage me,
My husband, who loves me, and
My children, who inspire me.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is a pleasure to express my gratitude to those who inspired and supported the
completion of this dissertation.
• To my chair, Dr. Sandra Kaplan: thank you for offering your guidance and support
through this process. Your belief in all children is an inspiration, your love for
learning and curriculum a motivation.
• To my committee members, Dr. Yates and Dr. Garcia: you helped to frame my
perspective from beginning to end of this program. Thank you for your advice and
contributions to my process.
• To two women with whom I am honored to share my love of learning and laughter:
Michelle and Jessica. Thank you.
• To the principals and teachers of the district of study: thank you for your time, your
honesty, and most importantly your dedication to students.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 10
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 25
Chapter 3: Research Methods 52
Chapter 4: Research Findings 66
Chapter 5: Discussion and Implications 121
References 141
Appendices 153
Appendix A: Principal Participant Information Sheet 153
Appendix B: Teacher Participant Information Sheet 155
Appendix C: Survey Items Utilized Resulting from Exploratory Factor 157
Analysis: Perception of Principal Support Subscale
Appendix D: Survey Items Utilized Resulting from Exploratory Factor 158
Analysis: Perception of Beliefs Regarding Differentiation
Appendix E: Survey Items Utilized Resulting from Exploratory Factor 159
Analysis: Perception of Implementation of Differentiation
Appendix F: Survey Items Utilized Resulting from Exploratory Factor 160
Analysis: Perception of Student Ability
Appendix G: Principal Interview Protocol 161
Appendix H: Teacher Perception of Pedagogical Leadership Elements, 163
Weighted Averages by Site
Appendix I: Principal Perception of Pedagogical Leadership Elements, 164
Ranking by Site

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Central Leadership Components 29
Table 2.2. Common Themes of Non-negotiable Beliefs Supporting Differentiation 45
Table 3.1. Key Stakeholder Accountability 55
Table 3.2. Instrument Summary 59
Table 3.3. Instrument Item Categorization by Research Genre 62
Table 3.4. Sequence of Data Collection 63
Table 4.1. Demographic Data for Participants 69
Table 4.2. Principal Years of Experience 70
Table 4.3. Teacher Participants by School 71
Table 4.4. Instrument Summary 72
Table 4.5. Sequence of Data Collection 75
Table 4.6. Reliability of Three Subscales within Principal Survey 77
Table 4.7. Results from Exploratory Factor Analysis of Principal Survey 78
Table 4.8. Principal Survey Items by Factor 79
Table 4.9. Reliability of Four Subscales within Teacher Survey 80
Table 4.10. Results from Exploratory Factor Analysis of Teacher Survey 81
Table 4.11. Teacher Survey Items by Factor 82
Table 4.12. Descriptive Statistics of Principal Variables 84
Table 4.13. Principal Pedagogical Leadership Item Rankings 85
Table 4.14. Principal Beliefs Regarding Differentiation 91
Table 4.15. Principal Perceived Support of Differentiation 94
Table 4.16. Principal Perception of Student Ability 97
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

6
Table 4.17. Descriptive Statistics of Teacher Variables 101
Table 4.18. Teacher Perceived Implementation of Differentiation 1 102
Table 4.19. Teacher Perceived Implementation of Differentiation 2 103
Table 4.20. Teacher Perception of Student Ability 104
Table 4.21. Descriptive Statistics of Teacher Variables Regarding Principal 106
Table 4.22. Teacher Pedagogical Leadership Item Rankings 107
Table 4.23. Teacher Perceived Principal Support of Differentiation 112
Table 4.24. Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations for 114
Measured Variables
Table 5.1. Relationship of Findings to Research Questions 128
Table 5.2. Implications by Finding 135
Table 5.3. Recommendations by Finding 138

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. A process definition of leadership 11
Figure 1.2. The process of differentiation 16
Figure 1.3. Pedagogical leadership in relationship to the study 20
Figure 2.1. Process definition of leadership 27
Figure 2.2. Pedagogical leadership defined 31
Figure 2.3. Central elements to pedagogical leadership 32
Figure 2.4. Constructive web of skills 41
Figure 2.5. Developmental range of student performance 42
Figure 2.6. Recommended curriculum standards for programs for gifted and 46
talented students
Figure 2.7. Longitudinal multi-level model 48
Figure 3.1. Data collection and analysis process 57
Figure 4.1. Principal and teacher rankings indicating importance of vision 108
Figure 4.2. Principal and teacher rankings indicating importance of teacher 109
empowerment
Figure 4.3. Principal and teacher rankings indicating importance of teacher 110
involvement
Figure 4.4. Principal and teacher rankings indicating importance of direct 111
instructional assistance
Figure 4.5. Principal perception of leadership and the perceived teacher 115
implementation of differentiation
Figure 4.6. Teacher perception of leadership, teacher perception of principal support, 115
and the perceived teacher implementation of differentiation
Figure 4.7. Principal perception of support and the principal perception of student 116
ability

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

8
ABSTRACT
Though research has validated a link between principal leadership and student achievement,
questions remain regarding the specific relationships between the principal and high-achieving
learners. This association facilitates understanding about forming curricular decisions for high
ability learners. The study was conducted to examine the perceived roles of elementary
principals as instructional leaders. Three research questions guided the study: (a) What is the
elementary principals’ perceived role as an instructional leader to facilitate differentiated
curriculum to challenge high ability students?, (b) What is the teachers’ perceived role to
differentiate curriculum to challenge high ability students?, and (c) What are the teachers’
perceptions of their principal as the instructional leader to facilitate differentiated curriculum to
challenge high ability students? The mixed methods study was conducted in a suburban
community serving 11,900 students. The primary source of data collection utilized a quantitative
survey designed by the researcher for the purposes of this study. Ten principals and 32 fourth
and fifth grade teachers serving 10 school sites participated in the survey. The second phase of
the study included interviews with the principals to enhance the survey-related quantitative data.
Perceived principal leadership, perceived principal support, and perceptions of student ability
emerged as critical factors. Perceived principal leadership was explored through various
elements, illustrating a strong tie to the importance of vision, and weaker ties to direct assistance
with curriculum, instruction and assessment. Perceived principal support for a differentiated
curriculum for high ability students was characterized by a discrepancy between principal
support and provisions, and teacher needs. Findings also revealed a relationship between
perceived principals’ support for differentiation, and their perceptions of students identified with
high ability. The findings suggested implications leading to a cycle of inquiry to foster policy
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

9
development, curriculum modification, personnel selection, and training, in order to develop the
principal as an instructional leader for teachers of high ability students.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

10
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Successful schools are characterized by a multitude of factors, one of which is student
achievement. A growing body of literature has established that the principal plays a vital
leadership role affecting student achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood, Louis,
Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Suppovitz, Sirinides, & May, 2010; Waters, Marzano, &
McNulty, 2003). However, few studies examine the impact of leadership on curricular decisions
made to accommodate the needs of high-achieving learners. The current chapter introduces the
function of principal leadership and its relationship to the measurement of student achievement
and to the role of a differentiated curriculum challenging high-ability students.
Principal Leadership
Leadership is of paramount importance to the success of our schools. Effective leaders
add to the quality of instruction and confirm that conditions for improvement exist (Marzano,
2003; Miller, 2003). The importance of the principal is not a new discovery; the 1977 US Senate
Committee Report on Equal Educational Opportunity (as cited by Northouse, 2010) identified
the school principal as the single most influential person in a school. Marzano (2003) asserts that
approximately 20% of the variance in student achievement is a result of factors centered on
influences associated with the school and teacher. To illustrate the impact, a student scoring at
the 50
th
percentile immersed in an effective school would achieve, after two years, scores at the
96
th
percentile (Marzano, 2003).
Although current educational research provides no single dominant view of leadership, it
consistently emphasizes the concepts of (a) influence, (b) goals, and (c) the relationship between
leaders and followers (Northouse, 2010). French and Raven’s (1959) seminal work on the basis
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

11
of social power explores the leader’s capability to impact the attitudes, values, or behaviors of
others. For the purposes of this research, Figure 1.1 provides a view of leadership as a process by
which the leader and followers interact rather than as traits possessed by the leader.

Figure 1.1. A process definition of leadership
Adapted from Northouse, P.G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice, fifth edition. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. p. 5. Copyright 2010 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

Typically, leadership is perceived as educational when it occurs at educational centers.
However, in a more comprehensive sense, educational leadership occurs in two circumstances
centered on (a) student learning of a meaningful curriculum, and (b) student learning as an
educational process (Wraga, 2004). Within the current model of schooling, the expectation is that
principals utilize resources and structure the environment in order to improve academic
achievement (Male & Palaiologou, 2012). It is imperative that principals accept the role of
instructional leader in order to maintain effective schools and to encourage the “habit of
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

12
improvement” (Fullan, 1993, p. 32). Teachers serve as leaders within their own classrooms,
where they are able to transform models into practical applications of instruction (Urbanski &
Nickolaou, 1997). Effective leaders who embrace both a focus on clear goals and a culture of
shared belief are able to promote effective learning environments (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty,
2004), but the “default culture” of public schools is resilient (Elmore, 2005, p. 139).
The role of the principal is multifaceted, comprised of managerial and leadership roles.
The managerial aspects of running a school, although critical, are not unique to education and in
some ways are unrelated. Nevertheless, these activities consume a large part of the school day
with administrators devoting 5-20% of their time to curriculum and instruction (Goldring et al.,
2009). As Wraga (2004) relates educational leadership to the doctrine set forth by Dewey (1938),
Wraga calls for a shift focused on a worthwhile curriculum and the improvement of student
learning. Principals focused on instructional improvement adhere to effective practice as
essential to guidance (Fullan, 2001).
Student Achievement
The measurement of academic achievement, rooted in compliance and outcomes, has
become the dominant accountability force in education (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003). This
system of performance management places value on outputs as a form of judging the worth of
the educational organization (Ball, 2003). Within schools, an environment of assessment-driven
accountability prevails to which educators must look past to define community and purpose
(Male & Palaiologou, 2012; Wraga, 2004).
Accountability has significant influence in today’s society but is not new to the school
system. Schools have always been accountable for educating students (Elmore, 2005). Although
the majority of school accountability systems are governed by bureaucratic accountability,
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

13
shifting the focus toward professional accountability may encourage interactive patterns and a
stronger connection to personal utility by educators (O’Day, 2002). Complex factors contribute
to the measurement of student achievement including student characteristics, school-level
factors, and teacher-level factors (Miller, 2003). A vision dedicated to high-level learning for all
students is obtained through the recognition of the possibility and dedication to creating
conditions in which that is possible (Tomlinson, Brimijoin, & Narvaez, 2008). To understand
better the needs of students and schools, it is of paramount importance that the actual conditions
are examined (Dewey, 1897).
Recent advances in brain research espouse learning as a “constructive web” of skills
(Fischer & Rose, 2001, p. 8). Within this dynamic web is great variability in learning pathways
and the integration of procedural and factual knowledge (Fischer & Rose, 2001). The top of the
range of student performance is bound by one of two limits: functional or optimal (Fisher &
Bidell, 1998; Fisher & Rose, 2001). The functional limit is reached through independent means,
while the optimal limit is achieved with support, echoing the seminal research of Vygotsky
(1978) regarding the zone of proximal development. Lack of opportunity for high-ability
students restricts their academic development to a functional level, guiding them toward
underachievement via poor curricular design.
One challenge facing underachievement in gifted student populations is the lack of
consistent definitions of both giftedness and underachievement (McCoach & Siegle, 2008). In
order to operationalize the gap for the purposes of this research, the indicator of potential
(Emerick, 1989) is advanced scores on the California Standards Tests in the areas of Language
Arts and/or Mathematics; indicators of underachievement are viewed as a lack of opportunity for
academic development, characterized by content and instruction designed to support gifted and
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

14
high-achieving potential (Emerick, 1989). No single intervention is appropriate, but a responsive
approach guided by empirically based principles must guide curricular and instructional design
(Kaplan, 2009; McCoach & Siegle, 2008).
Differentiation of Curriculum and Instruction
It is well established that students within the classroom are increasingly diverse (Subban,
2006). A rigid, singular curricular model is unable to meet the needs of a diverse student body.
Rather, differentiation is empirically connected to desirable effects (Goddard, Goddard, &
Tschannen-Moran, 2007; Goddard, Neumerski, Goddard, Salloum, & Berebitsky, 2010).
Although educators cannot predict the methods children will employ in order to learn, they are
able to construct environments in which knowledge and learning will not be restricted, but rather
communicated to, and constructed by, learners (Male & Palaiologou, 2012). What comprises
knowledge is critical, and how knowledge is constructed is more so. The dynamic and complex
nature of knowledge supports an evolving curriculum (Male & Palaiologou, 2012). Rooted in
respect for varied levels of prior knowledge, interests, and learning profiles, differentiation
capitalizes on the potential of every student (Tomlinson, 2008). This philosophy complements
the idea set forth by Sergiovanni (1998) that pedagogical leaders are concerned with the delivery
of curriculum to the individual as well as to the collective. This type of leadership relies upon
cooperation with the community at large. Meaningful differentiation that responds to academic
diversity is not an easy task. Developing a curriculum that takes into account learner variance
and lends itself to accommodations is of paramount importance (Tomlinson, 1999b).
Differentiation provides teachers with a framework by which to disseminate quality and
effective curriculum to all students, promoting equity and meeting the varied needs of learners
(Levy, 2008; Tomlinson, 1999a). No one single differentiated curriculum exists; rather,
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

15
differentiation is a culturally responsive model delivered in a variety of ways in order to address
variance in learners (Kaplan, 2009). As a theoretical framework, differentiation is guided by four
principles defined by (a) identification of essential content, (b) responsiveness to student
differences, (c) integration of assessment and instruction, and (d) a cycle of modification of
content, process, and product that is dependent upon student needs (McTighe & Brown, 2005;
Rock, Gregg, Ellis, & Gable, 2008). Differentiation is defined by elements that, when applied to
various models, result in the construction of a differentiated curriculum (Kaplan, 2009).
Although much of the literature regarding differentiation is derived from gifted education, many
of the tenants apply to general populations and non-identified gifted students. Responsive to the
“needs, interests and abilities of gifted students” (California State Board of Education [CSBE],
2001, rev. 2005), differentiation “focuses primarily on depth and complexity of content,
advanced or accelerated pacing of content, and novelty (unique and original expressions of
student understanding)” (CSBE, 2001, rev. 2005). Differentiation does not subscribe to a set of
predetermined rules, but rather adheres to providing access to all students (Brimijoin, 2005), as
illustrated in Figure 1.2.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

16

Figure 1.2. The process of differentiation
Adapted from Tomlinson & Jarvis (2009)

Statement of the Problem
The combination of (a) the multiple functions of site leadership, (b) accountability
defined by test scores, and (c) common misperceptions regarding high-performing students has
allowed the high-performing student population to be neglected. Schools face increasingly
complex challenges that draw principals toward management tasks and a focus on outputs;
however, test scores and standards are not the epicenter of learning. The prevailing question is
whether a lack of formal or informal differentiation depresses student ability. Successful learning
Differentiation
• Is a teacher’s
proactive
response to
Leaner
differences
• Guided by
Principles of
effective
differentiation
• Applied to
Classroom
elements
• Through the
use of
Instructional
strategies
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

17
environments embrace an understanding of how students learn (Barringer, 2009). It has been
well established that the principal plays a vital leadership role that affects student achievement
(Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood et al., 2004; Suppovitz et al., 2010; Waters et al., 2003).
Test scores have become an institutional barrier to serving those who demonstrate
advanced scores, divorcing educators from their role of providing a meaningful curriculum to all
students through an educational process (Male & Palaiologou, 2012; Wraga, 2004). The
exhibition of mastery on standardized test scores is a superficial measure that is mistakenly
regarded as holistic. Achievement at the mastery levels are characterized by achievement gaps
mirroring gaps demonstrated at levels of minimum competency (Plucker, Burroughs, & Song,
2010). The scope of the concern regarding “excellence gaps” is nationwide and across multiple
grade levels (Plucker et al., 2010, p. 1). Issues relevant on a nationwide basis revolve around
equity, instruction, assessment, and funding. Disparity between subgroups is not isolated to one
level of achievement, but rather spans the scope of standardized measures. Poor educational
experiences for our students eat away at the quality of life within our state. The implications of
underserving students with high academic potential raise concern regarding the economic
competitiveness of the United States (Plucker et al., 2010). Further, curriculum delivered in a
non-challenging manner during elementary school is linked to underachievement in future grade-
level success (Reis, 1998).
Diversity and high academic standards contribute to a schooling system that demands
expert teaching that is responsive to a range of learners (Darling-Hammond, 1998). Literature
focused on differentiation is rich in providing a framework by which to disseminate quality and
effective curriculum to all students, promoting equity and meeting the varied needs of learners
(Darling-Hammond, 1998; Kaplan, 2009; Levy, 2008; Tomlinson, 1999a; VanTassel-Baska,
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

18
2005). The literature is rich in findings focused on underperforming students; however, a gap in
the literature exists regarding the relationship between principal leadership and the learning
outcomes of high-performing students.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the perceived role of an
elementary principal and the implementation of a differentiated curriculum that challenges high-
ability students in the areas of Math and/or Language Arts. Information gained will add to the
body of knowledge related to leadership and has the potential to shape future curriculum and
pedagogical decision-making within the district of study.
The focus on high-ability students addresses an invisible institutional barrier that
dismisses those who achieve at a certain level. Although this sub-group does not appear to be at
risk, they may be discriminated against in the type and amount of attention they receive when
their work exhibits proficiency. Differentiation was chosen as it addresses multiple differences
amongst learners. Additionally, it crosses multiple subject domains and sets the stage for the
implementation of 21
st
Century Skills and the Common Core State Standards, a future direction
of the school district. The district perceives themselves as responsive to contemporary issues.
The school district serves a high SES community that values being perceived at the forefront of
innovation. Research demonstrates a relationship between school SES and principal behavior
(Hallinger & Murphy, 1985, 1987), as well as increased instructional management behaviors in
principals set in high SES schools (Leitner, 1994).
Research Questions
The following questions are addressed in the current study as an exploration of principal
leadership and student achievement:
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

19
1. What is the elementary principals’ perceived role as an instructional leader to
facilitate differentiated curriculum to challenge high ability students identified by
advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts on the California Standards
Tests?
2. What is the teachers’ perceived role to differentiate curriculum to challenge high
ability students identified by advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language
Arts on the California Standards Tests?
3. What are the teachers’ perceptions of their principal as the instructional leader to
facilitate differentiated curriculum for high ability students identified by advanced
level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts?
Significance of the Study
Research validates a connection between leadership and student outcomes, as defined by
standardized test scores (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood et al., 2004; Leithwood, Patten, &
Jantzi, 2010; Waters et al., 2003). However, investigation of test scores also illustrates disparity
in results across race identification and socio-economic status. The uniqueness of individual
students can be met through a commitment to high-quality differentiated curriculum and
instruction (Kaplan, 2008, 2009; Tomlinson, 2004, 1999b; Tomlinson & Callahan, 1992).
Advocates of pedagogical leadership assert that educators have a responsibility to each child that
reaches beyond test scores. The purpose of the study is to further understanding of the perceived
role of the principal as the leader who facilitates the academic success of students through the
implementation of a differentiated curriculum. Concurrently, the study furthers the understanding
of the perception by teachers of the role of the principal in supporting the academic success of
students in Mathematics and Language Arts. Implications of these perceptions within the school
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

20
district will impact teacher training, teacher selection, principal training, principal selection,
curriculum modification and policy. The results are intended to assist the district of study in
improving practice and exposing current trends.
Theoretical Foundations
Pedagogical leadership, introduced by Sergiovanni (1998), provides the theoretical
underpinnings for the current study. Derived from transformational leadership, pedagogical
leadership focuses on the ability of human capital to add value to student achievement.
Sergiovanni (1995) also relies on the formative work of Likert (1961, 1967, as cited in
Sergiovanni, 1995) that portrays the effect of administrative actions on school effectiveness as
mediating the systems and norms of the school. This form of leadership builds capacity by
maintaining a focus on student learning and classroom effectiveness, while building capital
(Sergiovanni, 1998). Capital development is categorized as (a) social, (b) academic, (c)
intellectual, or (d) professional, and is evidenced by a culture of practice committed to
community, learning, and engagement (Sergiovanni, 1998). As applied in this study, capital
development specifically relates to core beliefs supporting differentiation and the perception of
high-ability students as illustrated in Figure 1.3.

Pedagogical
Leadership
Capital
Development
Value Added
To Students
Pedagogical
Leadership
Core Beliefs
Supporting
Differentiation
Perception
of High-
Ability
Students
Value Added
To Students

Figure 1.3. Pedagogical leadership (Sergiovanni, 1998) in relationship to the study
Adapted from Sergiovanni, T.J. (1998). Leadership as pedagogy, capital development and school
effectiveness. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 1(1), 37-
46.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

21
Pedagogical leadership fills a void not addressed by other leadership constructs by
focusing on “standards of technical competence” in concert with “standards of public obligation”
(Sergiovanni, 1998, p. 41). Sergiovanni (2005, 1998) contends that the principal’s
responsibilities revolve around obligations (a) to support the purposes of the school, (b) to attend
to those who struggle to dedicate themselves to these purposes, and (c) to protect the institutional
integrity of the school. Pedagogical leadership is aligned closely with the dynamic and current
nature of education (Male & Palaiologou, 2012). It is a theory in which the relationship with
stakeholders is cherished and critical. A school does not function in isolation, but rather is a part
of the community and nation at large. The construct is ultimately derived from a socio-
constructivist point of view.
Methodological Design
The sample population included ten elementary principals and 56 fourth- and fifth-grade
teachers, and examined the relationship between the site principal and the perceived support of
implementation of differentiation to challenge high-ability students identified by advanced scores
in Mathematics and Language Arts on the California Standards Tests. The study took place at ten
elementary school sites in a suburban, affluent community located approximately 20 miles south
of a large urban area in California. The district serves 11,900 students and is considered low-
wealth, as defined by expenditures per pupil (basic/unrestricted), resulting in limited teacher
resources. Support from community volunteers and donations augments the resources at the local
schools.
The mixed-methods naturalistic inquiry did not involve either the manipulation of the
environment or preset restrictions on findings (Patton, 2002). The study examined the
relationship between the school principal and teachers in implementing differentiated curriculum
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

22
to challenge students scoring “Advanced” levels on the CST in Mathematics and Language Arts.
Descriptive statistics illuminated data regarding identified beliefs and behaviors. In exploring the
correlation between principal beliefs and the implementation of differentiation, the researcher
utilized statistical methods to show relationships between and among the variables. Surveys
gathered data, from both teachers and principals. Inductive analysis allowed patterns and themes
to emerge and then be confirmed (Patton, 2002). Qualitative measures in the form of interview
protocol complemented the quantitative data, allowing the researcher to draw inferences.
Interviews with principals took place as a part of the qualitative portion. The impact of the
research is to inform decision-making at a local level.
Instrument Summary
Instruments included the following:
1. Principal survey that (a) provided demographic information, including background
and training in curriculum and instruction, (b) surveyed the principal belief system
about leadership, differentiation, and student ability and (c) asked the principal to
describe expectations of the teaching and learning environment.
2. Teacher survey that (a) provided demographic information including background and
training in curriculum and instruction, (b) surveyed the perceived school norms and
perceived teacher implementation of a differentiated curriculum, and (c) asked the
teacher to describe the principal’s support and leadership characteristics in a
classroom setting.
3. Principal interview protocol that (a) surveyed the principal belief system and (b)
asked the principal to describe their expectations in a classroom setting.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

23
Definition of Terms
Advanced: the highest of five performance levels of the CSTs. “This category represents
a superior performance. Students demonstrate a comprehensive and complex understanding of
the knowledge and skills measured by this assessment, at this grade, in this content area” (CSBE,
2010).
Capital: “the value of something that when properly invested produces more of that thing
which then increases overall value” (Sergiovanni, 1998, p. 38).
Capital Expansion: “the key mediating variable that stands between pedagogical
leadership and school results” (Sergiovanni, 1998, p. 38).
Differentiation: modification of “content, process and concepts to meet a higher level of
expectation appropriate for advanced learners” (VanTassel-Baska & Wood, 2008) “focused
primarily on depth and complexity of content, and advanced or accelerated pacing of content,
and novelty (unique and original expressions of student understanding)” (CSBE, 2001, rev.
2005).
High Ability: characterized by an indicator of potential (Emerick, 1989) that in this study
is defined by Advanced scores on the California Standards Tests in the areas of Language Arts
and/or Mathematics.
Pedagogical Leadership: calls for leaders to “invest in capacity building by developing
social and academic capital for teachers. Support[s] leadership by making capital available to
enhance student learning and development, teacher learning and classroom effectiveness”
(Sergiovanni, 1998, p. 38).
Pedagogical Authority: “ensures that people make good decisions and face up to their
responsibilities, and that things work right for children” (Sergiovanni, 1998, p. 38).
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

24
Underachievement: defined by high indicators of potential (Emerick, 1989) and low
levels of productivity (McCoach & Siegle, 2008).

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

25
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Public education is confronted with increasingly complex challenges in a rapidly
changing society. Diversity and high academic standards contribute to a schooling system that
demands expert teaching responsive to a range of learners (Darling-Hammond, 1998). A growing
body of literature establishes the vital leadership role of the principal in affecting student
achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood et al., 2004; Leithwood et al., 2010; Waters et
al., 2003). Yet, few studies examine the impact of leadership on curricular decisions made to
accommodate the needs of high-achieving learners. A focus on test scores has impaired the
provision of a meaningful curriculum to all students; however, test scores are not the epicenter of
learning (Male & Palaiologou, 2012; Wraga, 2004). The combination of (a) the multiple
functions of site leadership, (b) accountability defined by test scores, and (c) common
misperceptions regarding high-performing students has allowed the high-performing student
population to be neglected in a system responsible for the education of all students. The
repercussions of underserving students with high academic potential as a collective group raise
concern regarding the economic competitiveness of the United States (Plucker et al., 2010).
Concerns regarding individual students focus on the link between curriculum delivered in a non-
challenging manner during elementary school and underachievement in future grade level
accomplishment (Reis, 1998).
This chapter begins by presenting an overview of the leadership construct. Within that
framework, a review of the body of literature surrounding pedagogical leadership is described. A
presentation of student achievement and ability follows. Last, a synthesis of differentiation is
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

26
provided. The main objective of the chapter is to synthesize the existing body of literature
surrounding the research questions and to expose gaps in the literature that justify this study.
Research Questions
1. What is the elementary principals’ perceived role as an instructional leader to
facilitate differentiated curriculum to challenge high ability students identified by
advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts on the California Standards
Tests?
2. What is the teachers’ perceived role to differentiate curriculum to challenge high
ability students identified by advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language
Arts on the California Standards Tests?
3. What are the teachers’ perceptions of their principal as the instructional leader to
facilitate differentiated curriculum for high ability students identified by advanced
level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts?
Leadership
Multiple definitions of leadership exist that attempt to provide clarity to the process,
traits, and behaviors of leaders (Northouse, 2010). Although little agreement surrounds the
leadership construct, several components recur in the literature as core features of school
leadership. These components embrace: (a) influence, (b) goals, and (c) the relationship between
leaders and followers (Northouse, 2010; Suppovitz et al., 2010). These components emphasize a
process of interaction that occurs between leaders and followers, as displayed in Figure 2.1.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

27

Figure 2.1. Process definition of leadership
Adapted from Northouse, P.G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice, fifth edition. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. p. 5, Copyright 2010 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

The process perspective, unlike the trait perspective, maintains a focus on individuals
within the environment in which they function (Eacott, 2010) and is characterized by the
collective use of power to achieve common goals (Burns, 1978; Northouse, 2010). Further,
attention to the relationship between leaders and followers focuses on a broad systems
perspective, therefore eliminating a narrow focus on elements in isolated best practice (Eacott,
2010).
Dominant Theories
Several theories dominate the field of education regarding principal leadership. Various
models offer strengths that are linked to school improvement either directly or indirectly (Webb,
2005). Three of the most popular theories include instructional, transformational, and distributed
perspectives. Pedagogical leadership, a form of transformational leadership, supports a critical
component of education (Sergiovanni, 2005, 1998) that allows for the co-construction of
knowledge (Male & Palaiologou, 2012).
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

28
Developed during the 1980s, instructional leadership presents the principal as the
educational expert. The leadership construct has since evolved into a collaborative model in
which principal and teachers combine their expertise to improve curriculum, instruction, and
assessment (Marks & Printy, 2003). Although no universal model prevails, Hallinger (2005)
describes the core principles of instructional leadership involving the school mission, the
instructional program, and the learning climate. This form of leadership views the impact of
principal leadership as mediated by school factors, therefore making vision critical (Hallinger,
2005). The establishment of school goals is one of the largest predictors of positive school
outcomes (Goldring & Pasternak, 1994; Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003).
Although additional factors encompassing the indirect influence of school leadership are
unclear, the literature is replete with the association between classroom experiences and learning
(Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). The principal, as sole manager of the educational program, bears
tremendous responsibility in ensuring effectiveness of the organization. As a direct form of
leadership, instructional leadership is transactional and measures its successes by student
achievement (Webb, 2005). Concerning to the instructional program are the unintended
outcomes of curriculum narrowing and slippage demonstrated by strict adherence to performance
standards (Male & Palaiologou, 2012). While instructional leadership espouses a top-down
structure (Marks & Printy, 2003), a distributed leadership perspective addresses the culture of
schooling as a shared responsibility. Leadership is socially constructed, as the result of
interdependence between each individual and the environment (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond,
2001). The greatest benefit of a distributed perspective is the reduction of isolation and the
subsequent commitment to a common goal (Wahlstrom & Lewis, 2008).
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

29
Transformational leadership lacks a focus on instruction and curriculum (Marks & Printy,
2003), but focuses on inspiring others to do more than necessary for the greater good (Northouse,
2010). Transformational leadership involves a deeply rooted commitment to the purpose of the
organization, in which a leader acts as a catalyst for others to commit themselves to a common
vision (Northouse, 2010). Often characterized as learning organizations, schools with
transformational leaders tend to involve each participant as a critical piece of the organization. A
combination of instructional and transformational leadership is also effective (Goddard et al.,
2010). The connection of these two constructs provides an effective means by which to approach
school leadership; yet, it dismisses a critical component of education (Sergiovanni, 1998) that is
the co-construction of knowledge (Male & Palaiologou, 2012). Instructional, transformational,
and pedagogical leadership share several common traits, as illustrated in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1
Central Leadership Components
Instructional Leadership
(Hallinger & Murphy, 1985)
Transformational Leadership
(Burns, 1978, as cited by
Northouse, 2010)
Pedagogical Leadership
(Sergiovanni, 1998)
Defining the School’s Mission
Promoting Positive School
Learning Climate
Managing the Instructional
Program
Inspirational Motivation
Individualized Consideration
Intellectual Stimulation
Idealized Influence/Charisma
Purposing
Maintaining Harmony
Institutionalizing Values
Motivating
Problem Solving
Managing
Explaining
Enabling
Modeling
Supervising
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

30
Literature supports the critical nature of principal involvement with instruction and
curriculum, as well as the importance of both instructional and transformational leadership roles
(Goddard et al., 2010). The role of the principal has evolved with time and is characterized by
both leadership and management elements (Sergiovanni, 1995). Instructional leadership is
effective in ensuring alignment to state standards, depending largely on external guidance and
transactional relationships (Goddard et al., 2010). Instructional leadership is reliable in
establishing consistent practice in varied classrooms (Leitner, 1994); still, principals must be
responsive to nonlinear and dynamic conditions (Sergiovanni, 2005, 1985). Leadership requires
more than conveying a message (Leitner, 1994); innovation within the school setting through a
transformational process is crucial (Sergiovanni, 1985).
Pedagogical leadership is a holistic approach to education promoting construction rather
than transmission of knowledge (Male & Palaiologou, 2012). The focus of co-construction
allows the learning community to function with the “currency of the future” requiring
adaptability (Male & Palaiologou, 2012, p. 110). Within the transformational leadership
framework, leadership is socially constructed within a given community of learners (Southworth,
2002). Pedagogical leadership is a transformational form of leadership and is accountable for not
only measured success of student achievement, but also for responsive approaches of teaching
(Webb, 2005). The social covenant maintained by pedagogical leadership engages all
participants in the school community (Webb, 2005).

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

31
Pedagogical Leadership
Pedagogical leadership is a leadership construct that values the development of “social
and academic capital for students and intellectual and professional capital for teachers”
(Sergiovanni, 1998, p. 38), as illustrated in Figure 2.2. Key elements include the participants,
community and expertise (Male & Palaiologou, 2012).

Pedagogical
Leadership
Capital
Development
Value Added
To Students

Figure 2.2. Pedagogical leadership defined
Adapted from Sergiovanni, T.J. (1998). Leadership as pedagogy, capital development and school
effectiveness. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 1(1), 37-
46.

Capital development may be developed through social capital for students, academic
capital for students, intellectual capital for teachers and professional capital for teachers. The
result of this development enhances student learning and development, teacher learning and
classroom effectiveness (Sergiovanni, 1998).
The model of pedagogical leadership (Sergiovanni, 1998) considers the school
community as more critical to a school’s success than its financial assets. Ten leadership tasks
are central to pedagogical leaders through prioritizing the academic and social development of
students (Sergiovanni, 1998). As illustrated in Figure 2.3, pedagogical leadership is collaborative
(Male & Palaiologou, 2012) and relies upon purposing, maintaining harmony, institutionalizing
values, motivating, problem solving, managing, explaining, enabling, modeling, and supervising.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

32

Figure 2.3. Central elements to pedagogical leadership
Adapted from Sergiovanni, T.J. (1998). Leadership as pedagogy, capital development and school
effectiveness. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 1(1), 37-
46.

Through the processes of purposing, maintaining harmony, and institutionalizing values,
leaders unite stakeholders through a shared vision, build understanding of this vision, and align
procedures to support the purpose of the school. Leaders who motivate, problem solve, and
manage provide for the mental and physical needs of stakeholders in order to support learning.
Through explaining, enabling and modeling, a leader builds professional capital by involving
teachers in the progress of student learning. Supervision allows principals to connect with
stakeholders to identify needs and to provide support where needed (Sergiovanni, 1998).
School improvement is not supported solely by directive leadership, but rather is created
by conditions that motivate teachers to work collaboratively toward a unified goal (Sergiovanni,
2005). Old paradigms of leadership have conceded to distributed leadership that is generative
and adaptive (Senge, 1990b). Within this environment, improvement is both a cognitive and
Principals as
Pedagogical
Leaders
To support
the best
interests of
children
Purposing
Maintaining
Harmony
Institutionalizing
Values
Motivating
Problem
Solving
Managing Explaining Enabling Modelling Supervising
Emphasize in Practice
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

33
affective process that increases internal accountability and agency (Elmore, 2005). This shift in
roles requires shared vision and complex approaches to problem solving that take into account
the meaning of each problem, rather than focus on side effects as the problems (Senge, 1990b).
Professional accountability involves a process of decision-making based on a commitment to the
needs of children and the availability of strong research based professional knowledge (Darling-
Hammond, 2010). Reaching beyond the measurement of only one outcome increases the
likelihood of not overlooking other important outcomes (Northouse, 2010). Although the moral
dimension of leadership is often dismissed and regarded as misaligned with the standards
agenda, a large research base focused on leadership regards the moral dimension as critical in
improving the quality of teaching and learning in addition to meeting the needs of the purpose of
the organization (Fullan, 2001). By engaging in a complex method of problem solving and a
vision rather than outcomes, it is more likely that daily management will be in alignment with
the vision (Sergiovanni, 2005, 1995).
The responsibility for educational challenges is addressed in a more complete manner
through the inclusion of all participants of the school community (Sergiovanni, 2005, 1998;
Wraga, 2004). The role of the principal extends beyond the walls of the school building; it
involves educating the public and soliciting input and involvement from the surrounding
community (Dewey, 1935; Male & Palaiologou, 2012; Sergiovanni, 1987; Wraga, 2004).
Community building is one method by which to develop capital and is critical in determining a
school’s success (Sergiovanni, 1998). Additional literature contests the importance of formal
leadership, citing external variables as “substitutes” for leadership and therefore having an
additional direct impact on student achievement (Howell, 1997). For this reason, the community
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

34
involvement within the fold of the school organization may increase social and academic capital
for students (Sergiovanni, 1998).
The development of professional capital encompasses through communities of practice
an obligation to protect the integrity of the school (Sergiovanni, 2005, 1998). Pedagogical
leaders create environments where the best interests of children are served. The community of
learners is supported reciprocally with expectations held by teachers and students. This social
covenant involves transformational leadership, but involves too the students as a part of the
community. The institution includes families, the community, and the school. Examining the
system from this holistic viewpoint, teachers and students alike will commit to succeed and to
improve the school (Eacott, 2010). It is a moral perspective that supports teachers committing to
improve opportunities for children both short- and long-term (Fullan, 2001; Sergiovanni, 2005,
1998), the new meaning of educational change. The development of academic capital relies upon
a commitment to teaching and learning that become the foundation for decision making.
Expectations of student success do not waiver and the opportunity to construct knowledge is
eminent (Sergiovanni, 1998). In this way, pedagogical leadership is instructional. Intellectual
capital is developed and is measured by the capacity by which the school improves or is a
learning organization. In this way, pedagogical leadership is transformative.
Principal Leadership and Student Achievement
A long history of the balance between instructional leadership and instructional
management plagues the principal. Leadership refers to those processes that focus on an efficient
organization as it relates to the end goal of increased learning while management refers to those
tasks that support organizational goals (Leitner, 1994). However, these concepts have
traditionally lacked consistent definitions and measurement yielding varied findings (Leitner,
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

35
1994). Typically, leadership is defined as educational when it occurs in educational settings; this
definition is insufficient (Wraga, 2004). Managerial tasks are crucial to the operation of schools,
but can distract from a focus on teaching students a worthwhile curriculum. Educational
leadership occurs in two circumstances centered on (a) student learning of a meaningful
curriculum, and (b) student learning as an educational process (Wraga, 2004). Although a
political accountability system measures student achievement in a standardized form, schools
have always been accountable to students on many levels (Elmore, 2005). Principals may utilize
policies to steer beliefs and practice in the students’ favor (Elmore, 2005; Kaplan, 2004b, 2008).
By focusing the organization on continued improvement, reactions to policy become a
coordinated and interdependent effort among different parts of the school and teachers
themselves (Fullan, 2001; Kaplan, 2004b; Leitner, 1994; Senge, 1990a).
Echoing the sentiments of Dewey (1935), contemporary researchers define the role of the
principal as encompassing functions that are instructional, managerial, and political (Cuban,
1985). Although the management of all three pulls a principal in different directions, none of the
three can be ignored. Through direct and indirect means, principals are to manage goals and to
preserve logistic stability. When instructional, managerial, and political values intersect,
leadership and effectiveness are connected (Cuban, 1986).
A large body of literature supports the importance of the role of the principal in
influencing student achievement. Hallinger and Heck (1998) assert that the effect of the role of
the principal on student achievement is the result of indirect effects. Waters et al. (2003)
demonstrate an effect size of .25 between leadership and student achievement. Leithwood et al.
(2004) evaluated leadership at varied levels of the educational system, concluding that school
leadership is the second most influential factor at the school site. Establishing goals is one of the
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

36
largest predictors of school outcomes (Goldring & Pasternak, 1994; Witziers et al., 2003). The
literature is replete with a demonstrated association between classroom experiences and learning;
however, the process of the influence of leadership is quite unclear (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008).
Literature suggests that principal effects are mediated through various school factors that make
the indirect or direct impact of leadership difficult to ascertain (Suppovitz et al., 2010).
The relationship between principal leadership and student achievement is difficult to
measure and to offer empirical authentication (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). Nonetheless, strong
principal leadership qualities positively influence school effectiveness that in turn positively
influence student learning (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). Within a model that improves education
and benefits students, accountability is authentic and promotes competence, quality, adequacy,
and capacity (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
School Norms and Teacher Perceptions
Leadership styles within the system of education are characterized by tradition rooted in
“habit and custom” (Wraga, 2004, p. 111) of the “default culture of public schools” (Elmore,
2005, p. 139). Visionary leaders have the ability to bring followers to understand the underlying
meaning of education and how it relates to the roots of societal problems (Senge, 1990b). Due to
the dynamic and complex nature of change, solutions that treat symptoms are often ineffective,
reinforcing the importance of insightful vision and systematic thinking (Senge, 1990b).
Schoolwide norms are established as the result of “cultural linkages” that create conditions by
which teachers devote themselves to shared goals and loyalty (Leitner, 1994, p. 223). Enabling
these norms to permeate instructional strategy and teacher behavior is a combination of
“structural linkages” and “interpersonal linkages” that support interrelatedness and the ability to
utilize resources (Leitner, 1994, p. 224). A societal norm exists that encourages compliance and
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

37
uniformity rather than curiosity. As a result, the importance of shared vision and systematic
thinking is critical (Senge, 1990b). A connection with the larger environment and collaboration
allows educators to move beyond the limits of their own isolation (Fullan, 1993). The need for
principals to exemplify the abilities to make well-informed instructional decisions and
effectively manage school operations is not limited to contemporary school environments. Cuban
(1985) poses the instructional role of principals as directed to persuading teachers to conform to
a particular set of beliefs and to engage in behavior that supports those beliefs.
Wahlstrom and Louis (2008) demonstrate the need for leaders to support teachers’
collective efficacy as a result of a body of literature that supports collective efficacy as a stronger
predictor than SES (Bandura, 1993; Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000). The focus on current
accountability systems fails to support interaction and organizational learning that sustains
advancement. Instead, reform strategies are aimed at managing outputs in isolation and none at
improving instructional practice (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Teachers function in isolation without
sufficient communication and establishment of organizational norms (O’Day, 2002). Describing
a connection with the broader environment as critical, Fullan (1993) describes this phenomenon
as limiting one’s own ability as the result of isolation. Evidence exists that supports the link
between principal leadership and the establishment of group norms surrounding instruction,
especially as it relates to the delivery of differentiated instruction (Goddard et al., 2010).
Teacher Perception of Implementation
Conventional models of implementation offer various explanations regarding the gap that
often exists between conceptualization versus implementation. Obstacles within the process are
commonly based on unclear expectations, policy ambiguity, and/or conflicting interest. Fidelity
of implementation may be sacrificed as the result of a lack of understanding of linking
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

38
knowledge with application. Partial implementations may not adhere to fidelity, but rather may
meet the needs of a simple checklist. Additionally, values and emotions are an important part of
the implementation process. (Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002).
Further complicating the issue is the technical form of fidelity to a process and the moral
form of fidelity to students (Noddings, 1986). One connotation supports “accuracy” and the other
“quality or faithfulness.” Noddings (1986, p. 496), echoing the sentiment of Dewey (1938),
contests they should be one and the same. The concept of “slippage,” introduced by Goodlad
(1964), highlights the gap that occurs between conceptualization and implementation. In this
sense, fidelity of implementation is endangered or sacrificed. “There is not now…a body of data
on what transpires in schools from which to begin an enlightened discussion of schooling or a
tested methodology for securing these data” (Goodlad, 1977, p. 3). Goodlad’s sentiments reflect
a longstanding, myopic condition characterizing schools. An outcomes-focused evaluation does
not lead to a deep knowledge of the experiences students have in school, nor does it assess what
they have learned.
Achievement and Ability
Measuring Achievement
A vision dedicated to high-level learning for all students is obtained through the
dedication to creating conditions in which that is possible (Tomlinson et al., 2008). Test scores
have become an instructional impediment to serving those who demonstrate advanced scores
(Male & Palaiologou, 2012; Wraga, 2004). Achievement at the mastery levels are characterized
by achievement gaps mirroring gaps demonstrated at levels of minimum competency (Plucker et
al., 2010). The scope of the concern regarding “excellence gaps” is nationwide and across
multiple grade levels (Plucker et al., 2010, p. 1). Issues relevant on a nationwide basis revolve
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

39
around equity, instruction, assessment, and funding. Disparity between subgroups is not isolated
to one level of achievement, but rather spans the scope of standardized measures.
Teacher Beliefs
Teachers are required to draw upon knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and child
development in order to guide their own practice (Elbaz, 1981). Proficient teachers gather
information necessary to support student readiness and instructional needs (Leinhardt & Greeno,
1986). Having highly able students working far below their capabilities is of concern to
educators for several reasons (Rice & McCoach, 2000). Higher level processes and
metacognition support effective educational processes for learners of all levels (Fischer & Rose,
2001). Differentiation allows students to engage with varied pacing and complexity and is
therefore responsive to the needs of a collective and the individual (Tomlinson, 2004). This
respectful method of educating students takes into account child development and differences in
culture, family structure, and established skills (Darling-Hammond, 1998).
Gifted educators are concerned not with the equality of capability but rather with the
equal opportunity to be educated (Reis et al., 1998; Tomlinson, 2004). Curriculum and
instruction that effectively support gifted students do so for all students (Tomlinson, 2005).
Research demonstrates that high-achieving students benefit from homogeneous grouping while
low-achieving students suffer when homogeneously grouped (Terwell, 2005). The root of the
problem is not in grouping practices themselves but is the result of poor instruction for low-
achieving students (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
Underachievement
An unfortunate and high cost of ignoring variability within the classroom exists (Fischer
& Rose, 2001). Rather than defining the nation by its average, student variability should provide
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

40
a system of learning built on the nation’s diversity (Fischer & Rose, 2001). Variability provides
information about how students interact with information to support learning (Fischer & Bidell,
1998).
Much debate surrounds the concept of underachieving gifted learners (Reis & McCoach,
2000). Underachievers exhibit a rather heterogeneous profile of traits, as well as various reasons
for underachieving (McCoach & Siegle, 2008). One profile is yielded by a lack of stimulation
within the classroom setting. By default, learners not provided with multiple opportunities to
demonstrate knowledge may be in a state of underachievement (McCoach & Siegle, 2008). In
addition to encouraging poor academic outcomes, idle classroom experiences can result in low
self-efficacy and expectancy (McCoach & Siegle, 2008). Lack of opportunity for academic
development is characterized by a discrepancy between content or instruction and student need
(Reis & McCoach, 2000).
Student Variability and Ability
Cognitive development in a Piagetian sense has classically been viewed as a ladder with
stages seen as movement up the individual rungs (Fischer & Rose, 2001). However, recent brain
research supports development as a web (Bidell & Fischer, 1992) with multiple pathways
converging at multiple axes (Fischer, Knight, & VanParys, 1993). This web displays a range of
skills rather than a specific point and is characterized by individual diversity. This dynamic view
of intelligence and student variability is the result not only of cognitive ability defined by age,
but also by intellectual ability related to the construction of knowledge (Fischer & Rose, 2001).
An unrestricted view of intelligence rather than a fixed belief promotes effort in all learners,
including high achievers (Dweck, 2007).
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

41
Within this “constructive web” of skills (Fischer & Rose, 2001, p. 8; pictured in Figure
2.4), each skill acquired contributes to the development of more complex skill building (Fischer
& Bidell, 1998; Fischer & Rose, 2001). Dynamic development illustrates variability in each
student. Further, it illustrates that a common progression of student learning does not exist even
with multiple approaches to learning (Fischer & Rose, 2001).

Figure 2.4. Constructive web of skills
Reprinted from Fischer, K.W. & Rose, L.T. (2001). Webs of skills: How students learn.
Educational Leadership, 59(3), 6-12.

Each time a learner engages in a learned skill, the student does not perform at the same
level of proficiency; instead, the learner is able to function within a range of proficiency. This
range is impacted by the level of support provided to the student, application of the skill in a
novel situation, and the emotion of the student (Fischer & Rose, 2001). Additionally, students do
not all learn the same skills by employing the same methods (Fischer & Rose, 2001).
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

42
Academic skill development defined by dynamic skills theory is complex (Fischer &
Rose, 2001). Two levels define the top of the developmental range of student performance:
functional and optimal (Fisher & Bidell, 1998; Fisher & Rose, 2001). The functional limit is
reached through independent means, while the optimal limit is achieved with support, echoing
the seminal research of Vygotsky (1978) regarding the zone of proximal development. Lack of
opportunity for high-ability students restricts their academic development to a functional level
respective to their potential with support, guiding them toward underachievement via poor
curricular design. Variation in support ranges from prompting and modeling to scaffolding,
where expert guidance impacts the potential of optimal performance (Fisher & Bidell, 2006).
Complex knowledge and higher-order thinking skills are constructed through the “integration”
and “differentiation” of knowledge (Fischer, 1980; Fischer & Bidell, 1998).

Figure 2.5. Developmental range of student performance
Reprinted from Fischer, K.W. & Rose, L.T. (2001). Webs of skills: How students learn.
Educational Leadership, 59(3), 6-12.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

43
Differentiation
Definition
Although much of the literature regarding differentiation is derived from gifted
education, many of the tenets are applicable to general populations and non-identified gifted
students. Responsive to the “needs, interests and abilities of gifted students” (CSBE, 2001, rev.
2005), differentiation “focuses primarily on depth and complexity of content, [and] advanced or
accelerated pacing of content and novelty (unique and original expressions of student
understanding)” (CSBE, 2001, rev. 2005). Differentiation does not subscribe to a set of
predetermined rules, but rather adheres to providing access to all students (Brimijoin, 2005).
Differentiation provides teachers with a framework by which to disseminate quality and
effective curriculum to all students, promoting equity and meeting the varied needs of learners
(Tomlinson, 1999b). No one single differentiated curriculum exists; rather, a culturally
responsive model is delivered in a variety of ways addressing variance in learners (Kaplan,
2009). Differentiation is not a strategy, but rather a method of thinking that is complex and
involves growth toward expert proficiency (Tomlinson, 1999b). Preceding the process of
differentiation is ensuring that equitable and high-quality curriculum and instruction are in place
(Tomlinson, 2004). Differentiation encourages meaningful curriculum for all students, but adapts
support, assignment difficulty, pacing and opportunities for student learning based on the student
profile (Levy, 2008; Tomlinson, 1999a). Differentiation changes how things are taught, not what
is taught (Aldridge, 2010).
Through a differentiated curriculum, students are able to engage in learning as a process
(Tomlinson, 2008). It ensures mastery of content and supports student efficacy and ownership.
Differentiation of curriculum, instruction, and assessment rests on high-quality teaching
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

44
(VanTassel-Baska, 2005) and challenges teachers to consider the individual needs of learners
(Tomlinson, 1998). Recent brain research links differentiation to feelings of safety, appropriate
levels of challenge, and the construction of individual meaning (Tomlinson, 1998).
Core Principles
As a theoretical framework, differentiation is guided by four principals defined by (a)
identification of essential content, (b) responsiveness to student differences, (c) integration of
assessment and instruction, and (d) a cycle of modification of content, process, and product that
is dependent upon student needs (McTighe & Brown, 2005; Rock et al., 2008). Differentiation is
defined by elements that, when applied to various models, result in the construction of a
differentiated curriculum (Kaplan, 2009).
Gifted education has much to offer to the general education setting in supporting
differentiation, attention to the individual, and varying modes of instruction (Tomlinson &
Callahan, 1992). Engagement in the core pedagogical beliefs of gifted education provides
students with the opportunity to become better learners (Tomlinson & Callahan, 1992).
Differentiation is comprised of seven non-negotiable elements that support achievement for all
learners with individual needs (Tomlinson, 2008). Although multiple authors address the beliefs
of a differentiated curriculum, much overlap occurs regarding the core beliefs, as illustrated in
Table 2.2.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

45
Table 2.2
Common Themes of Non-negotiable Beliefs Supporting Differentiation
Theme Tomlinson (2008) Brimijoin (2005)
Respectful environment Respecting individuals Respectful tasks
Goal oriented environment Owing student success Clarity of learning goals
Sense of community Building community
Sharing responsibility for teaching
and learning
Classroom community
Powerful curriculum Providing high-quality curriculum
Creating varied avenues to learning
Appropriate strategies
Flexible Environment Implementing flexible classroom
routines
Flexible grouping
Assessment Driven Assessment to inform instruction Ongoing assessment
informing instruction
Adapted from Tomlinson, C.A. (2008). The goals of differentiation. Educational Leadership, 26-
30; and Brimijoin, K. (2005). Differentiation and high-stakes testing: an oxymoron? Theory into
Practice, 44(3), 254-261.

Methods
The study of differentiation has roots in gifted education and offers a host of benefits to
the general populace. Critical to effective curriculum is an understanding of student diversity in
learning rates and a recognition of the importance of curriculum, instruction, and assessment
(VanTassel-Baska, 2005). Kaplan (2009) contests the notion of a single curriculum, advocating
for social justice and the uniqueness of each individual as supported by a differentiated
curriculum. Differentiated curriculum includes features “such as eradicating the upper limits of
expectation, allowing for higher level thinking, providing more conceptual and abstract
understanding of content, and stressing more open-ended learning opportunities” (Van Tassel-
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

46
Baska, 1992). These advantages are to be offered, as defined by the California Department of
Education (CSBE, 2001, rev. 2005), through acceleration, depth, complexity, and novelty.
Section 3 of the Recommended Standards for Programs Serving Gifted and Talented Students
provides standards to support districts as they “develop differentiated curriculum, instructional
models and strategies that are aligned with and extend the state academic content standards and
curriculum frameworks. The differentiated curriculum is related to theories, models, and
practices from the recognized literature in the field” (EC 52206[a] and 52206[b]). At the heart of
the standards is the ability of gifted students to meet or to exceed core curriculum. The standards
support development as pictured in Figure 2.6.

Figure 2.6. Recommended curriculum standards for programs for gifted and talented students
Adapted from California State Board of Education (2001, October, rev. 2005, July).
Recommended Standards for Programs for Gifted and Talented Students.
Facilitates
student ability
to exceed
standards
PROVIDES FOR
Critical, creative
problem-solving
Research
skills
Advanced
content
Authentic,
appropriate
products
FOCUSES ON
Depth
Complexity
Advanced
pacing
Novelty
FACILITATES
Ethical
standards
Positive
self-concept
Sensitivity &
responsibility
to others
Contributions
to society
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

47
The assumption that chronological age dictates a student’s level of learning has translated
into a lack of flexibility in schooling (VanTassel-Baska, 2005). A differentiated approach
addresses this barrier, providing students with opportunities to learn at an appropriate level. The
opportunities are realized through a focus on depth, complexity, advanced pacing, and novelty.
Acceleration allows a student to explore beyond the restrictions of core curriculum through
independent or guided instruction that is self-paced (Kaplan, 2004a). Advanced pacing can be
delivered in a variety of ways, including accelerated study, content acceleration, grade level
acceleration, telecommunications, and flexible grouping (VanTassel-Baska, 2005). Depth affords
students the opportunity to intensify their own leaning through an examination of “patterns,
trends, rules, ethics, big ideas and unanswered questions” (Kaplan, 2004a, p. 31). Relationships
over time, relationships from different points of view, and interdisciplinary relationships are
explored through the framework of complexity (Kaplan, 2004a). A differentiated curriculum that
supports depth and complexity is sufficiently advanced, requires high-level thought, and is open-
ended. Additionally, a differentiated curriculum is best sustained by differentiated resources that
support the learning objectives (VanTassel-Baska, 2005). Specific to interests and aptitude,
novelty encourages students to design new approaches to building knowledge (Kaplan, 2004a).
Problem-based learning that is student originated and high-level supports a differentiated
curriculum in this manner (VanTassel-Baska, 2005). Research and investigation that actively
involve the learner utilize higher level thinking skills and encourage the students to rely upon
themselves in lieu of the teacher (Renzulli, 1988). Knowledge production should result in
“concrete and abstract products” from the students (Renzulli, 1988, p. 302).
Embracing student variance in prior knowledge and methods by which to construct
knowledge, differentiation lends itself to varied instructional models (Tomlinson & Callahan,
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

48
1992). Appropriate levels of pacing and challenge must work in tandem to ensure that students
are completing work that matches the needs of their intellectual development as well as their
affective needs (Tomlinson, 2005). The impact of a differentiated approach on the selection of
materials, design of curriculum and instruction, and assessment supports the development of
responsive teaching. The consequences of the curriculum and the outcome of differentiation are a
compilation of several factors, as illustrated in Figure 2.7 (Terwell, 2005). Differentiation is a
complex and dynamic model that relies upon responsive teaching (VanTassel-Baska, 2005).

Figure 2.7. Longitudinal multi-level model
Reprinted from Terwell, J. (2005). Curriculum differentiation: multiple perspectives and
developments in education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(6), 653-670.

Preknowledge
Student
characteristics
Interaction
Processes
(Experiences)
Learning
outcomes
Curriculum differentiation
(i) Class composition
(ii) curriculum content
CONTEXT
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

49
A vast body of research demonstrates that what happens in the classroom has great
impact on how much students learn. According to Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995),
teaching behaviors must vary with circumstances and student need. In fact, when teachers utilize
inappropriate teaching methods, the classroom environment can be counterproductive in student
learning. Principals must inspire teachers in order to impact instruction (Quinn, 2002). The
indirect effects of a principal are critical to supporting strong instructional practice (Wahlstrom
& Louis, 2008).
Replete in the literature are the findings that teachers engage students in a relatively
narrow range of instruction as well as emphasize low-level skills to meet the needs of students
who do not demonstrate proficiency (Berliner, 1986; Goodlad, 1977). Curriculum differentiation
offers a thoughtful curriculum and according to Terwell (2005) supports the “development of ‘a
discriminating mind’ as defined by Dewey (1922, p. 22; 1933).
Barriers
Teacher perception of standards is one that combats the implementation of differentiation
(McTighe & Brown, 2005). A lack of identification of what is essential knowledge and an
educator perception of shallow coverage endangers proper curriculum planning that maintains
students as the central focus and benefactors of the educational system. A one-size-fits-all
approach directed toward test outcomes does not take into account critical outcomes not
measured by standardized tests (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003). The district must specifically
define academic rigor in order to go beyond NCLB’s default definition (Kaplan, 2004b). A
vision of site leadership supporting growth embraces an understanding of the importance of
high-quality curriculum at the center of learning; “students can become powerful learners only if
what they are asked to learn is powerful” (p.7). Successful implementation of differentiation is
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

50
largely contingent upon an appropriate level of support for teachers (Tomlinson, 1999). A
commitment from principals is essential to the success of the implementation of change efforts if
the efforts are to be successfully maintained (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). The
underlying beliefs must be developed in concert with the practical application of addressing
student needs (Kaplan, 2004b).
A variety of methods exist to assist educators in providing a differentiated curriculum to
students. One criticism of the implementation of a differentiated curriculum is that the principles
of differentiation are too general and broad and therefore allow for excessive freedom to employ
ineffective methods (Renzulli, 1988). Several strategies ascertain that instruction is planned in a
manner that provides variety and is appropriate for all learners. These strategies ask educators to
align educational purpose to activities and assessment, provide diverse and generative
opportunities to learn, and balance active and passive experiences for students (VanTassel-
Baska, 2003).
Uncertainty and complexity also serve as obstacles to progress in providing
differentiation. In the shift from frontal teaching to constructivist learning, the principals’
challenge is to support teachers in embracing growing complexity and uncertainty (Quinn, 2002).
Higher levels of constructivist learning occur in schools where the principal is an instructional
leader (Quinn, 2002). Professional knowledge is built through a commitment to capital
development in the face of the constraints of time and materials (Berliner, 1986).
Conclusion
Literature focused on differentiation is rich in providing a framework by which to
disseminate quality and effective curriculum to all students, promoting equity and meeting the
varied needs of learners (Darling-Hammond, 1998; Kaplan, 2009; Tomlinson, 1999; VanTassel-
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

51
Baska, 2005). Additionally, literature illustrates a correlation between principal leadership and
academic achievement. The literature is rich in findings focused on underperforming students,
but a gap in the literature exists regarding the relationship between principal leadership and the
learning outcomes of high-performing students. Specifically, little research exists regarding the
impact of principal leadership on a differentiated curriculum for high-ability students addressed
by this study. This research aims to affect education by illustrating an approach to teaching and
learning to foster the capabilities of high-ability children within the school setting.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

52
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS
Research has established that the principal plays a vital leadership role that affects
student achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood et al., 2004; Suppovitz et al., 2010;
Waters et al., 2003). Factors including (a) the multiple functions of site leadership, (b) test scores
as a driving force, and (c) common misperceptions regarding high-performing students have
allowed the high-performing student population to be neglected. Test scores impede the delivery
of a meaningful curriculum to students who demonstrate advanced scores (Male & Palaiologou,
2012; Wraga, 2004). Achievement at the mastery levels are characterized by achievement gaps
mirroring gaps demonstrated at levels of minimum competency (Plucker et al., 2010).
Research Questions
1. What is the elementary principals’ perceived role as an instructional leader to
facilitate differentiated curriculum to challenge high ability students identified by
advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts on the California Standards
Tests?
2. What is the teachers’ perceived role to differentiate curriculum to challenge high
ability students identified by advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language
Arts on the California Standards Tests?
3. What are the teachers’ perceptions of their principal as the instructional leader to
facilitate differentiated curriculum for high ability students identified by advanced
level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts?
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

53
Research Design
The mixed-methods, naturalistic study examined school leadership as it relates to a
differentiated curriculum. Leadership was explored through the framework of pedagogical
leadership elements. Differentiation was investigated as a responsive approach to learning rooted
in depth and complexity of content, acceleration, and novelty (CSBE, 2001, rev. 2005). The
study was aimed at fourth- and fifth-grade high-achieving students, defined by advanced level
scores on the California Standards Test Language Arts and Mathematics. The intent of the mixed
methods study was to understand better the influence of leadership on teaching a differentiated
curriculum for high-achieving students. Concurrently, principal and teacher perceptions of high-
achieving students scoring at advanced levels in Mathematics and Language Arts on the
California Standards Tests was studied. The rationale used in the selection of both quantitative
measures and qualitative measures was to gain a deeper understanding of the nature of the data.
Results of the study will impact future practice concerning curriculum modification, teacher
training, administrator training, personnel selection, and policy.
Sample and Population
Site
The study focused on ten elementary school sites in a suburban, affluent community
located approximately 20 miles south of a large urban area in Southern California. The district
API is 913; all ten schools have met schoolwide and subgroup growth targets. The district serves
11,900 students and is regarded as highly successful. The socio-economic status of the students
is high, with less than 3% of the total district population qualifying for free or reduced meals.
Although considered low-wealth as measured by expenditures per pupil (basic/unrestricted),
support from community volunteers and donations support enrich the schools. The suburban
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

54
sample was chosen due to the importance of differentiation within the setting. High-ability
learners are best supported by a continuum of services that serves student differences (Kaplan,
2009).
Population
All principals at the ten district elementary school sites and all fourth- and fifth-grade
teachers at those sites were invited to participate in the study. The participants reflect a principal
and teacher population situated within high-performing districts, with the majority of students
exhibiting advanced scores on the California Standards Tests. Human-resources personnel
identified principals and teachers for the study through the district database; site principals
verified the accuracy of records prior to survey administration. One unit of analysis was the
principal of each elementary school and was purposefully sampled. A second unit of analysis,
also purposefully sampled, was the fourth- and fifth-grade teachers. The study included all
principals and fourth- and fifth-grade teachers within the district to ensure quality and decrease
the likelihood of threats to internal validity (Creswell, 2009; Patton, 2002).
Bolman and Deal (1997) cite the importance of identifying stakeholder groups in order to
establish communication regarding the allocation of resources and the balance of power.
Stakeholder groups may have conflicting preferences, but do possess a common goal of avoiding
harmful discord. During the data analysis, response patterns of principals were compared to
those of teachers to examine commonalities and differences. This study limited stakeholders to
the following groups in order to maintain a narrow focus and fidelity to the research questions:
Primary Stakeholders (directly affected by actions of the organization):
• Teachers hold a powerful role in the organization and are considered to be a key
stakeholder. Although the success of students is a common goal, the connection to
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

55
differentiation to challenge high-ability students may run from somewhat aligned to
strongly aligned. Teacher influence in supporting differentiation is of paramount
importance and cannot be obtained without their support and involvement.
• Elementary principals, also key stakeholders, are assumed to hold a high level of both
power and influence at their school sites. Their role is to motivate the school in
pursuing the goal and create and protect an environment where accomplishing the
goal is possible.
Each stakeholder is accountable for the organizational goal in a different form, as
illustrated by the roles of key primary stakeholders in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1
Key Stakeholder Accountability
Model Director Provider Beneficiary Result/Consequence
Bureaucratic Federal & State
Government
Principals
Teachers
Students Student success as measured by
standardized test scores or
sanctions including loss of
accreditation
Professional Administrators
Teachers
Principals
Teachers
Students Student success as measured by
grades, test scores, self-reliance,
resilience, behavior, graduation
rates, or failure to fulfill
obligations of profession
Community School School Parents
Students
School success as measured by
trust in the organization and
community support or lack of
community bond

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

56
Principals vary in educational background, credentials and years of experience. Prior
classroom experience varies as well. Eighty percent of principals within the district of study are
female, with 20% male. Identified ethnicity for all 10 principal participants is white.
The study analyzed teacher participants solicited from both fourth- and fifth-grade
classrooms individually, as grade-level participants and as school participants. The number of
teachers is dependent upon school size and therefore varies per site. School size ranges from
approximately 350 students to almost 700 students.
Data Collection
Prior to engaging participants in data collection, principals and teachers were provided
with a participant information sheet included in appendix A and appendix B. Measurement was
conducted through multiple sources including a survey and interview protocol, both designed for
the purposes of this research. The data collection took place in two phases. During the first phase
of data collection, surveys were administered to all elementary principals in addition to both
fourth- and fifth-grade teachers to allow data analysis and the comparison of results across
stakeholder groups. This process of triangulation allowed for the measurement of the same things
from different angles (Champion, 2002; Patton, 2002). The survey included four parts: (a)
demographics, (b) perceptions of students’ ability, (c) perceptions of principal leadership, and (d)
responses to examples of differentiation. Gathering both quantitative and qualitative data
provided a deep understanding of the results (Creswell, 2009). Following data analysis of survey
results, a secondary phase was implemented utilizing personal interviews of all elementary
principals. Interview protocol was fixed in order to ensure consistency and reliability. The
interview protocol also included four parts: (a) elaboration on demographics and/or past
experience, (b) perceptions of students ability, (c) perceptions of principal leadership, and (d)
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

57
examples of differentiation. Data gathered through interview and survey allowed validity testing
by examining the consistency of data across varied methodology and data sources (Patton, 2002).
According to Patton (2002), different types of triangulation contribute to strong interpretation of
results. Within this study, triangulation of methods and sources enhanced credibility. An
overview of the process is illustrated in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1. Data collection and analysis process

Instrumentation
Two phases of inquiry were implemented as a part of the investigative process. The
purpose of the survey was to gather data from both teachers and principals in order to explore the
role of perception across varied stakeholder groups. From data gathered, inferences regarding the
impact of perceived leadership and the implementation of a differentiated curriculum for high-
RQ1
Principal Survey
Data Analysis
Interview Protocol
Data Analysis
RQ2
Teacher Survey
Data Analysis
RQ3
Teacher Survey
Data Analysis
Interpretation of
Findings
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

58
ability students were made. The instrument was piloted with a test group of principals in a
district other than the district of study, with revisions made based on principal feedback. The
revised survey was administered to principal and teacher participants. Based on the survey
results, the interview protocol allowed the researcher to gather insight and gain a deeper
understanding of perceived principal leadership, beliefs regarding student ability, and the
delivery of a differentiated curriculum. A sequential approach allowed the expansion on the
findings from the survey during the interview.
Instrument Summary
Instruments included the following:
1. Principal survey that (a) provided demographic information, including background
and training in curriculum and instruction, (b) surveyed the principal belief system
about leadership, differentiation, and student ability and (c) asked the principal to
describe expectations of the teaching and learning environment.
2. Teacher survey that (a) provided demographic information including background and
training in curriculum and instruction, (b) surveyed the perceived school norms and
perceived teacher implementation of a differentiated curriculum, and (c) asked the
teacher to describe the principal’s support and leadership characteristics in a
classroom setting.
3. Principal interview protocol that (a) surveyed the principal belief system and (b)
asked the principal to describe their expectations in a classroom setting.
Instruments addressed constructs utilized to build the research questions. Regardless of
measurement instrument, categories were defined by empirical research and adhered to
theoretical frameworks posed by sources defined in Table 3.2.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

59
Table 3.2
Instrument Summary
Research Question: What is the elementary principals’ perceived role as an instructional leader to facilitate differentiated
curriculum to challenge high- ability students identified by advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts on the
California Standards Tests?
Instrument Measurement Category Sources
Survey and
Interview
Protocol
Perception: Leadership Sergiovanni, 1988
Perception: Differentiation/
Principal Expectations: Differentiation
Tomlinson, 1999
Kaplan, 2009
McTighe & Brown, 2005
Rock, Gregg, Ellis, & Gable, 2008
Brimijoin, 2005
Tomlinson & Jarvis, 2009
CSBE, 2001, rev. 2005
Perception: Student Ability Fischer & Rose, 2001
McCoach & Siegle, 2008
Emerick, 1988
Research Question: What is the teachers’ perceived role to differentiate curriculum to challenge high- ability students
identified by advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts on the California Standards Tests?
Instrument Measurement Category Sources
Survey Perceived School Norms Via: Leadership Sergiovanni, 1988
Perceived School Norms: Differentiation
Perceived Expectations: Differentiation
Tomlinson, 1999
Kaplan, 2009
McTighe & Brown, 2005
Rock, Gregg, Ellis, & Gable, 2008
Brimijoin, 2005
Tomlinson & Jarvis, 2009
CSBE, 2001, rev. 2005
Perceived School Norms: Student Ability Fischer & Rose, 2001
McCoach & Siegle, 2008
Emerick, 1988
Research Question: What are the teachers’ perceptions of their principal as the instructional leader to facilitate the goal of a
differentiated curriculum for high ability students identified by advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts?
Instrument Measurement Category Sources
Survey Perceived School Norms Via: Leadership Sergiovanni, 1988
Perceived School Norms: Differentiation
Perceived Expectations: Differentiation
Tomlinson, 1999
Kaplan, 2009
McTighe & Brown, 2005
Rock, Gregg, Ellis, & Gable, 2008
Brimijoin, 2005
Tomlinson & Jarvis, 2009
CSBE, 2001, rev. 2005
Perceived School Norms: Student Ability Fischer & Rose, 2001
McCoach & Siegle, 2008
Emerick, 1988

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

60
Survey
The survey provided a numeric description of the thoughts, beliefs and perceptions of the
principal and teacher population (Creswell, 2009). This quantitative snapshot of principal and
teacher perceptions allowed conclusions to be drawn based upon scenario-based prompts.
Participants responded to a variety of classroom scenarios, statements regarding student ability,
and leadership norms on a Likert scale. The self-administered survey was distributed via survey
monkey for all teachers and principals to complete simultaneously. Survey questions were
designed to assess campus norms with time to analyze data prior to conducting principal
interviews. Results of the surveys were not utilized to inform principals of campus norms during
interviews, but rather to ensure ample data was gathered for suitable analysis while being
respectful of the principals’ use of time.
Interviews
During the second phase of inquiry, interviews of all principals occurred in a one-on-one
setting. An interview protocol was included as a qualitative measure to gain insight, validity, and
rich information that would not otherwise be observed (Patton, 2002). Due to the nature of
differentiation occurring on an ongoing basis, observations of thoughts and actions that occur
during different points of time were not possible (Patton, 2002). Additionally, interviews enabled
access into principals’ perspectives regarding topics concerning differentiation, leadership, and
student achievement. In order to reduce misleading responses due to personal bias and self-
serving replies (Patton, 2002), question design focused on the same topic several different ways
and compared data to survey results from both the principals and teachers to triangulate results.
The interview was conducted utilizing a standardized, open-ended format (Patton, 2002).
Using an identical instrument allowed an easier comparison of results across different school
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

61
sites, with those results more easily utilized by key stakeholders (Patton, 2002). Additionally,
data analysis was more accurate as all principals had the opportunity to answer the same
questions, eliminating the possibility of less robust answers from those with shy personalities and
more robust answers from the more outgoing principals. Questions were worded to maximize the
interviewee’s ability to provide rich responses. Although standardized interviews limit the
pursuit of topics not anticipated, more important is an effective use of principal time that is
critical to the process of data collection (Patton, 2002). All interviews were audio-recorded and
transcribed by a service provider. Interviews were conducted at a predetermined time either
during or after school as set by the principal. The location of interview was at the school site in
order to increase principal comfort level and allow the principal to utilize resources if necessary.
Upon completion of the interviews, the data analysis included examinations of coded responses
for patterns upon which to draw conclusions. Items aligned to categories and research literature
as delineated in Table 3.3.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

62
Table 3.3
Instrument Item Categorization by Research Genre
Category Number of items Research Literature
Leadership Principal survey: 3
Teacher survey: 3
Principal interview: 2
Pedagogical Leadership: Purposing (Sergiovanni, 1998)
Principal survey: 2
Teacher survey: 2
Principal interview: 2
Pedagogical Leadership: Maintaining Harmony (Sergiovanni,
1998)
Principal survey: 2
Teacher survey: 2
Principal interview: 1
Pedagogical Leadership: Institutionalizing Values
(Sergiovanni, 1998)
Principal survey: 2
Teacher survey: 2
Principal interview: 1
Pedagogical Leadership: Motivating (Sergiovanni, 1998)
Principal survey: 2
Teacher survey: 2
Principal interview: 1
Pedagogical Leadership: Problem Solving (Sergiovanni, 1998)
Principal survey: 2
Teacher survey: 1
Principal interview: 0
Pedagogical Leadership: Managing (Sergiovanni, 1998)
Principal survey: 2
Teacher survey: 2
Principal interview: 1
Pedagogical Leadership: Explaining (Sergiovanni, 1998)
Principal survey:
Teacher survey: 3
Principal interview: 1
Pedagogical Leadership: Enabling (Sergiovanni, 1998)
Principal survey: 2
Teacher survey: 2
Principal interview: 1
Pedagogical Leadership: Modeling (Sergiovanni, 1998)
Principal survey: 2
Teacher survey: 2
Principal interview: 4
Pedagogical Leadership: Supervising (Sergiovanni, 1998)
Differentiated
Curriculum
Principal survey: 12
Teacher survey: 18
Principal interview: 1
Acceleration (CSBE, 2001, rev. 2005)
VanTassel-Baska (2005)
Tomlinson (2008)
Principal survey: 4
Teacher survey: 6
Principal interview: 1
Complexity (CSBE, 2001, rev. 2005)
Kaplan (2009)
VanTassel-Baska (2005)
Principal survey: 2
Teacher survey: 3
Principal interview: 1
Depth (CDE, 2001; rev. 2005)
Kaplan (2009)
VanTassel-Baska (2005)
Principal survey: 2
Teacher survey: 3
Principal interview: 1
Novelty (CSBE, 2001, rev. 2005)
Renzulli (1988)
Student Ability Principal survey: 1
Teacher survey: 1
Principal interview: 1
Fischer & Rose, 2001
Principal survey: 1
Teacher survey: 1
Principal interview: 2
McCoach & Siegle, 2008
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

63
Data Analysis
Triangulated data collection not only ensured reliability and validity (Clark & Estes,
2002; Creswell, 2009; Patton, 2002), but also measured uniform elements from diverse angles,
therefore cross-checking results and allowing for analysis of discrepancies (Champion, 2002).
The first phase of data collection involved an analysis of California Standards Tests and surveys.
SPSS was utilized to interpret and report data. Following a report of response percentages,
descriptive statistics included means, standard deviation, and range. The second phase of data
collection involved personal interviews conducted with the principals. An inductive analysis of
qualitative interview organized data by themes and categories extricated through content
evaluation (Patton, 2002). An examination of patterns revealed a relationship between leadership
and student ability and differentiation.
Data collection followed the timeline illustrated in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4
Sequence of Data Collection
Development of Principal and Teacher Survey
Development of Principal Interview Protocol
IRB Approval Process
Pilot Testing of Instruments
Initial Principal Meeting
Distribution of Principal and Teacher Survey
Data Analysis (Survey)
Principal Interviews
Data Analysis (Interviews)
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

64
Limitations
Within the qualitative portion of the study, the researcher acted as the principal data-
collection instrument (Creswell, 2009; Patton, 2002). Limitations considered prior to
implementation of the study were:
• Teachers and/or principals might provide inaccurate data due to a self-serving bias.
This bias might come into play due to political reasons or as the result of isolation of
practice.
• Teachers were asked to offer their perception regarding research constructs.
Perception might not provide an accurate depiction of reality; however, it is the
purpose of the study to examine the impact of the perception of principal leadership
and the perception of student ability. Even if not accurate, the information gained is
of value to the research questions.
• Teachers and principals were not required to respond. The superintendent of the
school district supported of the study, but did not mandate completion of surveys or
interviews. Data could be skewed based on the profiles of willing participants.
Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter was to provide information regarding the purpose of the study
and methods for the collection and analysis of data. The goal of the mixed-methods study was to
understand the influence of leadership on teaching a differentiated curriculum for high-achieving
students. The study additionally examined perceptions surrounding high-achieving students
scoring at advanced levels in Mathematics and Language Arts on the California Standards Tests.
The combination of quantitative measures and qualitative measures led to a rich understanding of
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

65
the data. Findings of the study will impact future practice concerning curriculum, teacher
training, administrator training, personnel selection and policy.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

66
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH FINDINGS
This chapter presents data collected from a mixed-methods study examining principal
leadership and student achievement. Several leadership theories exist within the field of
education regarding principal leadership. Research demonstrates that various models are linked
to school improvement, although it is not known if directly or indirectly (Webb, 2005). Three of
the most popular theories include instructional, transformational, and distributed perspectives.
For the purposes of this research, the pedagogical leadership framework applied. Pedagogical
leadership, a form of transformational leadership, supports a critical component of education
(Sergiovanni, 2005, 1996) by allowing for the co-construction of knowledge (Male &
Palaiologou, 2012). A review of the literature demonstrates a relationship between leadership
and student achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood et al., 2004; Suppovitz et al.,
2010; Waters et al., 2003) that adds to the quality of instruction (Miller 2003).
A vast body of research demonstrates a strong connection to what occurs in the classroom
and how much students learn. The framework of differentiation provides educators with the tools
to provide quality curriculum to all students (Darling-Hammond, 1998; Kaplan, 2009;
Tomlinson, 1999b; VanTassel-Baska, 2005). Differentiation is characterized by a framework that
provides a quality and effective curriculum to all students, promoting equity and meeting the
needs of learners (Tomlinson, 1999a). Differentiation can be applied thorough many different
models as it is a culturally responsive model delivered to address variance in learners (Kaplan,
2009). Responsive to the “needs, interests and abilities of gifted students,” (CSBE, 2001, rev.
2005) differentiation “focuses primarily on depth and complexity of content, advanced or
accelerated pacing of content and novelty (unique and original expressions of student
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

67
understanding)” (CSBE, 2001, rev. 2005). Teaching behaviors must account for variety in
circumstances and student need (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995).
Replete in the literature are the findings that teachers engage students in a relatively
narrow range of instruction as well as emphasizing low-level skills to meet the needs of students
who do not demonstrate proficiency (Berliner, 1986; Goodlad, 1977). Curriculum differentiation
offers a thoughtful curriculum and, according to Terwell (2005), supports the “development of ‘a
discriminating mind’” as defined by Dewey (1922, p. 22; 1933). Principals must inspire teachers
in order to impact instruction (Quinn, 2002). The indirect effects of a principal are critical to
supporting strong instructional practice (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008).
A gap in the literature exists in the examination of the impact of leadership on curricular
decisions made to accommodate the needs of high-achieving learners. This study was conducted
to examine the relationship between the perceived role of an elementary principal and the
implementation of a differentiated curriculum that challenges high-ability students in the areas of
Mathematics and/or Language Arts. The purpose of the study is to further understanding of the
perceived role of the principal as the leader who facilitates the academic success of students
through the implementation of differentiated curriculum. Concurrently, the study furthers the
understanding of the perception by teachers of the role of the principal in supporting the
academic success of students in Mathematics and Language Arts. Information gained adds to the
body of knowledge related to leadership and has the potential to shape future curriculum and
pedagogical decision-making within the district under study.
Research Questions
This chapter presents quantitative and qualitative data addressing three research questions.
The following research questions investigate principal leadership and student achievement:
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

68
1. What is the elementary principals’ perceived role as an instructional leader to
facilitate differentiated curriculum to challenge high ability students identified by
advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts on the California Standards
Tests?
2. What is the teachers’ perceived role to differentiate curriculum to challenge high
ability students identified by advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language
Arts on the California Standards Tests?
3. What are the teachers’ perceptions of their principal as the instructional leader to
facilitate differentiated curriculum for high ability students identified by advanced
level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts?
Participants
The participants reflect a principal and teacher population situated within a high-
performing district, with the majority of students exhibiting advanced scores on the California
Standards Tests. The population of elementary administrators located at a school site serving
students at the fourth- and fifth-grade levels is comprised of ten principals. The total fourth- and
fifth-grade teacher population, including combined-grade-level teachers, is 55. All teachers and
principals were invited to participate.
The sample included ten elementary principals and 32 fourth- and fifth-grade teachers as
illustrated in Table 4.1. One hundred percent of the principals participated in the online survey as
well as the interview. Teacher surveys were completed by 32 of 55 teachers solicited, a 58%
teacher participation rate.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

69
Table 4.1
Demographic Data for Participants
Participants N
Principal Survey Participants 10
Principal Interview Participants 10
Teacher Survey Participants 32
4
th
Grade Teacher Participants 17
5
th
Grade Teacher Participants 14
4/5 Combination Teacher Participants 1

Principals vary in years of administrative experience in addition to professional
background. Additionally, professional backgrounds of the principals were varied and
characterized by experience in educational settings ranging from elementary school to post-
secondary, private business, district administration, and county offices of education as outlined
in Table 4.2.
Teacher participants solicited from both fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms were analyzed
individually, as grade-level participants and as school participants. The number of teachers
depended upon school size and therefore varied per site. Table 4.3 illustrates teacher participants
by grade level and by school.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

70

Table 4.2
Principal Years of Experience
Principal Identifier
Number of years:
School Administration
Number of years:
Elementary Principal
Number of years:
Current Site
A >20 >20 11-15
B >20 >20 16-20
C 1-5 <1 <1
D 6-10 6-10 6-10
E 11-15 11-15 11-15
F 6-10 6-10 6-10
G 6-10 6-10 6-10
H 11-15 11-15 11-15
I >20 11-15 11-15
J >20 6-10 6-10

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

71
Table 4.3
Teacher Participants by School
Principal
Identifier
Number of 4
th
grade
Teacher Participants
Number of 4/5 Combination
Teacher Participants
Number of 5
th
Grade
Teacher Participants
A 4 0 4
B 1 0 2
C 2 n/a 1
D 2 n/a 1
E 2 n/a 1
F 2 1 1
G 0 0 0
H 2 n/a 2
I 2 n/a 2
J 0 n/a 0

Methodology
Instrument
Measurement was conducted via an online survey of both principals and teachers
followed by interview protocol addressing the principals. The researcher designed both
instruments specifically for the purposes of this study. Instrument summaries, described in Table
4.4, provide a synthesis of alignment of sample questions and research literature utilized during
instrument development.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

72
Table 4.4
Instrument Summary
Research Question: What is the elementary principals perceived role as an instructional leader to facilitate
differentiated curriculum to challenge high ability students identified by advanced level scores in Mathematics
and Language Arts on the California Standards Tests?
Instrument Category and Sample Question Sources
Survey Perception: Leadership
Question: Rank the following responsibilities of a principal:
(a) create and communicate a shared vision among staff, (b)
share ideas and cooperate to support alignment of the school
function with purpose, (c) motivate teachers to support a
common vision, (d) address problems in a timely manner,
(e) involve teachers in key decision making, (f) remove
obstacles that impede the teachers ability to meet the needs
of all learners, (g) empower teachers, (h) is responsible in
thought, action and word, (i) assists teachers with
curriculum, instruction and assessment.
Sergiovanni, 1988
Perception: Differentiation/
Principal Expectations: Differentiation
Question: To what degree do you believe in/support the
following principles of differentiated curriculum as defined
by research literature and the GATE standards? (list follows
with responses on a Likert scale. Ex: independent research
project to further understand a given content area)
Tomlinson, 1999
Kaplan, 2009
McTighe & Brown, 2005
Rock, Gregg, Ellis, & Gable, 2008
Brimijoin, 2005
Tomlinson & Jarvis, 2009
CSBE, 2001, rev. 2005
Perception: Student Ability
Question: Students of high-ability (responses measured on a
Likert scale): (a) learn quickly, (b) have specific aptitude,
(c) are curious, (d) are creative, (e) are interested in
problem-solving, (f) are interested in abstract thinking.
Fischer & Rose, 2001
McCoach & Siegle, 2008
Emerick, 1988
Interview
Protocol
Perception: Leadership
Question: What leadership skills are most important to you
that promote student achievement?
Sergiovanni, 1988
Perception: Differentiation/
Principal Expectations: Differentiation
Question: What is your role in providing support for
curricular and instructional design especially in regards to
differentiation?
Tomlinson, 1999
Kaplan, 2009
McTighe & Brown, 2005
Rock, Gregg, Ellis, & Gable, 2008
Brimijoin, 2005
Tomlinson & Jarvis, 2009
CSBE, 2001, rev. 2005
Perception: Student Ability
Question: How would you describe a high ability learner?
Fischer & Rose, 2001
McCoach & Siegle, 2008
Emerick, 1988

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

73

Table 4.4, continued
Research Question: What is the teachers’ perceived role to differentiate curriculum to challenge high ability
students identified by advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts on the California Standards
Tests?
Instrument Measurement Category Sources
Survey Perceived School Norms Via: Leadership
Question: It is important that a principal (responses measured
on a Likert scale): (a) grant teachers autonomy regarding
curricular and instructional decisions, (b) design a checks and
balance system at each grade level regarding curricular and
instructional design, (c) implement and monitor strict
expectations regarding curriculum and instruction at each
grade level.
Sergiovanni, 1988
Perceived School Norms: Differentiation
Perceived Expectations: Differentiation
Question: To what degree do you believe in/implement the
following principles of differentiated curriculum as defined
by research literature and the GATE standards? (list follows
with responses on a Likert scale. Ex: independent research
project to further understand a given content area)
Tomlinson, 1999
Kaplan, 2009
McTighe & Brown, 2005
Rock, Gregg, Ellis, & Gable, 2008
Brimijoin, 2005
Tomlinson & Jarvis, 2009
CSBE, 2001, rev. 2005
Perceived School Norms: Student Ability
Question: Students of high-ability (responses measured on a
Likert scale): (a) learn quickly, (b) have specific aptitude, (c)
are curious, (d) are creative, (e) are interested in problem-
solving, (f) are interested in abstract thinking.
Fischer & Rose, 2001
McCoach & Siegle, 2008
Emerick, 1988

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

74

Table 4.4, continued
Research Question: What are the teachers’ perceptions of their principal as the instructional leader to facilitate the
goal of a differentiated curriculum for high ability students identified by advanced level scores in Mathematics
and Language Arts?
Instrument Measurement Category Sources
Survey Perceived School Norms Via: Leadership
Question: It is important that a principal (rank on Likert
scale always to never): (a) grant teachers autonomy
regarding curricular and instructional decisions, (b) Design
a checks and balance system at each grade level regarding
curricular and instructional design, (c) Implement and
monitor strict expectations regarding curriculum and
instruction at each grade level.
Sergiovanni, 1988
Perceived School Norms: Differentiation
Perceived Expectations: Differentiation
Question: To what degree do you believe your site
principal supports the following principles of differentiated
curriculum as defined by research literature and the GATE
standards? (list follows with responses on a Likert scale.
Ex: independent research project to further understand a
given content area)
Tomlinson, 1999
Kaplan, 2009
McTighe & Brown, 2005
Rock, Gregg, Ellis, & Gable, 2008
Brimijoin, 2005
Tomlinson & Jarvis, 2009
CSBE, 2001, rev. 2005
Perceived School Norms: Student Ability Question:
Students of high-ability (responses measured on a Likert
scale): (a) learn quickly, (b) have specific aptitude, (c) are
curious, (d) are creative, (e) are interested in problem-
solving, (f) are interested in abstract thinking.
Fischer & Rose, 2001
McCoach & Siegle, 2008
Emerick, 1988

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

75
Data Collection
The data collection outlined in Table 4.5 was implemented in two phases. Initially,
surveys were administered to all principals via Survey Monkey. One week later and as a part of
the first phase of discovery, surveys were administered to fourth- and fifth-grade teachers also
via Survey Monkey. Gathering of data from both groups allowed data analysis and comparison
of results across stakeholder groups. Quantitative data analysis was conducted with the
assistance of an outside researcher. SPSS was utilized to analyze and present data. The survey
was comprised of four parts: (a) demographics, (b) perceptions of students’ ability, (c)
perceptions of principal leadership, and (d) responses to examples of differentiation.

Table 4.5
Sequence of Data Collection
Development of Principal and Teacher Survey
Development of Principal Interview Protocol
IRB Approval Process
Pilot Testing of Instruments
Initial Principal Meeting
Distribution of Principal and Teacher Survey
Data Analysis (Survey)
Principal Interviews
Data Analysis (Interviews)

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

76
Following data analysis of survey results, phase two of the investigation utilized a fixed
interview protocol in order to ensure consistency and reliability. The interview protocol
addressed four topics: (a) elaboration on demographics and/or past experience, (b) perceptions of
students’ ability, (c) perceptions of principal leadership, and (d) examples of differentiation. The
interview utilized a standardized open-ended format (Patton, 2002). All interviews were audio-
recorded and transcribed by a service provider. Upon completion of the interviews, the data was
analyzed utilizing Atlas Ti. Coded responses were examined for patterns upon which to draw
conclusions.
Preliminary Analysis
The purpose of this section is to summarize the results of exploratory factor analyses of
both the principal survey and teacher survey, which tested construct validity for each. Factor
analysis is a technique that uncovers patterns among items through an analysis of how well items
relate to each other. Through these patterns, clusters of highly interrelated variables are bound
together in common themes known as factors. Within this research, the application was used in
survey analysis to group large sets of survey item responses into factors, or subscales. According
to Salkind (2008), factor analysis is an appropriate test statistical procedure to examine
relationships between more than two variables. It is important to note that factor analysis
demonstrates construct validity of a scale by assuring that items are grouped into appropriate
factors. A list of all survey items and survey items utilized resulting from the exploratory factor
analysis are included in appendices C, D, E, and F. In addition to a discussion of quantitative
data, this section discusses the categorization of qualitative data.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

77
Exploratory Factor Analysis for Principal Survey
Created by the researcher for the purposes of this study, the survey included 27 items to
measure principal beliefs regarding differentiation (14 items) and principal support of
differentiation (14 items). Additionally, 11 items probed principal perceptions regarding student
ability. After testing for construct validity, three factors were selected. Construct validity, quality
of items, and quality of factors were determined as a result of (a) the exploratory factor analysis,
(b) a test of acceptable loading and no cross loading, and (c) a minimum of at least two items in
each factor. Table 4.6 summarizes the factors by name, number of items, and reliability as
indicated by Cronbach’s a. All three factors demonstrate acceptable to good internal consistency
coefficients (Cronbach’s a > .7).

Table 4.6
Reliability of Three Subscales within Principal Survey
Factor Scale n A
1. Perceived principal support of differentiation 5 .909
2. Perception of student ability 4 .972
3. Beliefs regarding differentiation 2 .888

The three subscales consist of: (a) perceived principal support of differentiation (PPSD),
(b) principal perception of student ability (SA), and (c) principal beliefs regarding differentiation
(BRD). These are respectively factors 1, 2, and 3.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

78
Table 4.7 summarizes the factors, factor loadings, communalities, and reliability statistics.
The selected factors (the first, second, and third factors) represent 28.18%, 17.86%, and 14.80%
of variance.

Table 4.7
Results from Exploratory Factor Analysis of Principal Survey
Factor loadings
Items PPSD SA BRD M SD h2 A
PPSD – 17 A study of the discipline aligned to
the students aptitude such as economics in
mathematics
.939 .093 .099 3.400 .516 .980 .877
PPSD – 18 Delve into historical understandings .955 .169 .094 3.300 .675 .97 .873
PPSD – 19 Studying advanced LA/Mathematics
related to a universal concept
.955 .169 .094 3.300 .675 .97 .873
PPSD – 20 Identifying the
patterns/trends/ethical issues in a mathematics
or language arts study
.892 -.025 .024 3.200 .632 .957 .873
PPSD – 21 Using a program or curriculum that
is advanced for the grade level
.754 -.034 -.099 3.200 .632 .993 .875
SA – 32 Are curious .160 .872 -.113 3.333 .500 .998 .882
SA – 33 Are creative .222 .948 .074 3.222 .4410 .999 .879
SA – 34 Are interested in problem solving .222 .948 .074 3.222 .4410 .999 .879
SA – 35 Are interested in abstract thinking .222 .948 .074 3.222 .4410 .999 .879
BRD – 11 Grouping for all of same ability -.057 .046 .858 2.300 .675 .995 .882
BRD – 12 Asking students of high ability to
teach others
.119 -.033 .965 2.300 .675 .960 .882
Note. Unique factor loading > .60 are in bold. Analysis is based on 10 observations. Principal Survey item scores
range from 1 (Never) to 4 (Always). Internal consistency estimates for Factors 1, 2 and 3 were.909, .972 and .889
respectively. PPSD = perceived principal support of differentiation; SA= perception of student ability; BRD=beliefs
regarding differentiation; Factor 1 = perceived principal support of differentiation; Factor 2 = perception of student
ability; Factor 3= beliefs regarding differentiation; M =Mean; SD =Standard Deviation; h2 = Item communalities at
extraction; α = Cronbach’s alpha coefficient if item deleted.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

79
The first factor, perceived principal support of differentiation, consisted of five items.
The second factor, perception of student ability, included four items. The third factor, beliefs
regarding differentiation, contained two items. Table 4.8 provides a summary of items included
in each factor.

Table 4.8
Principal Survey Items by Factor
Factor Item
Principal perceived support of
differentiation
A study of the discipline aligned to the student aptitude such
as economics in mathematics
Delve into historical understandings
Studying advanced LA/Mathematics related to a universal
concept
Identifying the patterns/trends/ethical issues in a
mathematics or language arts study
Using a program or curriculum that is advanced for the
grade level
Student Ability Are curious
Are creative
Are interested in problem solving
Are interested in abstract thinking
Principal Beliefs Regarding
Differentiation
Grouping by ability
Asking students of high ability to teach others

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

80
Exploratory Factor Analysis for Teacher Survey
The survey contained 53 items for the purposes of soliciting input from a teacher sample.
After examination, factors one, two, five, and eight were selected as valid. These factors
accounted for 26.90%, 11.21%, 7.31% and 4.50% of variance.
The four subscales consist of: (a) teacher perceived principal support of differentiation
(PPSD), (b) perceived implementation of differentiation 1, (c) teacher perception of student
ability (PSA), and (d) perceived implementation of differentiation 2. These are respectively
factors 1, 2, 5, and 8.

Table 4.9
Reliability of Four Subscales within Teacher Survey
Factor Scale n A
1. Teacher perceived principal support of differentiation 7 .949
2. Perceived implementation of differentiation 1 2 .757
5. Perception of Student Ability 2 .955
8. Perceived implementation of differentiation 2 2 .861

Table 4.10 summarizes the factors, factor loadings, communalities, and reliability
statistics.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

81
Table 4.10
Results from Exploratory Factor Analysis of Teacher Survey
Factor Loadings
Items PPSD PID1 PSA PID2 M SD h2 A
PPSD – 29 Independent research project to
further understand a given content area
.900 .004 -.040 .088 3.370 .742 .939 .927
PPSD – 30 A study of the discipline aligned
to the student aptitude such as economics in
mathematics
.924 -.081 .025 .143 3.296 .775 .980 .927
PPSD – 31 Delve into historical
understandings
.786 .223 .034 .019 3.222 .801 .898 .928
PPSD – 32 Studying advanced
LA/Mathematics related to a universal
concept
.793 .295 .160 .051 3.222 .801 .923 .927
PPSD – 33 Identifying the patterns/trends/
ethical issues in a mathematics or language
arts study
.857 .265 .142 .025 3.037 .898 .921 .926
PPSD – 37 Sending to an older room .818 .225 .124 .144 2.815 .921 .931 .929
PPSD – 38 Putting advanced materials in
room
.829 -.135 .140 .176 3.444 .698 .925 .927
PID1 – 17 Delve into historical
understandings
-.077 .806 -.007 .077 2.724 .702 .840 .930
PID1 – 19 Studying advanced
LA/Mathematics related to a universal
concept
.340 .815 .278 .102 2.655 .769 .959 .928
PSA – 50 Are curious .180 .083 .932 -.014 3.28 .468 .991 .930
PSA – 51 Are creative .180 .083 .932 -.014 3.28 .468 .991 .930
PID2 – 15 Independent research project to
further understand a given content area
mathematics
.247 .269 .006 .863 2.655 .721 .945 .930
PID2 – 16 A study of the discipline aligned
to the student aptitude such as economics in
.256 .179 -.025 .806 2.643 .731 .905 .930
Note. Unique factor loading > .60 are in bold. Analysis is based on 28 observations. Teacher Survey item scores
range from 1 (Never) to 4 (Always). Internal consistency estimates for Factors 1, 2, 5 and 8 were .949, .757, .955
and .861 respectively. PPSD = perceived principal support of differentiation; PID 1= perceived implementation of
differentiation1; PSA= perception of student ability; PID 2= perceived implementation of differentiation 2; Factor 1
= perceived principal support of differentiation; Factor 2 = perceived implementation of differentiation1; Factor 5=
perception of student ability; Factor 8 = perceived implementation of differentiation 2 M =Mean; SD =Standard
Deviation; h2 = Item communalities at extraction; α = Cronbach’s alpha coefficient if item deleted.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

82
Items were designed to examine teacher perceptions regarding principal support of
differentiation (7 items), teacher beliefs regarding student ability (2 items) and perceived teacher
implementation of differentiation (4 items). The subscale representing perceived teacher
implementation of differentiation (4 items) was divided into two distinct subscales: perceived
teacher implementation of differentiation 1 (2 items) and perceived teacher implementation of
differentiation 2 (2 items). An illustration of included items is displayed in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11
Teacher Survey Items by Factor
Factor Item
Teacher perceived
principal support of
differentiation
Independent research project to further understand a given content
area
A study of the discipline aligned to the student aptitude such as
economics in mathematics
Delve into historical understandings
Studying advanced LA/Mathematics related to a universal concept
Identifying the patterns/trends/ethical issues in a mathematics or
language arts study
Student Ability Are curious
Are creative
Teacher Perceived
Implementation of
Differentiation 1
Delve into historical understandings
Studying advanced LA/Mathematics related to a universal concept
Teacher Perceived
Implementation of
Differentiation 2
Independent research project to further understand a given content
area
A study of the discipline aligned to the student aptitude such as
economics in mathematics

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

83
Qualitative Data
The purpose of principal interview data was to add perception to data revealed through
quantitative measures. Interview protocol is included in appendix G. Through an examination of
areas of focus, qualitative data provided insight and meaningful elaboration that assisted in the
interpretation of survey results. “Qualitative methods are also the methods of choice in extending
and deepening” (Patton, 2002, p. 194). Upon completion of the interviews, data analysis utilized
Atlas Ti. During open coding, initial categories emerged. Once patterns developed through the
utilization of the software, themes were established and results were selectively labeled and
categorized. The principal participants were purposefully sampled with an n = 10. The addition
of qualitative data to the study was important as “validity, meaningfulness, and insights
generated from qualitative inquiry have more to do with the information richness of the cases
selected and the observational/analytical capabilities of the researcher than with sample size”
(Patton, 2002, p. 245).
Results by Research Question
Research Question 1
The first research question addressed the relationship between the perceived role of the
principal and student achievement. It asked specifically, what is the elementary principals’
perceived role as an instructional leader to facilitate differentiated curriculum to challenge high
ability students identified by advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts on the
California Standards Tests? The principal, as manager of the educational program, bears
tremendous responsibility in ensuring educational efficiency. Although additional factors
encompassing the indirect influence of school leadership are unclear, the literature is replete with
the association between classroom experiences and learning (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008).
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

84
In this section, the principal perception includes the following: (a) leadership, (b) support
of differentiation, (c) student ability, and (d) beliefs regarding differentiation. Upon completion
of statistical measures including (a) scales of reliability discussed in the preliminary analysis
section and (b) descriptive statistics, data showed that the principal participants perceive
elements of a leadership perspective as important to the support of the implementation of a
differentiated curriculum and to their perception of high-achieving students.

Table 4.12
Descriptive Statistics of Principal Variables
Variable Number Minimum Maximum Mean SD
Leadership 10 2.75 3.67 3.17 .28
Beliefs Regarding Differentiation 10 1.00 3.50 2.45 .72
Perceived Principal Support of
Differentiation
10 2.40 4.00 3.28 .58
Perception Regarding Student Ability 9 3.00 4.00 3.25 .43

Principal leadership was measured utilizing a four-point Likert scale with a range defined
by never (1) to always (4). The mean of 3.67 indicates that principal participants perceived their
role of leadership as important close to always. Additionally, (a) beliefs regarding differentiation,
(b) perceived principal support of differentiation, and (c) perception regarding student ability
were measured on a four-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics indicate a high level of
perceived support of differentiation and of student ability. The mean for beliefs regarding
differentiation was lower than the mode and demonstrated a large standard deviation due to the
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

85
results of an outlier. In light of research that indicates that strong principal leadership positively
influences school effectiveness that in turn positively influences student learning (Hallinger &
Heck, 1998), these results necessitate further discussion in the sections to follow.
Principal perception of pedagogical leadership elements.
Table 4.13 summarizes the results pertaining to principals as a group regarding the
pedagogical leadership construct. Appendix I displays individual principal responses.

Table 4.13
Principal Pedagogical Leadership Item Rankings
Survey Items
Principal Average
Weights*
Create and communicate a shared vision among staff 7.80
Share ideas and cooperate to support alignment of the school function
with purpose
4.20
Motivate teachers to support a common vision 4.40
Address problems in a timely manner 5.20
Involve teachers in key decision making 5.20
Remove obstacles that impede the teachers ability to meet the needs of
all learners
5.40
Empower teachers 5.60
Is responsible in thought, action and word 4.20
Assists teachers with curriculum, instruction and assessment 3.00
Note: *Average weights indicate average importance to the principal with a higher number translating to a higher
level of importance. Individual principal rankings are displayed in Appendix B.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

86
Survey items relied upon the theoretical framework of pedagogical leadership
(Sergiovanni, 1998), discussed in depth in Chapter 2. Findings indicate that vision is highly
valued by principal participants. Sixty percent of principals ranked “create and communicate a
shared vision among staff” as most important. Visionary leaders have the ability to provide
insight and bring followers through a transformation (Senge, 1990a). To illuminate quantitative
data, qualitative measures were employed in a principal interview. Visions varied in purpose, but
all embraced a child-centered philosophy. Principal responses regarding their vision included:
• “We do things in waves that connect to each other. The first five years, we did a lot of
character development and differentiation. We were looking at ‘How do we include
every child in the learning experience?’ Then, we moved to the integration of
technology.”
• “The biggest and major focus of our vision is to help every child succeed.”
• “Looking at our vision, our whole target is to help every child maximize their
potential and provide a learning environment that celebrates the diversity that we
have amongst us and capitalize upon that diversity and help us grow. We all share
that vision. We revisit it at different times and through different aspects, but we
always take a look at it.”
• “My mantra is that every face belongs to every one of us.”
A theme of belief and buy-in presented itself through a process of open coding:
• “Anything imposed isn’t going to work. They have to believe in it.”
• The most important part of leadership in embracing a vision with the staff is “making
[my vision] their vision.”
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

87
• “You have to have buy-in. There have to be some common denominators. It’s good to
hear all perspectives and to be able to reach consensus to not only know what the
requirements are and where we want to go today, but to really kind of look forward to
be forward thinking.”
• “I really feel like as a principal I have maybe a broad direction where we should be
moving, but you need buy-in. Teachers have to feel like they’re a part of the process
in creating a vision.”
A culture of trust and collaboration also surfaced as important to the vision:
• “There’s a trust…. If they understand what we’re all doing, then you build that trust
and you build an environment that’s built around that trust and that door always stays
open.”
• “It is going to be something that we do together. We are going to work together
collaboratively. We are going to build on the things that are working.”
• “When I first came here, we did get together and make a vision and mission
statement…Each year we pick a couple of new things to do and try not to do too
much new.”
• “It’s not my job to implement the vision, it’s my job to support them to implement the
vision.”
Creating an atmosphere of trust and collaboration affords teachers the opportunity to
participate within their own organization. Principal participants categorized “empower teachers”
as the second most important leadership element, echoing the sentiments of Sergiovanni (1998)
in the findings that school improvement is supported by creating conditions that motivate
teachers to collaborate and work toward a unified goal. Pedagogical leadership, derived from a
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

88
transformational leadership perspective, focuses on the ability of human capital to enrich student
achievement (Sergiovanni, 1998). Elements set forth by the framework were addressed in a nine-
point scale ranging from least important (1) to most important (9). It is well established in the
field that goals are one of the largest predictors of school outcomes (Goldring & Pasternack,
1994; Witziers et al., 2003).
Principal responses included:
• “There is not any problem that we can’t solve together, but they have to be part of the
solution.”
• “[The leadership group] gives [teachers] empowerment. It gives them a feeling that
they’re making part of that decision and it’s their job. Here’s where the accountability
factor comes in. It’s their job to either question or debate or whatever during that
leadership conversation and then to make sure that happens with the people that they
are responsible for at each grade level…. You have to be a part of the team. This is a
part of what I expect.”
• “I know that all of my staff are professionals. They all have the same, if not more,
training than I’ve had and I want to give them the autonomy to say, “You do what
you need to do to get the job done.”
• “You put a bunch of teachers with master’s degrees who are really intuitive and
vested in their children in a room, and you let them fight it out. They figure out where
the pieces are missing. The problem with visions is sometimes that you know where
your end goal is, but you’re not paving the road. You must let the people that are on
the road drive.”
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

89
• “Different teachers bring different areas of interest and expertise. That doesn’t mean
one teacher is better than another. If you bring everybody to a table and you have the
conversation about how the students are achieving and what challenges we face, then
we’re able to share these colleagues’ practices that we have found to be effective and
practices that we have found to be ineffective. We learn from one another.”
• “We talked about it at the beginning and said, ‘What’s the difference between
collaboration and show and tell?’”
• “We do it together and do it as a team…. That’s been more my style within the last
few years: helping to empower and to capitalize on the talent that I’ve got here.”
Least important to the principal participants was “assists teachers with curriculum,
instruction and assessment.” Hallinger and Heck (1998) contend that the role of the principal to
student achievement is indirect. Transformational leadership lacks a focus on instruction and
curriculum (Marks & Printy, 2003), but focuses on inspiring others to do more than necessary for
the greater good (Northouse, 2010).
Principal perceptions regarding their role in supporting curriculum, instruction and
assessment were characterized by modeling, collaboration, and facilitation, which are
characteristics that fall more in line with empowering teachers than it does with supervision or
management. These results are evidenced by the following:
• “I do believe that we should be doing everything we ask our staff to do and our
faculty to do so I’ll model lessons.”
• “Right now I have every teacher spending at least two hours in another teacher’s
classroom.”
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

90
• “I highlight different people who are doing different things and allow them the
opportunity to explain what they are doing, and then we have the discussion: what
would that look like [at your grade level]?”
• “There are a lot of people that love to share. That’s important to me, especially if here
I have someone who is struggling. I’m going to get them some time so they can go
observe.”
• “Facilitate the knowledge. Try to find time for people to really delve into it, to take a
good look at it. It’s also really more of an awareness.”
• “Facilitator. Plain and simple.”
Results also included responses focused on removing obstacles, a management element
that is also a part of the pedagogical leadership construct.
• “My biggest thing is removing obstacles.” “If they need some prep time, then I need
to get out and I need to cover their class.”
• “My biggest thing is to get out of their way. If I’ve learned nothing in the years that
I’ve been in this job, it’s to listen to what they have to say, try and get it for them, and
then get out of their way and let them play and let them go. The most exciting and
creative things come out.”

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

91
Principal beliefs regarding differentiation.
Table 4.14 illustrates results related to principal beliefs.

Table 4.14
Principal Beliefs Regarding Differentiation
Always Frequently Rarely Never
n % n % n % n %
Grouping for all of same ability 0 0% 4 40% 5 50% 1 10%
Asking students of high ability to
teach others not at the same grade
1 10% 5 50% 3 30% 1 10%

The data reveals inconsistent beliefs regarding differentiation across school sites. Forty
percent of principal participants indicated that their beliefs regarding differentiation embrace the
grouping of all students of the same ability frequently. Concurrently, 50% of principal
participants indicated beliefs regarding differentiation rarely and 10% indicating never. Asking
students of high ability to teach others not at the same grade was characterized by 60% in the
always to frequent range and 40% in the rarely to never range.
Principals were asked about their beliefs regarding a differentiated curriculum. The
following responses provide insight into their views:
• “If you don’t teach a child at his abilities, then you’re creating all kinds of different
problems.”
• “Differentiation is not something that’s new to a teacher, a good teacher, a teacher
who understands.”
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

92
• “The ones doing the work are the ones doing the learning.”
• “I know effective instructional strategies. I don’t care what level you’re at, whether
it’s kindergarten or fifth grade, the same principles or strategies will work regardless
of what level you’re at.”
• “Everybody learns best by invitation.”
• “See a need, fill a need. Every child belongs to every one of us.”
• “Good teaching is good teaching. You use those effective instructional approaches.
How you differentiate the nature of the curriculum itself and what you’re assigning to
the children. When you’re using good and effective instructional tools and strategies
it’s regardless of the label of the child.”
• “I ask my staff ‘How are we preparing our students for that world?’…. The vision for
us is that we want all of our students to be able to function in critical thinking.”
• “Differentiation of instruction includes every child in the learning experience.”
• “We’ve got bright kids. There’s not question here, but sometimes you get a
youngster, where trying to figure out how they learn is just a little bit different from
the usual. We do that through differentiated instruction.”
A commitment from principals is essential to the success of the implementation of
change efforts if the efforts are to be successfully maintained (Darling-Hammond &
McLaughlin, 1999). The underlying beliefs must be developed in concert with the practical
application of addressing student needs (Kaplan, 2004b). Principals were asked about
differentiation on their campuses. They gave the following responses:
• “Some of our kids are actually leaving their classroom and going into another
classroom because they’ve tested out…they’ve had multiple measures to prove that
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

93
they know everything there is about that, I’m going to say second-grade math book,
that they truly belong in third grade [math].”
• “Collaboration has to go deeper than that. It’s not just the what, but the how.”
• “Classrooms are set up based on a model that says that you have clusters in your
classrooms...The teacher can regroup these kids often.”
• “I want to give kids, just like my teachers, the opportunity to experiment and try
things different ways until they come to a discovery.”
• “The teacher will come up with choices for the student that meets maybe their life
core or forte.”
• “I do have a common belief system about how kids best learn and really effective
ways of teaching. I also learned very quickly when I observed my teachers that there
were a lot of different styles and a lot of different ways to reach the same goal.”
• “Here is how they changed to what I felt was a fidelity program. The week teachers
are teaching the standard regarding antonyms and synonyms, every child got
antonyms and synonyms. The child in the retention group learned what it was…the
high group was using them in a writing paragraph.…Then they took these groups, and
every time they started a new standard, they switched who was teaching which
group.”
• “A differentiated requirement in terms of what the child’s to do with that information
or a challenge activity. If a child has already completed successfully what the lesson
requirements were, give them an opportunity to go above and beyond, or if really
they’ve already mastered that skill or concept to begin with, they would have had an
alternate activity. Not alternate that it was completely different topic, but really going
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

94
into the depth and complexity. They should be getting a deeper understanding of what
the material is.”
• “Our learning center is such a pivotal piece of this whole thing, because when
teachers are struggling with how, looking for a strategy to meet a child’s needs, with
a high-achieving kid or low-achieving student, they often seek the resources of the
learning center.”
• “I’m much more interested in what the teachers are saying rather than looking at a
three-minute assessment.”
Principal perception of support of differentiation.
The data reported in Table 4.15 summarizes principal perception of support for
differentiation.

Table 4.15
Principal Perceived Support of Differentiation
Always Frequently Rarely Never
n % n % n % n %
A study of the discipline aligned to the
student aptitude such as economics in
mathematics
4 40% 6 60% 0 0% 0 0%
Delve into historical understandings 4 40% 5 50% 1 10% 0 0%
Studying advanced LA/Mathematics
related to a universal concept
4 40% 5 50% 1 10% 0 0%
Identifying the patterns/trends/ethical
issues in a mathematics or language
arts study
3 30% 6 60% 1 10% 0 0%
Using a program or curriculum that is
advanced for the grade level
3 30% 6 60% 1 10% 0 0%
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

95
The findings indicate that principals perceive they provide a high level of support for
differentiation. Eighty percent of principals indicated they support differentiation frequently or
always. In examining the findings in more detail, it is of importance to note that one principal’s
responses indicate a rare support of differentiation for 75% of items included on the survey.
Principals were asked to describe their role in supporting the implementation of
differentiation:
• “As a leader, my job is to support at all costs and to model [support]…that I’m
always there for them.”
• The responsibility for the learning of each student “is a mandate…. For the mandate
programs…I’m going to be doing it with you.”
• “My role is to give them the tools that they need, give them the freedom they need to
make sure students are meeting those standards and are getting those things in the
way that they need. Then, to give them the support that they go and they do things
beyond that to create those students that they want who are capable of doing well on
the tests, but who also are well-rounded.”
• “I want them to know ‘Wow. That lesson bombed. I better redo it so that it’s effective
and that it works.’”
• “Not all teachers agree on how they want support. They’re comfortable with different
styles…. I am not a real hands-on principal with the day-to-day activities of the
classroom.”
• “Being a change agent, you bring a deliberate schedule to change, and you bring
information to change. People have to know exactly what’s going to happen and
when it’s going to happen.”
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

96
• “We review student progress during a full release day once per trimester and then the
teachers take the rest of the day to plan within their grade level.”
• “I’m able to come in and say, ‘there’s too many balloons in the air. Let’s grab two of
them. Let’s grab collaboration and critical thinking, and let’s just work on those two
this year and really focus on those two in our lesson planning and in our staff
development.’ Then, it’s up them actually.”
• “Assessments are critical to telling us how these kids fall out.”
• “I get out of the way and let teachers perform their craft.”
Successful implementation of differentiation is largely contingent upon an appropriate
level of support for teachers (Tomlinson, 1999). Principals must inspire teachers in order to
impact instruction (Quinn, 2002). The indirect effects of a principal are critical to supporting
strong instructional practice (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008).
Principal perception of student ability.
Data regarding student ability reveals strong alignment among principals defining
students of high ability. One hundred percent of the participants answered either frequently or
always on the perception of student ability scale. Principals perceived students of high ability as
(a) curious, (b) creative, (c) interested in problem solving, and (d) interested in abstract thinking
always to often. Additionally 100% of principals indicated that students of high ability (a) learn
quickly, and (b) have specific aptitude always to often. However, these items did not exhibit
strong internal reliability; therefore, further exploration is required.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

97
Table 4.16
Principal Perception of Student Ability
Always Frequently Rarely Never
n % n % n % n %
Are curious 3 33.33% 6 66.67% 0 0% 0 0%
Are creative 2 22.22% 7 77.78% 0 0% 0 0%
Are interested in problem-
solving
2 22.22% 7 77.78% 0 0% 0 0%
Are interested in abstract
thinking
2 22.22% 7 77.78% 0 0% 0 0%

It is important to discuss the relationship of these results in comparison to what the data
revealed regarding the most important role of a teacher in current society. Principals were asked
to respond on a Likert scale from always to never, indicating the most important areas of teacher
cognizance: (a) test preparation, (b) conceptual knowledge, (c) enrichment opportunities, (d)
higher level thinking skills, and (e) independent study. Principals indicated that higher level
thinking skills were most important, followed closely by conceptual knowledge. Principals
viewed enrichment opportunities and independent study as moderately important, with test
preparation ranked as rarely important.
These results echo the complexity involved within the measurement of student
achievement, including student characteristics, school-level factors, and teacher-level factors
(Miller, 2003). Additionally, results reveal a support of higher-level processes and
metacognition that support learners of all levels (Fisher & Rose, 2001).
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

98
Interview data highlights principal thoughts regarding high-ability learners and GATE:
• “I don’t think whether someone is tagged GATE or not really changes how a teacher
looks at them.”
• “That’s a hard question for me because we don’t identify GATE kids the way we
should.”
• “Most truly brilliant minds are selectively brilliant, because they don’t choose to be
brilliant in everything. We tend to want to box these kids up and only offer the
programs that we can offer, and that’s a misnomer.”
• “Inquisitive, creative, focused, narrow, underachieving, overachieving.”
• “They think outside the box. They actually challenge the most commonly accepted
ideas.”
• “A child who’s advanced today may not be advanced tomorrow as they conquer new
curriculum.”
• “We’ve got two types; we’ve got the typical GATE kid who doesn’t look like a high-
achiever and is just naturally gifted and is extremely knowledgeable about a particular
area and is thinking outside the box. Then, you’ve got the high-achieving student who
works very hard to stay at a higher level and is looking always for a way to meet the
teacher’s expectations and go a little bit beyond. There is truly a difference because
some of your GATE kids are not your high achieving kids.”
Additionally, some principals offered their perspective regarding testing:
• “To me, recognizing the high achiever, we just can’t be looking for the high-
achieving reading student or math student or science student, but we’re looking for
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

99
those other things and giving the teachers the opportunity and the wherewithal, and
providing the instruments for it, to say that’s part of what we do.”
• “I am competitive enough that I do not want our scores to be low, but at the same
time I constantly remind them that all of us, and most importantly me, we are here for
kids, we are here for children to become better citizens, that all of this other stuff kind
of floats around us, but that if we stay the course and we build relationships with
children and we challenge them at the same time we support them that we will have
the test scores that we need, but we will also have the well-rounded child.”
• “There’s so much more than just paper and pencil tests that will show that a child is
making achievement and making progress. We do [test] preparation but I don’t like
that philosophy of we’re teaching to the test.”
• “To me, it’s heartbreaking that the bar is not very high for proficient and advanced
and that’s where our kids begin and they need to be able to fly.”
Summary of results: research question one.
The intent of the first research question was to explore the relationship between the
perceived role of the principal and student achievement. The first research question asked
specifically, what is the elementary principals’ perceived role as an instructional leader in
facilitating differentiated curriculum to challenge high-ability students identified by advanced
level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts on the California Standards Tests? Data
indicated that the principal’s perception of leadership influences the implementation of a
differentiated curriculum through the (a) utilization of a vision and the (b) empowerment of
teachers. Additionally, direct support of curriculum and instruction is not highly valued and is
instead seen as a function of the teacher community. The second finding, related to principal
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

100
beliefs regarding differentiation, indicated that there was variation across school sites. The third
and final finding related to research question 1 illustrated that perceptions of student ability were
high overall, as were the value for teaching to support higher-order thinking skills and teaching
conceptual knowledge. Implications of these results are further discussed in the discussion of
findings section.
Research Question 2
The second research question addressed the relationship between the perceived role of the
teacher and the implementation of a differentiated curriculum. It asked specifically, what is the
teachers’ perceived role to differentiate curriculum to challenge high ability students identified
by advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts on the California Standards Tests?
A vast body of research demonstrates that what happens in the classroom has great impact on
how much students learn. According to Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995), teaching
behaviors must vary with circumstances and student need. Differentiation has been empirically
connected to desirable effects (Goddard et al., 2007; Goddard et al., 2010). In this section, the
teacher perception of the following is presented: (a) student ability, and (b) implementation of
differentiation.
Perceived implementation of differentiation 1, perceived implementation of
differentiation 2, and perception regarding student ability were measured utilizing a four point
Likert scale. Perceived implementation of differentiation 1 is characterized by a mean of 2.69
with a range of 1.50-4.00 indicating that teacher respondents possess a noteworthy range in
implementation. Additionally, perceived implementation of differentiation 2 is characterized by a
mean of 2.64 with a range of 1.00-4.00 with again a substantial range in implementation. Student
ability regarding curiosity and creativity is seen as a common characteristic frequently to always,
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

101
as revealed by a mean of 3.26 utilizing reliable and valid items. The small range of responses and
standard deviation indicate little variation from the frequent to always responses regarding
characteristics of high ability learners. These descriptive results merit further discussion within
the section to follow.

Table 4.17
Descriptive Statistics of Teacher Variables
Variable Number Minimum Maximum Mean SD
Perceived Implementation of
Differentiation 1
29 1.50 4.00 2.69 .66
Perceived Implementation of
Differentiation 2
29 1.00 4.00 2.64 .68
Perception Regarding Student Ability 29 3.00 4.00 3.26 .44

Teacher perception of implementation of a differentiated curriculum.
Table 4.18 highlights a significantly wide range in the implementation of differentiation
across teacher participants.
Perceived implementation of differentiation 1 is characterized by close to frequent
implementation of (a) delve into historical understandings and (b) studying advanced
LA/Mathematics related to a universal concept. The implementation of differentiation is
characterized by 41% of teachers who responded frequently or always, however the remainder of
responses fall into the rarely and never range.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

102
Table 4.18
Teacher Perceived Implementation of Differentiation 1
Always Frequently Rarely Never
n % n % n % n %
Delve into historical
understandings
4 13.79% 13 44.83% 12 41.38% 0 0%
Studying advanced
LA/Mathematics related to a
universal concept
2 7.14% 11 39.29% 13 46.43% 2 7.14%

Additional items assessed the implementation of differentiation and also revealed a
significant range in the implementation of differentiation across teacher participants. Perceived
implementation of differentiation 2 is characterized by close to frequent implementation of (a)
independent research project to understand further a given content area, and (b) a study of the
discipline aligned to the students’ aptitude such as economics in mathematics. Fifty-eight percent
of teacher respondents answered frequently or always. The implementation of differentiation is
characterized by a majority of teachers who responded frequently or always, however the
remainder of responses fall into the rarely and never range.
These results support evidence in the literature regarding implementation. Conventional
models of implementation offer various explanations regarding the gap that often exists between
conceptualization versus implementation. Obstacles within the process are commonly based on
unclear expectations, policy ambiguity, and/or conflicting interest. Fidelity of implementation
may be sacrificed as the result of a lack of understanding in how to connect knowledge with
application (Spillane et al., 2002). Partial implementations may not adhere to fidelity, but rather
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

103
may meet the needs of a simple checklist. Additionally, values and emotions are an important
part of the implementation process. (Spillane et al., 2002).

Table 4.19
Teacher Perceived Implementation of Differentiation 2
Always Frequently Rarely Never
n % n % n % n %
Independent research
project to further understand
a given content area
3 10.34% 14 48.28% 11 39.29% 1 3.57%
A study of the discipline
aligned to the student
aptitude such as economics
in mathematics
1 3.57% 19 67.86% 5 17.86% 3 10.34%

Teacher perception of student ability.
All teacher respondents (100%) answered frequently or always regarding student ability.
It is valuable to discuss the relationship of these results in comparison to what the data revealed
regarding the most important role of a teacher in current society. Teachers were asked to respond
on a Likert scale from always to never, indicating the most important areas of their cognizance:
(a) test preparation, (b) conceptual knowledge, (c) enrichment opportunities, (d) higher level
thinking skills, and (e) independent study. Teachers results varied per school site; however,
overall higher level thinking skills and conceptual knowledge ranked first in importance, while
test preparation ranked overall as least important. In examining the disaggregated data, results
indicated that teachers at two school sites embraced test preparation as the second most
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

104
important factor. The first site is the highest performing school as indicated by API; the second
site is the lowest performing school as indicated by API.

Table 4.20
Teacher Perception of Student Ability
Always Frequently Rarely Never
n % n % n % n %
Are curious 8 27.59% 21 72.41% 0 0% 0 0%
Are creative 7 24.14% 22 75.86% 0 0% 0 0%

These results echo the sentiments of the principal respondents, but indicated that several
teachers are more dedicated to test preparation than others. These results indicate the complexity
involved within the measurement of student achievement including student characteristics,
school-level factors, and teacher-level factors (Miller, 2003). While committed to a support of
higher-level processes and metacognition that support learners of all levels (Fisher & Rose,
2001), teachers are also aware of a system of accountability that is rooted in compliance and
outcomes (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003).
Summary of results: research question two.
The intent of the second research question was to explore the relationship between the
perceived role of the teacher and the implementation of a differentiated curriculum. It asked
specifically, what is the teachers’ perceived role in differentiating curriculum to challenge high-
ability students identified by advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts on the
California Standards Tests? Results indicate that the perceived implementation of differentiation
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

105
by teachers was varied across school sites. Additionally, the implementation of differentiated
elements encouraged the implementation of additional elements. Consistent with principal results,
perceptions of student ability were high overall, as were the value to teaching to support higher-
order thinking skills and teaching conceptual knowledge. Implications of these results are further
discussed in the discussion of findings.
Research Question 3
The third research question addressed the perceived relationship between the teacher and
the principal as an instructional leader. It asked specifically, what are the teachers’ perceptions of
their principal as the instructional leader to facilitate differentiated curriculum for high ability
students identified by advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts? The literature is
replete with a demonstrated association between classroom experiences and learning; however,
the influence of leadership is quite unclear (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). The relationship
between principal leadership and student achievement is difficult to measure and offer empirical
authentication (Hallinger & Heck, 1996). Strong principal leadership positively influences school
effectiveness, which in turn positively influences student learning (Hallinger & Heck, 1996). In
this section, the teacher perception of the following is presented: (a) leadership, (b) principal
support of differentiation, and (c) student ability. The section begins with a presentation of
descriptive statistics followed by a discussion of (a) teacher perception regarding leadership, and
(b) teacher perception regarding principal support of differentiation. Finally, a presentation of
correlational relationships is discussed.
This study measured teacher perception of leadership and teacher perception of principal
support of differentiation utilizing a four-point Likert scale described in Table 4.21. The mean of
2.90 regarding principal leadership indicates that teacher participants perceived the importance
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

106
of the role of the principal as important, but less so than the principals’ own perception. A mean
of 3.21 regarding principal support of differentiation reveals a strong perception of support, but a
somewhat large standard deviation merits further analysis. A more detailed discussion is within
the section to follow.

Table 4.21
Descriptive Statistics of Teacher Variables Regarding Principal
Variable Number Minimum Maximum Mean SD
Leadership 31 2.14 3.67 2.90 .32
Perceived Principal Support of
Differentiation
28 1.50 4.00 3.21 .69

Teacher perception of pedagogical leadership elements.
Pedagogical leadership is collaborative (Male & Palaiologou, 2012) and relies upon
purposing, maintaining harmony, institutionalizing values, motivating, problem solving,
managing, explaining, enabling, modeling, and supervising. Table 4.22 summarizes the results
pertaining to the pedagogical leadership construct for the teachers as a group. School site results
are displayed in Appendix H.
Survey items relied upon the theoretical framework of pedagogical leadership
(Sergiovanni, 1998) discussed in depth in Chapter 2. Results indicate that vision is highly valued
by teacher participants. Sixty percent of principals ranked “create and communicate a shared
vision among staff” as most important. Visionary leaders have the ability to provide insight and
to bring followers through a transformation (Senge, 1990a).
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

107
Table 4.22
Teacher Pedagogical Leadership Item Rankings
Survey Items
Teacher Average
Weights*
Create and communicate a shared vision among staff 6.75
Share ideas and cooperate to support alignment of the school function
with purpose
5.05
Motivate teachers to support a common vision 5.01
Address problems in a timely manner 5.13
Involve teachers in key decision making 5.92
Remove obstacles that impede the teachers ability to meet the needs of all
learners
4.71
Empower teachers 5.30
Is responsible in thought, action and word 5.18
Assists teachers with curriculum, instruction and assessment 1.95
Note: *Average weights indicate average importance to the teacher with a higher number translating to a higher
level of importance. Appendix A displays weighted averages by site.

“Involve teachers in key decision making” was categorized as the second most important
leadership element by teacher participants echoing the sentiments of Sergiovanni (1998) in the
findings that school improvement is supported by creating conditions that motivate teachers to
collaborate and work toward a unified goal.
Least important to the teacher participants was “assists teachers with curriculum,
instruction and assessment.” Hallinger and Heck (1998) contend that the role of the principal to
student achievement is indirect. Transformational leadership lacks a focus on instruction and
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

108
curriculum (Marks & Printy, 2003), but focuses on inspiring others to do more than necessary for
the greater good (Northouse, 2010).
Teachers identified creating and communicating a shared vision among staff as the
second most important factor of the pedagogical leadership construct with a weighted average of
6.75 on a scale of 9. These results closely compared to the results of the principals, as illustrated
in Figure 4.1. Through building a vision, leaders unite stakeholders by building an understanding
of the purpose of the institution (Sergiovanni, 1998).

Figure 4.1. Principal and teacher rankings indicating importance of vision

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Principal
Teachers
Principal
Teachers
Principal
Teachers
Principal
Teachers
Principal
Teachers
Principal
Teachers
Principal
Teachers
Principal
Teachers
A A B B C C D D E E F F H H I I
Create and communicate a shared vision
among staff
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

109
An element of pedagogical leadership, empowering teachers unites stakeholders and
builds understanding of the purpose of the school (Sergiovanni, 1998). Empowering teachers
ranked as the second most important leadership factor among site principals. Empowering
teachers, as illustrated in Figure 4.2, and involving teachers in key decision making, as illustrated
in Figure 4.3, both contribute data to the same measure.

Figure 4.2. Principal and teacher rankings indicating importance of teacher empowerment

Upon analysis of the data, teachers indicated that the most valued element of principal
responsibility is to involve teachers in key decision-making. This item, like empowering
teachers, also unites stakeholders and builds understanding of the purpose of the school
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Principal
Teachers
Principal
Teachers
Principal
Teachers
Principal
Teachers
Principal
Teachers
Principal
Teachers
Principal
Teachers
Principal
Teachers
A A B B C C D D E E F F H H I I
Empower teachers
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

110
(Sergiovanni, 1998). Figure 4.3 illustrates the results of teachers and principals, as they both
embraced this form of pedagogical leadership as important.

Figure 4.3. Principal and teacher rankings indicating importance of teacher involvement

As it pertains to research question 3, teachers identified assisting teachers with
curriculum, instruction, and assessment as the least important factor of the construct with a
weighted average of 1.95 on a scale of 9. Figure 4.4 illustrates principal and teacher reactions to
this element of pedagogical leadership on each school campus. Through assisting teachers with
curriculum, instruction and assessment, a leader builds professional capital by involving teachers
in the progress of student learning in addition to connecting with stakeholders to identify needs
and provide support where needed (Sergiovanni, 1998).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Involve teachers in key decision making
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

111

Figure 4.4. Principal and teacher rankings indicating importance of direct instructional assistance

Schoolwide norms are established as the result of “cultural linkages” that create
conditions by which teachers devote themselves to shared goals and loyalty (Leitner, 1994, p.
223). Enabling these norms to permeate instructional strategy and teacher behavior is a
combination of “structural linkages” and “interpersonal linkages” that support interrelatedness
and the ability to utilize resources (Leitner, 1994, p. 224). As a result, the importance of shared
vision and systematic thinking is critical (Senge, 1990a).
Teachers perceive their principals as supporting the implementation of differentiation
frequently to always as illustrated in Table 4.23. Sixty-five percent of teacher participants
answered frequently or always. The literature is rich in findings that teachers engage students in
a relatively narrow range of instruction (Berliner, 1986; Goodlad, 1977). The district must
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Principal
Teachers
Principal
Teachers
Principal
Teachers
Principal
Teachers
Principal
Teachers
Principal
Teachers
Principal
Teachers
Principal
Teachers
A A B B C C D D E E F F H H I I
Assists teachers with curriculum, instruction
and assessment
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

112
specifically define academic rigor in order to go beyond NCLB’s default definition (Kaplan,
2004b). Successful implementation of differentiation is largely contingent upon an appropriate
level of support for teachers (Tomlinson, 1999b). A commitment from principals is essential to
the success of the implementation of change efforts if the efforts are to be successfully
maintained (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1999).

Table 4.23
Teacher Perceived Principal Support of Differentiation
Always Frequently Rarely Never
n % n % n % n %
Independent research project
to further understand a given
content area
15 55.56% 9 33.33% 3 11.11% 0 0%
A study of the discipline
aligned to the student aptitude
such as economics in
mathematics
13 48.15% 9 33.33% 5 18.52 0 0%
Delve into historical
understandings
12 44.44% 9 33.33% 6 22.22% 0 0%
Studying advanced
LA/Mathematics related to a
universal concept
12 44.44% 9 33.33% 6 22.22% 0 0%
Identifying the
patterns/trends/ethical issues
in a mathematics or language
arts study
10 37.04% 9 33.33% 7 25.93% 1 3.70%

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

113
Summary of results: research question 3.
The intent of the third research question was to explore the perceived relationship
between the teacher and the principal as an instructional leader. It asked specifically, what are
the teachers’ perceptions of their principal as the instructional leader in facilitating differentiated
curriculum for high-ability students identified by advanced level scores in Mathematics and
Language Arts? Results indicate that teachers embrace (a) vision, and (b) the involvement of
teachers in decision-making. These results support a pedagogical leadership perspective.
Consistent with principal results, the teacher sample did not value principal assistance with
curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Additionally, results indicate that teachers perceive
principals as supporting the implementation of a differentiated curriculum. Implications of these
results are further discussed in the discussion of findings.
Cumulative Results
Correlational data.
In examining correlational data between measured variables, several results were of note.
Table 4.24 provides a summary of the means, standard deviations, and correlations of
principal variables, teacher variables, and principal and teacher variables. Results revealed
patterns that pertain to the perception of the teacher and the principal as leader. Relationships
between principal and teacher variables were examined via Pearson Product Correlations.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

114
Table 4.24
Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations for Measured Variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. PLeadership 3.25 .25 --- .26 .57** .15 .20 -.08 .15 -.24 .41**
2. PPPSD 3.36 .48 --- .57** .28 .04 .30 -.02 -.15 .16
3. PP Student
Ability
3.42 .48 --- -.05 -.03 .02 -.03 -.36 .19
4. PBRD 2.59 .54 --- -.13 .29 .07 .35 -.04
5. TLeadership 2.90 .32 --- .44* .51** .14 .53**
6. TPPSD 3.21 .69 --- .29 .31 .38**
7. TPID 1 2.69 .66 --- .35 .40**
8. TP Student
Ability
3.26 .44 --- .15
9 TPID 2 2.64 .68 ---
Note. PLeadership = Principal Leadership; PPPSD = Principal Perceived Principal Support of Differentiation; PP
Student Ability = Principal Perception of Student Ability; PBRD = Principal Belief Regarding Differentiation;
TLeadership = Teacher Leadership; TPPSD = Teacher Perceived Principal Support of Differentiation; TPID 1 =
Teacher Perceived Implementation Differentiation 1; TP Student Ability = Teacher Perception of Student Ability;
TPID 2 = Teacher Perceived Implementation Differentiation
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Principal perception of leadership and the teachers’ perceived implementation of
differentiation were also significantly related, r = .41, p < .01, as illustrated in Figure 4.5. These
results support the research regarding the importance of the role of the principal in the
implementation of differentiation (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1999).

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

115

Figure 4.5. Principal perception of leadership and the perceived teacher implementation of
differentiation

As illustrated in Figure 4.6, teacher perception of principal leadership had significant
correlations to teacher’s perceived implementation of differentiation 1, r = .51, p < .01, and
teacher’s perceived implementation of differentiation 2, r = .53, p< .01. These results support
the data gathered in research questions one and three that reveal a high value for the creation and
communication of a shared vision and highly valuing the role of the teacher through
empowerment and input. These results are supported in the literature within a pedagogical
framework that is transformational by nature, and where leadership and knowledge are co-
constructed (Male & Palaiologou, 2012).

Figure 4.6. Teacher perception of leadership, teacher perception of principal support, and the
perceived teacher implementation of differentiation

Principal
Perception of
Leadership
Perceived
Teacher
Implementation
of
Differentiation
Teacher
Perception of
Principal
Leadership
Teacher
Perception of
Principal
Support
Perceived
Teacher
Implementation
of
Differentiation
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

116
The teachers’ perception of principal leadership had significant correlations to teachers’
perceived principal support of differentiation 2, r = .44, p < .01, Teachers’ perceived principal
support of differentiation related to teacher’s perceived implementation of differentiation 2, r
= .40, p < .05. These results are supported by the literature, which supports a commitment from
principals as essential to the success of the implementation of change efforts (Darling-Hammond
& McLaughlin, 1999) and specifically to the implementation of differentiation that is largely
contingent upon an appropriate level of support for teachers (Tomlinson, 1999b).
Additionally, principals’ perceived support of differentiation related to principal
perception of student ability, r = .57, p < .01, as illustrated in Figure 4.7. This finding indicates
that principals associate differentiation as responsive to the curricular and instructional needs of
high-achieving learners. Literature in the field of gifted education regarding differentiation
supports these results in describing differentiation as a framework by which to deliver quality
and effective curriculum to all students (Tomlinson, 1999a) and addressing variance in all
learners (Kaplan, 2009).

Figure 4.7. Principal perception of support and the principal perception of student ability

Principal
Perception of
Support of
Differentiation
Principal
Perception of
Student Ability
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

117
Summary of cumulative results.
The intent of the section, which focuses on additional important results, was to present
correlational data that establishes relationships within all three research questions and is derived
from quantitative data. Results indicate that significant, positive correlations exist at a moderate
strength between the following relationships: (a) principal perception of leadership and the
teachers’ perceived implementation of differentiation, (b) teacher perception of principal
leadership and teachers’ perceived implementation of differentiation 1 and teachers’ perceived
implementation of differentiation 2, (c) teachers’ perception of principal leadership and teachers’
perceived principal support of differentiation 2, (d) teachers’ perceived principal support of
differentiation and teachers’ perceived implementation of differentiation 2, and, (e) principals’
perceived support of differentiation and principal perception of student ability.
Summary and Key Findings
The purpose of this study was to explore the perceived relationship between principal
leadership and the implementation of a differentiated curriculum for high-achieving students.
The study utilized mixed methods to obtain data from a principal and teacher sample. The data
indicated several themes of relevance. Analysis results were presented in relation to the research
questions.
The first research question, exploring the relationship between the perceived role of the
principal and student achievement, asked what is the elementary principals’ perceived role as an
instructional leader to facilitate a differentiated curriculum to challenge high-ability students
identified by advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts on the California
Standards Tests? Quantitative and qualitative methods explored the results of the relationship.
Survey results provided descriptive data that revealed patterns analyzed by the researcher. In
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

118
addition, qualitative data illuminated quantitative findings and provided depth to analysis results.
Data indicated that the principals’ perception of leadership influences the implementation of a
differentiated curriculum through (a) the utilization of a vision, and (b) the empowerment of
teachers. Additionally, direct support of curriculum and instruction is not highly valued and is
instead seen as a function of the teacher community. Related to principal beliefs regarding
differentiation, the second finding indicated variation across school sites. The third and final
finding related to research question 1 illustrated that perceptions of student ability were high
overall, as were the value to teaching to support higher-order thinking skills and teaching
conceptual knowledge.
Examining the perceived relationship between the role of the teacher and the
implementation of a differentiated curriculum, the second research question asked what is the
teachers’ perceived role to differentiate curriculum to challenge high-ability students identified
by advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts on the California Standards Tests?
Quantitative methods in the form of a teacher survey gathered information regarding the teachers’
perceived implementation of a differentiated curriculum and teacher beliefs regarding student
ability. Results indicate that the perceived implementation of differentiation by teachers varied
across school sites. Additionally, the implementation of differentiated elements encouraged the
implementation of additional elements. Consistent with principal results, perceptions of student
ability were high overall, as were the value to teaching to support higher-order thinking skills
and teaching conceptual knowledge.
Addressing the perceived relationship between the teacher and the principal as an
instructional leader, the third and final research question, asked what are the teachers’
perceptions of their principal as the instructional leader to facilitate a differentiated curriculum
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

119
for high-ability students identified by advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts?
Data collection relied upon the same teacher survey. The survey items regarding leadership and
principal support of differentiation were relevant to this research question. In addition, the
analysis of correlational data illustrated the strength of relationships between principal leadership
and factors that influence teacher implementation of a differentiated curriculum. Results indicate
that teacher perception of principal leadership and teacher perception of principal support
influence, and are significantly and positively correlated to, the implementation of a
differentiated curriculum. Data revealed that teachers embrace (a) vision, and (b) the
involvement of teachers in decision-making. These results support a pedagogical leadership
perspective. Consistent with principal results, the teacher sample did not value principal
assistance with curriculum, instruction and assessment.
An examination of correlational data revealed further insight into relationships within
three research questions. Results indicate that significant, positive correlations exist between the
following relationships: (a) principal perception of leadership and the teachers’ perceived
implementation of differentiation, (b) teacher perception of principal leadership and teachers’
perceived implementation of differentiation 1 and teachers’ perceived implementation of
differentiation 2, (c) teachers’ perception of principal leadership and teachers’ perceived
principal support of differentiation 2, (d) teachers’ perceived principal support of differentiation
and teachers’ perceived implementation of differentiation 2, and, (e) principal’s perceived
support of differentiation and principal perception of student ability.
Several findings emerged as a result of an analysis of data by research question. These
findings guide the a discussion of implications and recommendations in Chapter 5:
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

120
1. The perception of leadership is related to the perceived implementation of a
differentiated curriculum for high-ability students.
2. Principal support for differentiation is related to principal perception of student ability
but does not rely upon it.
3. Principals and teachers emphasized leadership elements characterized by the same
pedagogical leadership elements and do not emphasize the same elements.
4. Principal beliefs and the implementation of differentiation varied across school sites.
5. Characteristics regarding high-ability students were consistent across both principal
and teacher groups.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

121
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Purpose of the Study
The present educational environment is expected to demonstrate academic success as
measured by standardized test scores. The unintended results of outcomes focused evaluation
shifts importance away from providing a meaningful curriculum to all students (Male &
Palaiologou, 2012; Wraga, 2004). The resulting narrowing of the curriculum (Berliner, 2011)
prohibits focus on a deep knowledge of the experiences students have in school and a holistic
assessment of their learning (Goodlad, 2002). A discrepancy between content and instruction and
student need results in a lack of opportunity for academic development. School districts must
specifically define academic rigor in order to go beyond the default definition of No Child Left
Behind (Kaplan, 2004b) by utilizing policy to steer beliefs and practice in the students’ favor
(Elmore, 2005; Kaplan, 2004b).
Kaplan (2009) advocates for social justice and the uniqueness of each individual as
supported by a differentiated curriculum. Van Tassel-Baska (1992) describes differentiated
curriculum as “eradicating the upper limits of expectation, allowing for high level thinking,
providing more conceptual and abstract understanding of content and stressing more open-ended
learning opportunities.” The implications of under-serving students with high academic potential
raise concern regarding the economic competitiveness of the United States (Plucker et al., 2010).
Further, curriculum delivered in a non-challenging manner during elementary school has been
linked to underachievement in future grade level achievement (Reis, 1998).
A framework of a differentiated curriculum is rich in promoting equity to all students and
meeting the varied needs of learners (Darling-Hammond, 1998; Kaplan, 2009; Levy, 2008;
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

122
Tomlinson, 1999a; Van Tassel-Baska, 2008). Differentiation changes how things are taught, not
what is taught (Aldridge, 2010) and “focuses primarily on depth and complexity of content,
advanced or accelerated pacing of content, and novelty (unique and original expressions of
student understanding)” (CSBE, 2001, rev. 2005). The prevailing question is if a lack of formal
and informal differentiation does depress student ability.
The literature is replete with a demonstrated association between classroom experiences
and learning; however, the manner of influence of leadership is quite unclear (Wahlstrom &
Louis, 2008). Leadership in the form of the site principal plays a critical role in affecting student
achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood et al., 2004; Suppovitz et al., 2010; Waters et
al., 2003). Echoing the formative work of Likert (1961, 1967), Sergiovanni (2005, 1998)
contends that the school principal is obligated to build capacity by maintaining a focus on
student learning and classroom effectiveness while building capital. The development of social,
academic, intellectual, and professional capital generates a culture committed to community,
learning and engagement (Sergiovanni, 1998).
Findings in the research literature examining the relationship between principal
leadership and learning outcomes are comprehensive regarding underperforming students.
Nonetheless, a gap in the literature exists regarding the relationship between the principal and
high performing students. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the
perceived role of an elementary principal and the perceived implementation of a differentiated
curriculum that challenges high ability students in the areas of Mathematics and/or Language
Arts. In order to operationalize the gap for the purposes of this research, the indicator of potential
(Emerick, 1988) was advanced test scores on the California Standards Tests in the areas of
Language Arts and/or Mathematics. Indicators of underachievement were viewed as a lack of
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

123
opportunity for academic development characterized by content and instruction designed to
support gifted and high achieving potential (Emerick, 1988). Information gained from the study
will add to the body of knowledge related to leadership and has the potential to shape future
curriculum and pedagogical decision-making within the district under study.
Three research questions guided the exploration of principal leadership and student
achievement:
1. What is the elementary principals’ perceived role as an instructional leader to
facilitate differentiated curriculum to challenge high ability students identified by
advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts on the California Standards
Tests?
2. What is the teachers’ perceived role to differentiate curriculum to challenge high
ability students identified by advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language
Arts on the California Standards Tests?
3. What are the teachers’ perceptions of their principal as the instructional leader to
facilitate differentiated curriculum for high ability students identified by advanced
level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts?
Methodology
Sample Population
The study focused on a suburban, affluent community located approximately 20 miles
south of a large urban area in Southern California. Serving 11,900 students, the district has an
API of 913 and is regarded as highly successful. The socio-economic status of the students is
high, with less than 3% of the total district population qualifying for free or reduced meals.
Although considered low-wealth as measured by expenditures per pupil (basic/unrestricted),
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

124
support from community volunteers and donations support enrich the schools. The sample
included ten elementary principals and 32 fourth- and fifth-grade teachers. One hundred percent
of the principals participated in the online survey as well as the interview. Teacher surveys were
completed by 32 of the 55 teachers solicited and represented a 58% teacher participation rate.
Data Collection
Instrumentation was designed for the purpose of this research including surveys and
interview protocol. Data collection took place in two phases. During the first phase of data
collection, surveys were administered to both fourth- and fifth-grade teachers in addition to all
elementary principals. This provided comparison of results across stakeholder groups. This
process of triangulation allowed for the measurement of the same items from different angles
(Champion, 2002; Patton, 2002). The survey included four parts: (a) demographics, (b)
perceptions of students’ ability, (c) perceptions of principal leadership, and (d) responses to
examples of differentiation. Following data analysis of survey results with the assistance of an
outside researcher, a secondary phase was implemented utilizing personal interviews of all
elementary principals.
Interview protocol was fixed in order to ensure consistency and reliability. The interview
protocol also included four parts: (a) elaboration on demographics and/or past experience, (b)
perceptions of students ability, (c) perceptions of principal leadership, and (d) examples of
differentiation. The use of an identical instrument provided insight, validity, and rich information
(Patton, 2002) that enhanced the numeric description of the thoughts, beliefs and perceptions of
the principal sample (Creswell, 2009). Upon completion of the interviews, the data analysis
included examinations of coded responses for patterns upon which to draw conclusions.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

125
Instrument Summary and Analysis
Created by the researcher for the purposes of this study, the principal survey included 66
items. After testing for construct validity, three factors were selected. Construct validity, quality
of items, and quality of factors were determined with the assistance of an outside researcher as a
result of (a) the exploratory factor analysis, (b) a test of acceptable loading and no cross loading,
and (c) a minimum of at least two items in each factor. Principal factors included: (a) principal
perceived support of differentiation (a = .909), (b) principal perception of student ability (a
= .972), and (c) principal beliefs regarding differentiation (a = .888). Fifty-three items solicited
input from a teacher sample. After examination, four were selected as valid including: (a) teacher
perceived support of differentiation (a = .949), (b) teacher implementation of differentiation 1 (a
= .757), (c) teacher implementation of differentiation 2 (a = .861), and (d) teacher beliefs
regarding student ability (a = .955). Following the factor analysis, several statistical measures
were completed. Statistical analysis included an examination of descriptive statistics and of
relationships between principal and teacher variables via Pearson Product Correlations. The
principal interviews provided quantitative data that yielded supplementary results. During open
coding, initial categories emerged. Once patterns developed through the utilization of the
software, themes were established and results were selectively labeled and categorized.
Summary of Findings
The exploration was guided by three research questions that examined the relationship
between perceived principal leadership and the perceived implementation of a differentiated
curriculum to challenge high achieving students. As the result of an analysis within each research
question, five findings emerged. The results of each research question and the contributions to
related findings will be summarized in this section with a discussion of findings to follow.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

126
Research Question One
What is the elementary principals’ perceived role as an instructional leader to facilitate
differentiated curriculum to challenge high-ability students identified by advanced level scores in
Mathematics and Language Arts on the California Standards Tests?
Data indicated that the principals’ perceptions of leadership rely upon the (a) utilization
of a vision and the (b) empowerment of teachers. Additionally, direct support of curriculum and
instruction was not seen as an important function of the site principal. These results implied that
leadership may have an indirect impact on the instructional program. Additionally, principal
beliefs regarding differentiation varied across school sites. Perceptions of student ability were
high overall, as were the indicated importance of teaching to support higher-order thinking skills
and teaching conceptual knowledge. These factors indicated that perception of student ability
and beliefs regarding differentiation do not operate in concert.
Research Question Two
What is the teachers’ perceived role to differentiate curriculum to challenge high-ability
students identified by advanced level scores in Mathematics and Language Arts on the California
Standards Tests?
Results indicated that the perceived implementation of differentiation by teachers varied
across school sites. Consistent with principal results, perceptions of student ability were high
overall, as were teaching to support higher-order thinking skills and conceptual knowledge.
These factors indicated that perception of student ability and the implementation of a
differentiated curriculum do not rely upon one another.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

127
Research Question Three
What are the teachers’ perceptions of their principal as the instructional leader to
facilitate differentiated curriculum for high-ability students identified by advanced level scores in
Mathematics and Language Arts?
Results indicated that teachers embrace (a) vision, and (b) the involvement of teachers in
decision-making. These results support an indirect impact of leadership. Consistent with
principal results, the teacher sample did not value principal assistance with curriculum,
instruction, and assessment. These results indicated that leadership is indirectly associated with
student achievement. Additional results indicated that teachers perceive principals as supporting
the implementation of a differentiated curriculum but to a lesser extent than the principals’
perception.
Discussion of Findings
As the result of the analysis, several findings emerged. A discussion of each finding will
follow.
1. The perception of leadership is related to the perceived implementation of a
differentiated curriculum for high-ability students.
2. Principal support for differentiation is related to principal perception of student ability
but does not rely upon it.
3. Principals and teachers value leadership elements characterized by the same
pedagogical elements and do not value the same pedagogical characteristics.
4. Principal beliefs and the implementation of differentiation varied across school sites
while.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

128
5. Characteristics regarding high-ability students were consistent across both principal
and teacher groups.
Table 5.1 illustrates the relationship of findings to each research question.

Table 5.1
Relationship of Findings to Research Questions
RQ1 RQ2 RQ3
Finding 1: The perception of leadership is related to the perceived
implementation of a differentiated curriculum for high-ability students.
X X X
Finding 2: Principal support for differentiation is related to principal
perception of student ability but does not rely upon it.
X X
Finding 3: Principals and teachers emphasized leadership elements
characterized by the same pedagogical elements and do not emphasize the
same elements.
X X
Finding 4: Principal beliefs and the implementation of differentiation
varied across school sites.
X X
Finding 5: Characteristics regarding high-ability students were consistent
across both principal and teacher groups.
X X

Finding One
The first finding indicates that the perception of leadership is related to the perceived
implementation of a differentiated curriculum for high-ability students. As evidenced by an
analysis of correlational data, results suggest that significant, positive correlations exist between
the following relationships at a moderate level: (a) principal perception of leadership and the
teachers’ perceived implementation of differentiation, r = .41, p < .01, (b) teacher perception of
principal leadership and teachers’ perceived implementation of differentiation 1, r = .51, p < .01,
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

129
and teachers’ perceived implementation of differentiation 2, r = .53, p< .01, (c) teachers’
perception of principal leadership and teachers’ perceived principal support of differentiation 2, r
= .44, p < .01. Addressing the perceived relationship between the teacher and the principal as an
instructional leader indicates that teacher perception of principal leadership and teacher
perception of principal support influence, and are significantly and positively correlated to, the
implementation of a differentiated curriculum at a moderate strength.
Data on a principal leadership scale indicated a high mean value of the leadership
construct. The mean was 3.17 on a 4-point Likert scale. Teacher responses indicated that
leadership is less important to teacher participants indicated by a mean value of 2.90. The
correlational and mean values were consistent with literature in the field indicating that while
leadership is perceived as important, the direct impact of leadership is correlated at a moderate
level. However, even if moderate, the correlation in concert with additional indirect factors
justifies the paramount importance of further investigation.
Research literature in the field of educational leadership has established that the principal
plays a vital role in impacting learning outcomes (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood et al.,
2004; Suppovitz et al., 2010; Waters et al., 2003). Research literature contends that school
leadership is the second most influential factor at the school site (Leithwood et al., 2004). Debate
in the field continues to drive investigation as to whether the impact of principal leadership is
linked directly or indirectly to student achievement (Webb, 2005).
Finding Two
The second finding asserts that principal support for differentiation is related to principal
perception of student ability. Results indicated that significant, positive correlations exist
between the following relationships: (a) teachers’ perceived principal support of differentiation
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

130
and teachers’ perceived implementation of differentiation 2, r = .40, p < .05, and, (b) principal’s
perceived support of differentiation and principal perception of student ability, r = .57, p < .01.
Principals perceived a high level of support for differentiation to challenge high ability
students. Ninety percent of principals indicated their level of support of a differentiated
curriculum on a Likert scale as always or frequently. These results support the findings that
although beliefs regarding differentiation for the high ability student are varied principal
perception of support for differentiation is high.
Descriptive and inferential data suggest linkages between the perception of student ability,
the perception of support for the delivery of a differentiated curriculum and the perception of
implementation. There was a discrepancy between teacher needs and principal provisions.
Within the educational setting, principals must look past an assessment driven accountability to
define community and purpose (Male & Palaiologou, 2012; Wraga, 2004). The link between
principal leadership and the establishment of group norms surrounding instruction as it relates to
the delivery of a differentiated curriculum are evidenced in the literature (Goddard et al., 2010).
Academic rigor is a non-negotiable (Kaplan, 2004b; Matusevich, O’Connor, & Hargett, 2009).
Differentiation has been empirically connected to desirable effects (Goddard et al., 2007;
Goddard et al., 2010) and is a culturally responsive model delivered in a variety of ways
addressing variance in learners (Kaplan, 2009).
Finding Three
Finding three illustrates that principals and teachers agree upon the perceived importance
of the same pedagogical leadership elements. Principals view their role on campus as those who
“facilitate the knowledge” but in regards to teachers they believed it was valued to “get out of
their way.” Sixty percent of principals indicated that the creation and communication of a shared
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

131
vision among staff was the highest priority. The second most valued element of the leadership
scale was to empower teachers. Assisting teachers with curriculum, instruction and assessment
was the least valued element with a weighted average value of 3.00 on a scale of 9 points. These
results lead to findings regarding the framework of leadership valued by the organization.
Data revealed that teachers embrace (a) vision, and (b) the involvement of teachers in
decision-making. These results support a pedagogical leadership perspective. Consistent with
principal results, the teacher sample did not value principal assistance with curriculum,
instruction and assessment. Teachers ranked “create and communicate a shared vision among
staff” as most important with a weighted average of 6.75 on a scale of 9. “Involve teachers in key
decision making” was categorized as the second most important leadership element with a
weighted average of 5.92. Least important to the teacher participants was “assists teachers with
curriculum, instruction and assessment” with a weighted average of 1.95. These results lead to
findings that illustrate values embraced within a leadership framework.
Echoing the sentiments of Dewey (1935), contemporary researchers have defined the role
of the principal as encompassing functions that are instructional, managerial and political
(Cuban, 1985). Effective leaders, defined by the ability to promote effective learning
environments (Waters et al., 2004), embrace a focus on clear goals and a culture of shared
beliefs. A vision committed to a meaningful education for all students is attained through
creating conditions in which that is possible (Tomlinson et al., 2008). Principals may utilize
policies to steer beliefs and practice in the students’ favor (Elmore, 2005; Kaplan, 2004b). By
focusing the organization on continued improvement, reactions to policy become a coordinated
and interdependent effort among different parts of the school and teachers themselves (Fullan,
2001; Kaplan, 2004b; Leitner, 1994; Senge, 1990b).
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

132
Additional research asserts leadership frameworks with transformational roots
presuppose shared instructional leadership. Still, a transformational approach does not support
collaboration in regards to curriculum and instruction (Printy, Marks, & Bowers, 2009). Findings
of a three-year study focused on a differentiated curriculum contend that in order to monitor the
results of professional development, classroom instruction must be judiciously supervised
(VanTassel-Baska et al., 2008). Teachers involved in key decision-making strengthen their
instructional practice (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Literature that addresses the leadership
construct contains as many conflicts as it does compliments. Sergiovanni (1998, 2005)
emphasizes that members with a shared role are interconnected (2012) and that through a
pedagogical leadership framework, leaders are able to utilize vision to provide for the needs of
stakeholders and build capital (1998).
Finding Four
The fourth finding exhibits variation across school sites in principal beliefs regarding the
implementation of a differentiated curriculum for high ability learners. Concurrently, an
examination via quantitative methods of the perceived implementation of differentiation by
teachers varied across school sites. The perceived differentiation of curriculum was divided into
two scales after the completion of a factor analysis. Therefore teacher results were presented on
two distinct scales. The implementation of differentiation on the first scale was characterized by
41% of teachers who responded frequently or always. The remainder of responses fell into the
rarely and never range. The implementation of differentiation on scale 2 was characterized by
58% of teachers who responded frequently or always. The remainder of responses from the
teachers fell into the rarely and never range. The inconsistency within responses led to findings
that suggest a high level of variation across school sites and classrooms.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

133
Also critical to understanding the role of the principal are the results indicating variation
across school sites in principal beliefs regarding differentiation. The mean of 3.28 revealed little,
however, the frequencies in responses were revealing. Represented by opposing points of view,
40% of principal respondents indicated belief in grouping high ability students frequently while
50% of principals responded as rarely. Data showed the same pattern in response to asking
students of high ability to teach others not at the same grade level: 50% of principals rated this
response as frequently while 30% indicated their response as rarely.
The provision of a differentiated curriculum is common in providing remediation for
struggling students; yet, it is underutilized in most educational settings for high ability learners
(Manning, Stanford, & Reeves, 2010). To appropriately differentiate for advanced learners,
content must rely upon rich information (Darling-Hammond, 1998; Kaplan, 2009; Tomlinson,
1999; Van Tassel-Baska et al., 2008). Many classroom teachers have received little to no training
on how to involve a differentiated curriculum for the advanced learner. The underlying beliefs
must be developed in concert with the practical application of addressing student needs (Kaplan,
2004b). Gifted educators are concerned not with the equality of capability but of the equal
opportunity to be educated (Reis et al., 1998; Tomlinson, 2004).
Finding Five
The fifth and final finding illustrates consistent perceptions across principal and teacher
groups as well as school sites regarding student ability. Perceptions of student ability were high
overall, with a frequency of 100% answering always to frequently regarding the academic
characteristics of high ability students. These results support the findings that although
perceptions of student ability were consistent, beliefs regarding differentiation for the high
ability student were diverse. Consistent with principal results, teacher perceptions of student
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

134
ability were high overall. One hundred percent of teachers perceived the characteristics of high
ability learners as frequent or always echoing the responses of principal participants.
A fixed view of intelligence restricts the promotion of efforts to serve high achievers
(Dweck, 2007). Great variability in learning pathways and the integration of procedural and
factual knowledge are supported by recent advances in brain research (Fisher & Rose, 2001) and
link lack of opportunity for high-ability students to underachievement in academic development
via poor instructional design. Differentiation is responsive to the needs of the collective and the
individual as it allows students to engage with varied pacing and complexity (Tomlinson, 2004).
As a theoretical framework, differentiation is guided by four principals defined by (a)
identification of essential content, (b) responsiveness to student differences, (c) integration of
assessment and instruction, and (d) a cycle of modification of content, process and product that is
dependent upon student needs (McTighe & Brown, 2005; Rock et al., 2008). A commitment to
the needs of children requires decision-making through a strong research based professional
knowledge (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
Implications
One purpose of the research was to provide information to the district of study to support
the implementation of curricular programs. Principal support is relevant not only for the current
instructional programs, but also in the face of the upcoming implementation of changes based on
21
st
century skills and Common Core State Standards. Based on the findings from this study,
implications target four areas: training, curriculum modification, personnel selection, and policy
revision. The connection between findings and implications is illustrated in Table 5.2.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

135
Table 5.2
Implications by Finding
Finding
1
Finding
2
Finding
3
Finding
4
Finding
5
Implications for training: related
specifically to support for curriculum,
instruction and assessment.
X X X
Implications for personnel selection and
training: support a culture that relies upon
assessment and collaboration
X
Implications for policy and curriculum
modification: focused on the delivery of a
differentiated curriculum specifically to
meet the needs of high achieving learners
X X

Implications include:
1. Training related specifically to support for curriculum, instruction and assessment.
2. Personnel selection and training embracing a culture that relies upon assessment and
collaboration through the power of vision and teacher empowerment.
3. Training and policy development focused on meeting the needs specifically of high
achieving learners through the delivery of a differentiated curriculum.
To guide a discussion of implications, it is imperative to examine how findings
compliment and contest one another. The value of utilizing findings to drive the future of the
district of study is in the interpretation of how multiple stakeholders and systems work together
or serve as obstacles for progress. Implications will be discussed through a systems perspective
in relation to the findings.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

136
Implication One
As a consequence of these findings, the district of study may benefit from planning
specifically related to supporting the design of curriculum, instruction and assessment. Emerging
in response to the research questions and synthesized in findings 1 and 3, a positive, significant
relationship between perceived principal leadership and perceived implementation of a
differentiated curriculum to meet the needs of high achieving students exists. Additionally,
principal leadership occurs though the vehicle of vision and the empowerment of teachers or
involving teachers in decision making. It does not exist as the result of a highly valued system of
principal assistance with curriculum, instruction, and assessment. An investigation to uncover
teacher perceptions of what is and has been effective in addition to benchmarking like schools
and districts would be recommended. By generating formal systems that are responsive to the
dynamic structure of schooling, education remains relevant to multiple contexts in which
students are served (Male & Palaiologou, 2012).
Implication Two
A commitment to empirical research and a culture of assessment and collaboration may
be achieved through personnel selection and principal training. In response to results related to
finding 2, a positive, significant relationship between a perceived principal support for and a
perceived implementation of a differentiated curriculum to challenge high achieving learners
exists. Embracing a culture that relies upon assessment and collaboration through the power of
vision and teacher empowerment is recommended to facilitate the strength of the relationship
validated by the findings. In order to best support training of personnel and the creation of a
culture rooted in collaboration and assessment, is to commit to a cycle of change (Tomlinson et
al., 2008).
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

137
Implication Three
Findings indicate that training in the delivery of a differentiated curriculum specifically to
challenge high achieving learners may benefit all stakeholders and capitalize on a curriculum
framework already in use. As illustrated by findings 4 and 5, beliefs are consistent regarding
student ability across all sites. Concurrently, results regarding the (a) beliefs concerning
differentiation and (b) perceived implementation of differentiation to challenge high achieving
students are varied and inconsistent. This may indicate that the delivery of a differentiated
curriculum is perceived by this community as a method utilized for remediation rather than for
increasing depth and complexity, providing acceleration or soliciting novelty. Policy driving
curriculum modification is recommended to support the needs of high ability students. Initially
an investigation of the actual implementation of a differentiated curriculum to challenge high
ability learners may be conducted. The utilization of resources within the district, in the form of
model teachers, is also recommended. Means outside of the district may be explored to fill in any
potential gaps. Underlying beliefs must be developed in concert with the practical application of
addressing student needs (Kaplan, 2004b).
Recommendations
In order to support proposed implications, it is recommended that the district engage in a
cycle of inquiry. Engaging in a cycle of inquiry supports suggested implications and addresses
the findings of the posed research questions. Alignment of the implications and
recommendations are illustrated in Table 5.3.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

138
Table 5.3
Recommendations by Finding
Finding
1
Finding
2
Finding
3
Finding
4
Finding
5
Recommendation:
Investigate the use of formative assessment
in supporting professional development
(within the research literature)
X X X X X
Recommendation:
Investigate procedures supporting
curriculum, instruction and assessment
(benchmark like schools and districts)
X X X X
Recommendation:
Examine resources to support the delivery
of a differentiated curriculum for high
ability students through professional
partnerships and professional development
X X X

Recommendations for further investigation to support the inquiry process include:
1. Investigate the use of formative assessment in supporting professional development
(within the research literature).
2. Investigate procedures supporting curriculum, instruction and assessment (benchmark
like schools and districts).
3. Examine resources to support the delivery of a differentiated curriculum specifically
to challenge high ability students through professional partnerships and professional
development.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

139
Limitations
In sharing the findings, limitations of the study must be addressed. Of significant
importance, self-reporting surveys were the only measure of instructional practice. Additionally,
principal and teacher perceptions were explored through this study; measurement of
implemented behavior was not. Research shows a disconnect between perception and the
implementation of practice (Goodlad, 1964; Noddings, 1986). Also contributing to possible
limitations of the study are the small sample size and the development of instruments by the
researcher. The principal sample size (n = 10) limited the methods of data analysis. Finally,
although the survey was field-tested and revised, the development of surveys and interview
protocol by the researcher resulted in several items discarded due to a lack of internal reliability.
This limited available data for analysis. Lastly, hand coding of interview data by the researcher
could have allowed data to contain unintentional personal bias.
Conclusion
Principal leadership emerged as moderately correlated to the implementation of a
differentiated curriculum to challenge high ability students. The authority of vision and teacher
empowerment and involvement demonstrate much of the indirect effects on achievement.
Moreover principal support for a differentiated curriculum was moderately associated to student
ability. Although the perception of student ability was consistent, the beliefs and implementation
varied indicating that a differentiated curriculum was not implemented to accommodate or
respond to high student ability.
Future research with the existing data will be to associate teacher and principal responses
to the observed implementation of a differentiated curriculum to challenge the high ability
learner. If observed implementation is consistent with perceived behavior, research will
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

140
contribute to understanding the impact leaders have on curricular decisions. Information gained
will be valuable in supporting the development of principal training to support high ability
learners through a differentiated curriculum. The value of the future of the research is to provide
assistance in designing effective methods by which principals can directly and indirectly support
instructional design.
“Political movements characterized by a distrust of teachers and a belief that external
testing will, on its own, improve learning” (Black & Wiliam, 1998, p. 5) exists within our nation.
In order to improve, it is critical that a culture is established rooted in the “belief that all pupils
can achieve” (Black & Wiliam, 1998, p. 6). The role of the principal extends beyond the walls of
the school building; it involves educating the public and soliciting input and involvement from
the surrounding community (Dewey, 1935; Male & Palaiologou, 2012; Sergiovanni, 1987;
Wraga, 2004).
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

141
REFERENCES
Aldridge, J. (2010). Among the periodicals: Differentiated instruction. Childhood Education,
86(3), 193-195.
Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education
Policy, 18(2), 215-228.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychology, 28(2), 117-148.
Barringer, M. D. (2009). The science of learning. Principal Leadership, 9(8), 36-40.
Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5-13.
Berliner, D. C. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: the case of curriculum
narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287-302.
Bidell, T. R., & Fischer, K. W. (1992). Cognitive development in educational contexts:
Implications of skill theory. In A. Demetriou, M. Shayer, & A. Efklides (Eds.), Neo-
Piagetian theories of cognitive development: Implications and applications for education
(pp. 9–30). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-148.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1997). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership,
second edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brimijoin, K. (2005). Differentiation and high-stakes testing: an oxymoron? Theory into
Practice, 44(3), 254-261.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

142
California State Board of Education (2001, October; rev. 2005, July). Recommended Standards
for Programs for Gifted and Talented Students. Retrieved June 24, 2012, from
www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r12/documents/gatestandards.doc
California State Board of Education (2010). Help term and score explanations. Retrieved August
20, 2012, from http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2010/help_scoreexplanations.asp
Champion, R. (2002). Taking measure: Choose the right data for the job. Journal of Staff
Development, 23(3), 78-79.
Clark, D., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Cuban, L. (1985). The principal as instructional leader. Peabody Journal of Education, 63(1),
107-119.
Cuban, L. (1986). Persistent instruction: another look at constancy in the classroom. The Phi
Delta Kappan, 68(1), 7-11.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational
Leadership, 55(5), 6-11.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. The
Phi Delta Kappan, 91(4), 8-14.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional
development in an era of reform. The Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

143
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1999). Investing in teaching as a learning
profession: Policy problems and prospects. Teaching as the learning profession:
Handbook of policy and practice, 376-411.
Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, 54(3), 77-80.
Dewey, J. (1922). Education as politics. The New Republic, 32, 139-141.
Dewey, J. (1935). The future of liberalism. The Journal of Philosophy, 225-230.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York, NY: Collier Books.
Dweck, C. S. (2007). The secret to raising smart kids. Scientific American Mind, 18(6), 36.
Eacott, S. (2010). Bourdieu’s strategies and the challenge for educational leadership.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 13(3), 265-281.
Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher’s “practical knowledge”: report of a case study. Curriculum
Inquiry, 11(1), 43-71.
Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable Leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 134-142.
Emerick, L. J. (1989). The gifted underachiever: Another look. Preventing School Failure, 34(1),
6-9.
Fischer, K. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: the control and construction of
hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87(6), 477-531.
Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T. R. (1998). Dynamic development of psychological structures in
action and thought. In R. M Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1.
Theoretical models of human development (5
th
ed., pp. 467-561). New York, NY: Wiley.
Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T. R. (2006). Dynamic development of action, thought, and emotion. In
W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Theoretical models of human development. Handbook
of child psychology (6
th
ed., Vol. 1, pp. 313-399). New York, NY: Wiley.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

144
Fischer, K. W., Knight, C. C., & VanParys, M. (1993). Analyzing diversity in developmental
pathways: Methods and concepts. In R. Case & W Edelstein (Eds.), The new
structuralism in cognitive development: Theory and research on individual pathways.
Contributions to human development, 23, 33-56.
Fischer, K. W., & Rose, L. T. (2001). Webs of skills: How students learn. Educational
Leadership, 59(3), 6-12.
French, J. R., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in
social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. New York, NY:
The Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning,
measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal,
37(2), 479-507.
Goddard, Y. L, Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical
investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in
public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877-896.
Goddard, Y. L., Neumerski, C. M., Goddard, R. D., Salloum, S. J., & Berebitsky, D. (2010). A
multilevel exploratory study of the relationship between teachers’ perceptions of
principals’ instructional support and group norms for instruction in elementary schools.
The Elementary School Journal, 111(2), 336-357.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

145
Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-Nect: Purpose, accountability, and school
leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Darnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons from comprehensive
school reforms (pp. 57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Goldring, E., Cravens, X. C., Murphy, J., Porter, A. C., Elliott, S. N., & Carson, B. (2009). The
evaluation of principals: What and how do states and urban district assess leadership?
The Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 19-39.
Goldring, E., & Pasternack, R. (1994). Principals’ coordinating strategies and school
effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3), 239-153.
Goodlad, J. I. (1964). School curriculum reform in the United States. The curriculum studies
reader, 45-54.
Goodlad, J. I. (1977). What goes on in our schools? Educational Researcher, 6(3), 3-6.
Goodlad, J. I. (2002). Teacher education research: the outside and the inside. Journal of Teacher
Education, 53(3), 216-221.
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., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of
principals. Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-247.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1987). Instructional leadership in the school context. Instructional
leadership: Concepts, issues, and controversies, 179-203.
Howell, J. P. (1997). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement–an historical
assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 113-116.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

146
Kaplan, S. N. (2004a). Enhancing learning for gifted students. Urban Ed., 30-33.
Kaplan, S. N. (2004b). Where we stand determines the answers to the question: can the No Child
Left Behind legislation be beneficial to gifted students? Roeper Review, 26(3), 124-125.
Kaplan, S. N. (2008). Curriculum consequences: If you learn this, then... Gifted Child Today,
31(1), 41-42.
Kaplan, S. N. (2009). Myth 9: there is a single curriculum for the gifted. The Gifted Child
Quarterly, 53(4), 257-258.
Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 78(2), 75-95.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences
student learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership
influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671-706.
Leitner D. (1994). Do principals affect student outcomes: an organizational perspective. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and
Practice, 5(3), 219-238.
Levy, H. M. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: helping
every child reach and exceed standards. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational
Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(4), 161-164.
Male, T., & Palaiologou, I. (2012). Learning-centered leadership or pedagogical leadership? An
alternative approach to leadership in education contexts. International Journal of
Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 15(1), 107-118.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

147
Manning, S., Stanford, B., & Reeves, S. (2010). Valuing the advanced learner: differentiating up.
The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(4), 145-
149.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). Using data: Two wrongs and a right. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 56-
60.
Matusevich, M. N., O’Connor, K. A., & Hargett, M. P. (2009). The nonnegotiables of academic
rigor. Gifted Child Today, 32(4), 44-52.
McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2008). Underachievers. Critical issues and practices in gifted
education: What the research says, 721-734.
McTighe, J., & Brown, J. L. (2005). Differentiated instruction and educational standards: is
détente possible? Theory into Practice, 44(3), 234-244.
Miller, K. (2003). School, teacher, leadership impacts on student achievement. Mid-continent
Research for Education and Learning, 1-7.
Noddings, N. (1986). Fidelity in teaching, teacher education, and research for teaching. Harvard
Educational Review, 56(4), 496-511.
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice, fifth edition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Publications.
O’Day, J. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability and school improvement. Harvard Educational
Review, 72(3), 293-329.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

148
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Plucker, J. A., Burroughs, N., & Song, R. (2010). Mind the (other) gap!: The growing excellence
gap in K-12 education. Center for Evaluation & Education Policy.
Printy, S. M., Marks, H. M., & Bowers, A. J. (2009). Integrated leadership: How principals and
teachers share transformational and instructional influence. Journal of School Leadership,
19(5), 504-532.
Quinn, D. M. (2002). The impact of principal leadership behaviors on instructional practice and
student engagement. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(4/5), 447-467.
Reis, S. M. (1998). Underachievement for some—dropping out with dignity for others.
Communicator, 29(1), 1-24.
Reis, S. M., Kaplan, S. N., Tomlinson, C. A., Westberg, K. L., Callahan, C. M., & Cooper, C. R.
(1998). A response: equal does not mean identical. Educational Leadership, 56(3), 74-77.
Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we
know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152-170.
Renzulli, J. S. (1988). The multiple menu model for developing differentiated curriculum for the
gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(3), 298-309.
Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., & Gable, R. A. (2008). REACH: a framework for
differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education
for Children and Youth, 52(2), 31-47.
Salkind, N. J. (2008). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (SPSS edition).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

149
Senge, P. (1990a). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York, NY: Doubleday.
Senge, P. (1990b). The leader’s new work: Building learning organization. Sloan Management
Review, 7-23.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1985). Landscapes, mindscapes, and reflective practice in supervision.
Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 1(1), 5-17.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1987). The metaphorical use of theories and models in supervision: Building
a science. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 2(3), 221-232.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1995). The Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective, 3
rd
ed. Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1998). Leadership as pedagogy, capital development and school
effectiveness. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice,
1(1), 37-46.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2005). The virtues of leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 112-123.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2012). Strengthening the heartbeat: Leading and learning together in schools.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical evidence.
School Leadership and Management, 22(1), 73-91.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice:
A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition:
reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research,
72(3), 387-431.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

150
Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International Education Journal,
7(7), 935-947.
Suppovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and
learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31-56.
Terwell, J. (2005). Curriculum differentiation: multiple perspectives and developments in
education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(6), 653-670.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999a). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Educational
Leadership, 57(1), 12-16.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999b). Leadership for differentiated classrooms. School Administrator,
56(9), 6-11.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Sharing responsibility for differentiating instruction. Roeper Review,
26(4), 188-189.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Quality curriculum and instruction for highly able students. Theory
into Practice, 44(2), 160-166.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2008). The goals of differentiation. Educational Leadership, 26-30.
Tomlinson, C.A., Brimijoin, K., & Narvaez, L. (2008). The Differentiated School: Making
Revolutionary Changes in Teaching and Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (1992). Contributions of gifted education to general
education in a time of change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 183-189.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Jarvis, J. M. (2009). Differentiation: Making curriculum work for all
students through responsive planning and instruction. Systems and Models for
Developing Programs for the Gifted and Talented, 599-628.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

151
Urbanski, A., & Nickolaou, M. (1997). Reflections on teachers as leaders. Educational Policy,
11(2), 243-254.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Selecting instructional strategies for gifted learners. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 36(3), 1-13.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2005). Gifted programs and services: what are the nonnegotiables? Theory
into Practice, 44(2), 90-97.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A. X., Brown, E., Bracken, B., Stambaugh, T., French, H.,
McGowan, S., Worley, B., Quek, C., & Bai, W. (2008). A study of differentiated
instructional change over 3 years. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(4), 297-312.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Wood, S. (2008). Curriculum development in gifted education: A
challenge to provide optimal learning experiences. In F. A. Karnes & K. R. Stephens
(Eds.), Achieving excellence: Educating the gifted and talented (pp. 209-229). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In Mind in Society (trans.
M. Cole) (pp. 79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wahlstrom, K. L., & Lewis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: the
roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458-495.
Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2004). Leadership that sparks learning.
Educational Leadership, 61(7), 48-51.
Waters, T., Marzano, D. R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership. USA: Denver, CO:
Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

152
Webb, R. (2005). Leading teaching and learning in the primary school: from ‘educative
leadership’ to ‘pedagogical leadership’. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 33(1), 69-91.
Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Kruger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and student
achievement: The illusive search for an association. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39(3), 398-425.
Wraga, W. G. (2004). Making educational leadership “educational.” Journal of School
Leadership, 14(1), 105-121.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

153
APPENDIX A
PRINCIPAL PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4031
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT BEYOND TEST
SCORES: AN EXAMINATION OF LEADERSHIP, DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM
AND HIGH-ACHIEVING STUDENTS

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the perceived role of an
elementary principal and the implementation of a differentiated curriculum that challenges high
ability students in the areas of Math and/or Language Arts. To address these questions, this study
will survey fourth and fifth grade teachers in addition to conducting surveys and interviews with
elementary site principals. Information gained will add to the body of knowledge related to
leadership and has the potential to shape future curriculum and pedagogical decision-making
within the district under study.

Participation is voluntary. Your relationship with your school district will not be affected,
whether or not you participate in this study.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete an online survey, anticipated to take no
more than 20 minutes. You may also be invited to participate in an interview. The interview will
be conducted at a time and place available to you and the researcher and will be audio-taped with
your permission.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential and
will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law.

Within the principal survey and interview, identifiable information will be collected in order to
address the research questions. Pseudonyms will be used in place of names and locations in order
to protect the confidentiality of the participants.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

154
Data will be stored on a secure, password protected laptop in an encrypted form. Network
restrictions and security software are in place to protect all electronic information. Audio
recordings will be transcribed and then destroyed. Participants may choose not to have their
interviews recorded in audio format. All codes and direct identifiers will be destroyed upon
successful completion of the researcher’s dissertation.

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.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions regarding the research or process, please contact the Principal
Investigator, Danielle Else (else@usc.edu or 310-779-4709), or the Faculty Sponsor, Sandra
Kaplan, Ed.D. (skaplan@usc.edu).

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
To address questions or concerns regarding your rights as a research participant, you may contact
the IRB directly. University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement,
Credit Union Building, 3720 South Flower Street, CUB # 301 Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702,
(213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

155
APPENDIX B
TEACHER PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4031
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT BEYOND TEST
SCORES: AN EXAMINATION OF LEADERSHIP, DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM
AND HIGH-ACHIEVING STUDENTS

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the perceived role of an
elementary principal and the implementation of a differentiated curriculum that challenges high
ability students in the areas of Math and/or Language Arts. To address these questions, this study
will survey fourth and fifth grade teachers in addition to conducting surveys and interviews with
elementary site principals. Information gained may add to the body of knowledge related to
leadership and has the potential to shape future curriculum and pedagogical decision-making
within the district under study.

Participation is voluntary and will not affect your relationship with the school or school district.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete an online survey. The survey is
anticipated to take approximately 20 minutes to complete.

CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no identifiable information linked to responses. Name, address or other identifiable
information will not be linked to your responses.

The data will be stored on a secure, password protected laptop in an encrypted form. Network
restrictions and security software are in place to protect all electronic information.

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.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

156
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have any questions regarding the research or process, please contact the Principal
Investigator, Danielle Else (else@usc.edu or 310-779-4709), or the Faculty Sponsor, Sandra
Kaplan, Ed.D. (skaplan@usc.edu).

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
To address questions or concerns regarding your rights as a research participant, you may contact
the IRB directly. University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement,
Credit Union Building, 3720 South Flower Street, CUB # 301 Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702,
(213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

157
APPENDIX C
SURVEY ITEMS UTILIZED RESULTING FROM EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS:
PERCEPTION OF PRINCIPAL SUPPORT SUBSCALE
Item Description
Item
Validated:
Principal
Survey
Item
Validated:
Teacher
Survey
Independent research project to further understand a given content area X
A study of the discipline aligned to the students aptitude such as
economics in mathematics
X X
Delve into historical understandings (classical literature of an era, how
people past and present have been able to calculate)
X X
Studying advanced LA/Mathematics related to a universal concept (power,
change, systems, adaptation)
X X
Identifying the patterns/trends/ethical issues in a mathematics or language
arts study (i.e. of a novel and the context of which it was developed,
economic situation, other)
X X
Using a program or curriculum that is advanced for the grade level (i.e. a
4th grade student doing math equivalent to a 6th grade student)
X
Selecting reading materials based on student interest and out of grade level
Being able to self select an interest
Sending to older room X
Putting advanced materials in room X
Grouping for all of same ability
Asking students of high ability to teach others not at the same grade level
Relying on students to work independently as a consequence of their
development as independent thinkers

Suggesting parents provide academic enrichment at home

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

158
APPENDIX D
SURVEY ITEMS UTILIZED RESULTING FROM EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS:
PERCEPTION OF BELIEFS REGARDING DIFFERENTIATION
Item Description
Item
Validated:
Principal
Survey
Item
Validated:
Teacher
Survey
Independent research project to further understand a given content area n/a
A study of the discipline aligned to the students aptitude such as
economics in mathematics
n/a
Delve into historical understandings (classical literature of an era, how
people past and present have been able to calculate)
n/a
Studying advanced LA/Mathematics related to a universal concept
(power, change, systems, adaptation)
n/a
Identifying the patterns/trends/ethical issues in a mathematics or language
arts study (i.e. of a novel and the context of which it was developed,
economic situation, other)
n/a
Using a program or curriculum that is advanced for the grade level (i.e. a
4th grade student doing math equivalent to a 6th grade student)
n/a
Selecting reading materials based on student interest and out of grade
level
n/a
Being able to self select an interest n/a
Sending to older room n/a
Putting advanced materials in room n/a
Grouping for all of same ability X n/a
Asking students of high ability to teach others not at the same grade level X n/a
Relying on students to work independently as a consequence of their
development as independent thinkers
n/a
Suggesting parents provide academic enrichment at home n/a
Independent research project to further understand a given content area n/a

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

159
APPENDIX E
SURVEY ITEMS UTILIZED RESULTING FROM EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS:
PERCEPTION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF DIFFERENTIATION
Item Description
Item
Validated:
Principal
Survey
Item Validated:
Teacher Survey
Independent research project to further understand a given content area n/a X (subscale 2)
A study of the discipline aligned to the students aptitude such as economics in
mathematics
n/a X (subscale 2)
Delve into historical understandings (classical literature of an era, how people
past and present have been able to calculate)
n/a X (subscale 1)
Studying advanced LA/Mathematics related to a universal concept (power,
change, systems, adaptation)
n/a
Identifying the patterns/trends/ethical issues in a mathematics or language arts
study (i.e. of a novel and the context of which it was developed, economic
situation, other)
n/a X (subscale 1)
Using a program or curriculum that is advanced for the grade level (i.e. a 4th
grade student doing math equivalent to a 6th grade student)
n/a
Selecting reading materials based on student interest and out of grade level n/a
Being able to self select an interest n/a
Sending to older room n/a
Putting advanced materials in room n/a
Grouping for all of same ability n/a
Asking students of high ability to teach others not at the same grade level n/a
Relying on students to work independently as a consequence of their
development as independent thinkers
n/a
Suggesting parents provide academic enrichment at home n/a
Designing curriculum n/a
Selecting curriculum n/a
Working with colleagues to design curriculum n/a
Releasing students for a pull-out program n/a
Planning for pull-in resources n/a

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

160
APPENDIX F
SURVEY ITEMS UTILIZED RESULTING FROM EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS:
PERCEPTION OF STUDENT ABILITY
Item Description
Item
Validated:
Principal
Survey
Item
Validated:
Teacher
Survey
Learn quickly
Have specific aptitude
Are curious X X
Are creative X X
Are interested in problem-solving X
Are interested in abstract thinking X

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

161
APPENDIX G
PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
1. Contact Information
Name:
School:
Email address:
Phone number:

2. What leadership skills that promote student achievement are most important to you?

3. How would you describe the vision on your campus?

4. How do you promote a shared vision?

5. Describe the process of goal setting/establishing the vision at your school site.

6. How do you ensure the function of the school is in alignment with your vision and purpose?

7. A leader helps others to understand the link between what they do or are asked to do and the
purpose of the school. How do you communicate a directive that you do not support?

8. Describe a recent conflict on campus and how you settled it between stakeholder group.

9. Describe your relationship with your teaching staff.

10. Describe some of the barriers you encounter in maintaining an effective environment in
establishing student achievement.

11. What is your role in providing support for curricular and instructional decision
especially in regards to differentiation?

12. Describe the capabilities of your teachers in providing differentiation?

13. How does your role change with a proficient teacher versus a teacher with less experience
or proficiency?

14. What part do you play in ensuring this occurs?

15. Can you give me some examples of differentiation for high ability students (align to
survey results)?

16. If I walked into a staff conversation regarding educating "all" children, what are some of
the things I might hear?

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

162
17. What is your role in supporting teachers in meeting the needs of high achieving learners?

18. What are some barriers in providing for those needs?

19. How would you describe a high ability learner?

20.What is the identification process for a high ability learner?

21.Is there a difference between district identification and teacher identification of ability? If
so, what?

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

163
APPENDIX H
TEACHER PERCEPTION OF PEDAGOGICAL LEADERSHIP ELEMENTS, WEIGHTED
AVERAGES BY SITE

A B C F G H I J
Total
Average
Create and communicate a
shared vision among staff
4.00 8.00 7.25 6.67 7.67 7.67 7.00 5.75 6.75
Share ideas and cooperate to
support alignment of the
school function with purpose
4.00 6.00 6.25 5.00 4.00 4.67 6.00 4.50 5.05
Motivate teachers to support a
common vision
4.00 7.25 4.75 6.00 4.33 6.00 3.33 4.38 5.01
Address problems in a timely
manner
6.67 3.75 6.50 5.67 3.33 4.33 5.67 5.13 5.13
Involve teachers in key
decision making
6.67 6.50 6.00 4.33 6.33 6.00 4.67 6.88 5.92
Remove obstacles that
impede the teachers ability to
meet the needs of all learners
4.33 3.75 4.75 6.00 5.33 4.33 4.33 4.88 4.71
Empower teachers 8.33 5.00 3.00 5.33 7.33 4.67 4.33 4.38 5.30
Is responsible in thought,
action and word
4.00 2.00 5.50 5.00 5.00 6.33 7.00 6.63 5.18
Assists teachers with
curriculum, instruction and
assessment
3.00 2.75 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.00 2.67 2.50 1.95
Note: The original ranking scale utilized 1 as most important and 9 as least important. Weighted averages utilize the
reverse, 1 as least important and 9 as most important.

THE ROLE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP IN ACHIEVEMENT

164
APPENDIX I
PRINCIPAL PERCEPTION OF PEDAGOGICAL LEADERSHIP ELEMENTS, RANKING BY
SITE
A B C D E F G H I J
Create and communicate a shared vision among staff 1 5 2 1 2 6 1 3 1 1
Share ideas and cooperate to support alignment of the
school function with purpose
4 8 6 4 3 8 8 4 7 7
Motivate teachers to support a common vision 5 9 8 7 2 5 9 6 3 2
Address problems in a timely manner 6 7 5 3 7 2 5 5 4 8
Involve teachers in key decision making 7 2 7 6 1 7 3 2 2 3
Remove obstacles that impede the teachers ability to
meet the needs of all learners
2 6 4 6 5 4 2 7 5 5
Empower teachers 3 3 3 7 9 3 6 1 6 4
Is responsible in thought, action and word 8 1 1 9 6 1 7 8 9 9
Assists teachers with curriculum, instruction and
assessment
9 4 9 4 8 9 4 9 8 6
Note: Numerical rankings utilize 1 as most important and 9 as least important.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Though research has validated a link between principal leadership and student achievement, questions remain regarding the specific relationships between the principal and high-achieving learners. This association facilitates understanding about forming curricular decisions for high ability learners. The study was conducted to examine the perceived roles of elementary principals as instructional leaders. Three research questions guided the study: (a) What is the elementary principals’ perceived role as an instructional leader to facilitate differentiated curriculum to challenge high ability students?, (b) What is the teachers’ perceived role to differentiate curriculum to challenge high ability students?, and (c) What are the teachers’ perceptions of their principal as the instructional leader to facilitate differentiated curriculum to challenge high ability students? The mixed methods study was conducted in a suburban community serving 11,900 students. The primary source of data collection utilized a quantitative survey designed by the researcher for the purposes of this study. Ten principals and 32 fourth and fifth grade teachers serving 10 school sites participated in the survey. The second phase of the study included interviews with the principals to enhance the survey-related quantitative data. Perceived principal leadership, perceived principal support, and perceptions of student ability emerged as critical factors. Perceived principal leadership was explored through various elements, illustrating a strong tie to the importance of vision, and weaker ties to direct assistance with curriculum, instruction and assessment. Perceived principal support for a differentiated curriculum for high ability students was characterized by a discrepancy between principal support and provisions, and teacher needs. Findings also revealed a relationship between perceived principals’ support for differentiation, and their perceptions of students identified with high ability. The findings suggested implications leading to a cycle of inquiry to foster policy development, curriculum modification, personnel selection, and training, in order to develop the principal as an instructional leader for teachers of high ability students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

The elements of a differentiated curriculum for gifted students: transfer and application across the disciplines

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

PDF

Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals

PDF

The spill over effect: an examination of differentiated curriculum designs in a heterogeneous classroom

PDF

Let's hear it from the principals: a study of four Title One elementary school principals' leadership practices on student achievement

PDF

Technology as a tool: uses in differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted learners

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

A case study of promising leadership practices employed by principals of Knowledge Is Power Program Los Angeles (KIPP LA) charter school to improve student achievement

PDF

Case study: underrepresentation of women in high school principalships and challenges they face in the workplace

PDF

An evaluation study of... What do teachers know about gifted students?

PDF

Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study

PDF

Actual and ideal instructional practices in California high school gifted geometry education

PDF

Elementary principal perceptions of teacher to student bullying within classroom management practices

PDF

Efective leadership practices used by elementary school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Differentiated culturally relevant curriculum to affirm identity for gifted African American students

PDF

Effective leadership practices of catholic high school principals that support academic success

PDF

Teacher management style: its impact on teacher-student relationships and leadership development

PDF

Senior-level student affairs' administrators' self-reported leadership practices, behaviors, and strategies

Asset Metadata

Creator Else, Danielle F. (author)

Core Title The role of principal leadership in achievement beyond test scores: an examination of leadership, differentiated curriculum and high-achieving students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/18/2013

Defense Date 03/14/2013

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

Tag differentiated curriculum,differentiation,Educational Leadership,elementary principal,high-ability students,instructional behavior,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kaplan, Sandra N. (committee chair), García, Pedro Enrique (committee member), Yates, Kenneth A. (committee member)

Creator Email danielleelse1@gmail.com,else@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-239559

Unique identifier UC11292791

Identifier etd-ElseDaniel-1567.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-239559 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ElseDaniel-1567.pdf

Dmrecord 239559

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Else, Danielle F.

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