University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: School site leadership factors

(USC Thesis Other)

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: School site leadership factors

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running
head:
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

1

AN EXAMINATION OF TRI-LEVEL COLLABORATION AROUND STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT USING THE GAP ANALYSIS APPROACH:
SCHOOL SITE LEADERSHIP FACTORS

by

Esther Charlotte Salinas

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 Esther Charlotte Salinas
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

2

Epigraph

"The space between people working together is filled with conflict, friction, strife,
exhilaration, delight, and vast creative potential” (Bruce Mau, 2011).
It is within that space diverse perspectives and ideas collide and
innovation comes forth. This is the heart of collaboration.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

3

Dedication
To my dearest husband, Carlos, without whom, I never would have embarked on this
journey. It is impossible to express gratitude commensurate with your sacrifices. You believed in
what I could become. You lovingly reminded me to keep my life in balance and not neglect to
cultivate that which endures. Whatever fruit may come from this belongs to you and grew from
your selfless love, wise leadership, faithful encouragement, and enduring patience. Might I strive
to love you, as much as you have loved me…always.
To our daughter, Michaela Ruth, who graciously accepted why I could not make it to
every swim meet to cheer her on. When guilt would grip me, you would flash your infectious
smile and say, “I love you Mama. Don’t you have work to do?” This dissertation is the fruit of
that work, which I trust will encourage you to pursue your goals and persist with passion. Thank
you, sweetheart for cheering me on. I love you.
To my mother, who, during her first 93 years of life modeled a love for learning. One day
I overheard you encouraging a young lady to finish college. “Just take one class each semester.”
The young lady complained, “…but I’ll be 50 years old by the time I finish!” To which you
replied, “You’ll be 50 anyway.” Thank you for your encouragement. I finally finished!
To my father, who although he no longer walks this earth left me with the gift of
curiosity, creativity, and optimism. He taught me to walk in wisdom, to lead by serving and to
find joy in the midst of trials. Thank you, your instruction continues to guide me.
To God, who is the beginning of knowledge. In all that I have learned, may I never forget
that, in you, I find wisdom.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

4

Acknowledgements
As its Latin roots com and laborare, suggest, collaboration is simply defined as laboring
together, of which this project is an example. I express my heartfelt gratitude to my co-laborers,
whose caring contributions made this dissertation possible.
To those in the USC Rossier School of Education, your support throughout my
educational journey was immeasurable. To Dr. Aime Black, with patience and perseverance, you
saw us through to the end. To Lisa Chavez and Angelica Barajas, your written representation of
spoken expressions became a catalyst for change. Thank you.
To the professors in the Ed.D. program, yours are the shoulders on which I stand. I will
carry forward with me, the knowledge you have entrusted, and the wisdom I have gained. To Dr.
Brian McDonald and Dr. Robert Rueda, you modeled what it means to be scholar-practitioners.
Your ideas contributed to the inception of this project and your feedback refined it.
To Dr. Kenneth Yates, you were more than an academic advisor. You were a devoted
mentor and trusted guide. Your commitment to the success of your students serves as a model
and aspiration. Truly, you are an exemplar to follow. Thank you.
To Pasadena Unified School District teachers, administrators and Superintendent Jon
Gundry, thank you for opening yourselves to our inquiry team. I am humbled by your trust and
inspired by your courage. To SMS staff and to my students, past and present, you are brilliant,
creative, strong and true. This project is for you. Thank you for infusing my journey with joy.
To Dr. Anthony Carruthers and Dr. Sonia Rodarte Llamas, whom I am honored to call
co-laborers and compadres. Our work together united us, challenged us and along the way,
changed us. Truly, we lived in that collaborative space, and came forth a testament of collective
creativity.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

5

Table of Contents
Epigraph 2
Dedication 3
Acknowledgements 4
List of Tables 10
List of Figures 11
Abbreviations 12
Abstract 13
Preface 14
Chapter One: Introduction 15
Introduction of the Problem 15
Context of the Problem 15
Organizational Problem 18
Organizational Goal 20
Stakeholders 20
Stakeholders for the Study 20
Background of the Problem 20
Importance of the Problem 22
Purpose of the Study and Questions 22
Definitions 23
Organization of the Study 23
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 24
Organizational Capacity and Internal Accountability 25
Isolation 27
Isolation Within the Central Office 27
Principal Isolation 28
Teacher Isolation 29
Models of Collaboration in Educational Settings 30
Communities of Commitment 31
Communities of Practice 32
Critical Friends Group 32
Coalition of Essential Schools 32
Professional Learning Communities According to Hord 34
Professional Learning Communities According to DuFour and Eaker 35
Purposeful Community 36
Leadership 37
Magnitude of Change 37
Purposeful Community 38
Common Characteristics of Collaboration 38
Knowledge Requirements for Effective Collaboration 41
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

6

Factual Knowledge 41
Conceptual Knowledge 43
Procedural Knowledge 44
Metacognitive Knowledge 45
Motivation Requirements for Effective Collaboration 47
Capability Beliefs 47
Self-Efficacy 47
Self-Efficacy and Teacher Efficacy 49
Bandura’s Four Sources of Efficacy 49
Collective Teacher Efficacy 51
Affective Factors 52
Task Value 52
Organizational Requirements for Effective Collaboration 53
Trust 53
Leadership 55
Resources and Reciprocal Accountability 56
Quality Assurance and Monitoring 57
Tri-Level Considerations for Leadership and Organizational Change 60
Central Office Leadership and Organizational Change 60
School Site Leadership and Organizational Change 62
Teacher Leadership and Organizational Change 68
Chapter Three: Methodology 73
Purpose of the Inquiry and Inquiry Questions 73
Methodology Framework 74
Step 1: Identify the Organizational Goal 76
Step 2: Current Achievement 77
Step 3: Gaps 78
Step 4: Causes 78
Causes Informed by Informal Interviews 79
Informal Interviews with Central Office Administrators 79
Informal Interviews with Site-Level Administrators 80
Informal Interviews with Teachers 80
Causes Informed by Learning, Motivation, and Organizational
Theories 81
Knowledge Theory 81
Motivation Theory 82
Organization Theory 82
Causes Informed by the Literature 83
Step 5: Validated Causes 84
Population and Sample 85
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

7

Instrumentation and Data Collection 85
Surveys 85
Interviews 86
Data Analysis 87
Chapter Four: Results 89
Purpose of Study 89
District Survey 89
School Site Administrator Interviews 90
Demographic Data 91
Validation of the Causes of the Perceived Performance Gap 93
Knowledge Results 93
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Causes 93
Knowledge Survey Results 94
Knowledge Cause #1 97
Survey Results 97
Interview Results 97
Tri-Level Results 98
Knowledge Cause #2 100
Survey Results 100
Interview Results 100
Tri-Level Results 102
Summary of School Site Administrators’ Strengths and Challenges 102
Motivation Results 103
Summary of Assumed Motivation Causes 103
Motivation Survey Results 104
Motivation Cause #1 108
Survey Results 108
Interview Results 108
Tri-Level Results 109
Motivation Cause #2 110
Survey Results 110
Interview Results 110
Tri-Level Results 111
Summary of School Site Administrators’ Strengths and Challenges 111
Organizational Results 113
Summary of Assumed Organizational Causes 113
Organization Survey Results 114
Organizational Cause #1 117
Survey Results 117
Interview Results 117
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

8

Tri-Level Results 118
Organizational Cause #2 118
Survey Results 118
Interview Results 119
Tri-Level Results 119
Organizational Cause #3 120
Survey Results 120
Interview Results 121
Tri-Level Results 121
Organizational Cause #4 122
Survey Results 122
Interview Results 122
Tri-Level Results 123
Summary of School Site Administrators’ Strengths and Challenges 123
Chapter Five: Solutions and Implementations 126
Solutions 127
Knowledge and Skill 127
Create High Quality Assessments 129
Identify Knowledge and Skill for Student Learning 133
Motivation 135
Address Group Tension 135
Collective Efficacy to Identify Deficits Inhibiting Essential
Learning Outcomes 137
Organizational Factors 139
Time to Learn and Grow 140
Time to Clarify Outcomes for Students 141
Resources to Learn and Grow 141
Intentional Communication 141
Chapter Six: Discussion 152
Synthesis of the Results 153
Organizational Support 153
Knowledge Capacity for Instruction, Learning, and Assessment 154
Motivation 154
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 155
Strengths 155
Weaknesses 156
Recommendations and Implications 157
Evaluation 158
Level 1: School Site Administration Reaction During Implementation 159
Methods 159
Level 2: Change, Learning, and Motivation During Implementation 159
Methods 159
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

9

Level 3: Transfer of Learning and Motivation to Learning Experiences 160
Methods 160
Level 4: Impact of Collaboration Around Student Achievement 160
Methods 160
Limitations 161
Future Research 162
Conclusion 163
References 164
Appendices
Appendix A: Definition of Key Terms 184
Appendix B: Concepts and Characteristics of Model Communities of
Collaboration in Educational Settings 187
Appendix C: Common Characteristics of Collaboration Around Student
Achievement 189
Appendix D: CASA Team Characteristics and Competencies 197
Appendix E: The 21 Responsibilities of the School Leader 203
Appendix F: CASA Team Competency Survey Protocol 204
Appendix G: CASA Interview Protocol 213
Appendix H: Tri-Level Data (n=281) 216
Appendix I: School Site Administrator Data (n=34) 234
Appendix J: Tri-Level Competency Means: District Administrators,
Site Administrators, and Teachers 244
Appendix K: Common Tri-Level Gaps 245
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

10

List of Tables
Table
1:

Common
Characteristics
and
Competencies
of
Collaboration
Around

Student
Achievement
(CASA)
Synthesized
from
Literature
Reviewed

40

Table
2:

Comparison
of
First-‐Order
Change
and
Second-‐Order
Change

66

Table
3:

Possible
Causes
of
Knowledge
Performance
Gaps

82

Table
4:

Summary
of
Assumed
Causes
for
Knowledge,
Motivation
and

Organization

84

Table
5:

Knowledge
Item
Results
in
Ascending
Order
by
Means
(n=34)

96

Table 6: Motivation Item Results in Ascending Order by Means (n=34) 106
Table 7: Organization Item Results in Ascending Order by Means (n=34) 116
Table 8: Comparison of District-Level Principal Leaders and School-Level Team
Leader Team 144
Table 9: Summary of Knowledge and Skill Causes, Solutions, and Implementations 146
Table
10:

Summary
of
Motivation
Causes,
Solutions,
and
Implementations

147

Table
11:
Summary
of
Organization
Causes,
Solutions,
and
Implementations

148

Table
12:
Summary
of
Organizational
Goal,
Short-‐Term
Goals,
Cascading
Goals,

and
Performing
Goals

149

Table
13:
Summary
of
Performance
Goals,
Timeline,
and
Measurement
of

Performance
Goals

150
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

11

List of Figures
Figure 1: Gap Analysis Process 75
Figure 2: Merrill’s (2001) First Principles of Instruction 130

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

12

Abbreviations
4Cs Communication, Collaboration, Creativity and Critical Thinking
API Academic Performance Index
AYP Annual Yearly Progress
CAHSEE California High School Exit Exam
CANE Commitment And Necessary Effort
CASA Collaboration Around Student Achievement
CC Culture of Collaboration
CE Collective Efficacy
CEIS Coordinated Early Intervening Services
CEP Center on Educational Policy
CES Coalition of Essential Schools
CFG Critical Friends Group
CLC Collaborative Learning Community
COA Central Office Administrators
CoP Communities of Practice
CRW Curriculum Revision Workshop
CST California Standardized Test
CTA Cognitive Task Analysis
CTE Collective Teacher Efficacy
ECED Every Classroom Every Day
EDI Explicit Direct Instruction
FR Focus on Results
GAP Gap Analysis Process
ILT Instructional Leadership Team
K, M, O Knowledge, Motivation, Organizational dimension
LFP Learning as the Fundamental Purpose
M Mean
McREL Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning
NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress
NCES National Center for Education Statistics
NCLB No Child Left Behind
PLC Professional Learning Community
PUSD Pasadena Unified School District
SBAC Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
SD Standard Deviation
SEIS Special Education Information System
SME Subject Matter Experts
SSA School Site Administrator
SSL Supportive and Shared Leadership
STEAM Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics
STEM Science Technology Engineering Math
TCAR Teacher Collaboration Assessment Rubric
TCIF Teacher Collaboration Improvement Framework
WASC Western Association of School and College
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

13

Abstract
Using the Gap Analysis problem-solving framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), this project
examined collaboration around student achievement at the school site leadership level in the
Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD). This project is one of three concurrent studies focused
on collaboration around student achievement in the PUSD that include the teacher level
conducted by Carruthers (2013) and the central office administrator level conducted by Llamas
(2013). The primary purpose of this project was to identify the knowledge and skills, motivation,
and organizational challenges that contribute to PUSD’s gap in accomplishing its organizational
goal for collaboration around student achievement from the perspective of the school site
leadership. Mixed methods were used to collect survey data from 34 participants and interview
data for four participants to identify and validate the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organization root causes that may contribute to the PUSD’s school site administrator role in
achieving the District’s goal. Findings show that in general school site administrators are highly
motivated and have the necessary knowledge and skills to meet the goals of the district but are
impeded by issues related to resources specifically time for professional development, creation
of job aids, assessments, and intentional communication to encourage collaboration across the
district. Based on the findings, solutions are offered to address these challenges. This project,
along with its concurrent studies, demonstrates how various stakeholders can systematically
apply the Gap Analysis framework to address performance issues when implementing district-
wide collaboration around student academic achievement.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

14

Preface
Some of the chapters in this dissertation were coauthored and have been identified as such.
While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm for most doctoral programs, team inquiry
and collaborative authorship are quite common in the research community. It is in keeping with
the Ed.D. program’s objective to develop highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on
authentic problems of practice, then, that the USC Graduate School and the Rossier School of
Education have permitted our inquiry team to use this collaborative approach.
This dissertation is the result of a collaborative effort between the author and two other
doctoral candidates, Anthony Carruthers and Sonia Llamas. These three doctoral students
consulted with the Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) with the aim of helping the district
to solve an authentic problem of practice. PUSD proposed a problem whose breadth was beyond
the scope of a single dissertation. It was therefore determined that the inquiry team would
produce three articulating dissertations to collectively address the proposed problem. This
resulted in the current dissertation and the works of Carruthers (2013) and Llamas (2013).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

15

Chapter One: Introduction
Authors: Anthony Carruthers, Sonia Llamas, Esther Salinas
1

Introduction of the Problem
Educational institutions in the United States have historically been loosely coupled, low-
reliability organizations (Weick, as cited in Marzano & Waters, 2009). These institutions have
been marked by isolation, lack of coordination, and extreme variance in the quality of education
provided. Increasingly, educators have come to grips with the reality that their institutions must
undergo transformations in organizational structure and culture. Educators and scholars have
written extensively on how principles of learning organizations (Senge, 1990) can be applied in
education to produce the results that the stakeholders within these institutions truly desire. In
practice, however, transforming educational institutions into learning organizations has presented
a complex set of challenges with which practitioners continue to grapple.
Context of the Problem
Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) serves a diverse urban community located in
Los Angeles County, California. It includes the communities of Altadena, Pasadena and Sierra
Madre. Long associated with images of prosperity evoked by the Rose Parade on New Year’s
Day, Pasadena’s public school district serves a different population than might be expected.
PUSD serves 18,652 K-12 students. Of these students, 60.6% are Hispanic, 16.9% are African
American, 13.7% are White, 5.6 % identify as other, and 3.2 % are Asian. Over 68% of students
qualify for the federal free and reduced lunch program for low-income families, 20.6% are
English learners, and 11.7% receive Special Education services.

1
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed reflecting the team approach to this
project. These authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

16

While academic achievement has risen steadily throughout PUSD for the past five years,
the district struggles with lower performing secondary schools, high truancy rates and high
dropout rates. In 2009, 84% of seniors and 74% of juniors passed the California High School
Exit Exam (CAHSEE). For the 2009-2010 school year, PUSD’s graduation rate per NCES
definition was 75.2%. That same year, 427 students in grades 9-12 dropped out of school for a
rate of 6.7%, higher than county (5.4%) and state (4.9%) rates.
PUSD has a vision to prepare all students for success in college and career. Its stated
mission is to provide a caring, engaging, challenging educational experience for every student
every day. The district’s guiding principle is: Our students come first. Our decisions are driven
by what is best for them. PUSD’s core values are Integrity and Respect, Transparency,
Accountability, Equity, Collaboration, and Fiscal Responsibility.
PUSD has launched three core initiatives that signal the direction in which the
organization is headed. First is the College and Career Pathways initiative, which is sponsored by
the James Irvine Foundation. The objective of this initiative is to prepare all students for post-
secondary education and careers. Eight small learning communities (called pathways), housed
within three of PUSD’s four comprehensive high schools, are at the heart of the initiative.
These pathways offer (a) a strong academic foundation, (b) technical education related to
a particular industry sector, (c) personalized student support services, and (d) work-based
learning opportunities. Pathway teachers who share a cohort of students have collaboration time
built into their schedules. Of the 5500 students enrolled in grades nine through twelve,
approximately 1670 (30%) are enrolled in a pathway. Recently the pathway initiative was
extended to the middle school level with the creation of the Science, Technology, Engineering,
Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) magnet at Washington Middle School. This magnet school is
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

17

intended to serve as a pipeline to the Engineering and Environmental Science Pathway at John
Muir High School.
The second major initiative under way in PUSD is the Curriculum Revision Workshop
(CRW). Beginning in the spring of 2012, the CRW has been convening teachers and coaches
from the core disciplines to revise the district’s curriculum to align with the Common Core
Standards. Participating teachers have received an in depth orientation to the Common Core
Standards, Backward Design, and the Understanding By Design process for designing curricular
units (Wiggins & McTighe, 2011). Teachers have also received training, provided by Envision
Learning Partners, on Project Based Learning and Performance Assessment. Grade-level,
subject-specific teacher teams have been developing curricular units and performance
assessments. In the fall of 2012, CRW teachers began piloting the units they had developed.
Teams will continue to pilot and revise curriculum until the 2014-2015 school year when
students will be expected to demonstrate their attainment of CRW learning outcomes on
common performance assessments and national Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
(SBAC) exams.
Finally, PUSD has joined EdLeader21, a self-described professional learning community
(PLC) for district leaders to come together around their commitment to 21
st
Century learning.
More specifically, EdLeader21 districts are committed to integrating communication,
collaboration, critical thinking and creativity (the 4Cs) into all areas of students’ educational
experiences. EdLeader21 provides a 7-step framework for districts to use as they implement the
4Cs. According to their website at http://www.EdLeader21.com/index.php?pg=11, the steps
include:
1. Adopt a vision.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

18

2. Develop Consensus.
3. Align the system.
4. Build professional capacity (primarily through PLC formation; this is identified as the
key step in the framework).
5. Focus curriculum and assessment.
6. Support Teachers.
7. Improve and Innovate.
Organizational Problem
One of the biggest impediments to school success is an overwhelming number of district
initiatives (Olson, as cited in DuFour & Marzano, 2011). When districts have their attention and
resources dispersed to multiple initiatives, it leads to poor implementation of all initiatives. As
Reeves (2011) explains, sustained effort on a limited number of goals improves academic
success. In addition, even when the number of initiatives is manageable, there is often a lack of
effort to ensure that all initiatives are in alignment with one another.
In addition to the initiatives discussed in the previous section, Pasadena Unified School
District has launched several other initiatives ranging in focus from academic achievement to
social emotional development. The PUSD Strategic Plan, Excellent Middle Schools, Linked
Learning, Center X, Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) and Behavior Response to
Intervention (RtI) are examples of initiatives that have been undertaken simultaneously. Each of
these initiatives has an aim to increase student academic performance. Unfortunately, the
initiatives have not been implemented in alignment with one another, and this has resulted in
sporadic success instead of districtwide implementation. One problem, for example, has been a
lack of clarity with respect to the district’s overall vision, its strategy for attaining the vision, and
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

19

the roles that individuals throughout the organization are to play in the strategy. According to
DuFour and Marzano (2011) it is difficult to implement a substantive process in any organization
when people have a deep understanding of the process and its implications for specific action; it
is impossible however, to do so when there is ambiguity or only a superficial understanding of
what must be done (Clark & Estes, 2008; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000).
PUSD’s vision, mission, values, and initiatives reveal PUSD’s commitment, in principle,
to becoming a high-reliability learning organization that is coherently organized to produce the
student achievement outcomes its stakeholders truly desire.
While commitment on this level is necessary, it is not sufficient. What lies ahead for
PUSD as it attempts to become a 21
st
century learning organization is a complex problem that
will test PUSD’s collective commitment and will. Adapting to the new Common Core Standards,
developing and implementing a new curriculum districtwide, and incorporating the 4Cs into all
classrooms will be no small feat. Factor in the need to expand teachers’ instructional repertoires
to include more systematic formative assessment, project-based learning, and performance
assessment, and one begins to appreciate the magnitude of change that is being undertaken. All
of these reforms require organizational coherence and a culture of collaboration, both of which
are in the emerging stages in PUSD. Adding to the complexity is the fact that all of this is
occurring in an era of limited funding. In short, PUSD faces an organizational problem that will
require all stakeholders to replace old paradigms with new ones in order to solve never before
seen problems, the solutions of which are not yet known. In other words, PUSD stakeholders will
have to engage in transformational learning (Mezirow, 1997) and adaptive change (Heifetz &
Laurie, 1997).

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

20

Organizational Goal
While PUSD cannot predict the challenges it will face in the future, developing the
capacity of all stakeholders to consistently and effectively collaborate will increase the
organization’s capacity to meet these challenges. Based on this rationale, PUSD’s superintendent
of schools and chief academic officer identified the improvement and scaling up of collaboration
as the highest priority goal for PUSD. As such, the organizational goal for PUSD is to
institutionalize effective collaboration around student achievement.
Stakeholders. To support student achievement, it is important to strengthen coherence
between actions at the central office, school site, and classroom levels (Childress, Elmore,
Grossman, & King, 2007). As such, the rationale for this study is the need for collaboration on
and between all three levels of PUSD. This study is part of a tri-level districtwide study (See
Carruthers, 2013; Llamas, 2013) examining collaboration around student achievement from the
central office administrator, school site administrator, and classroom teacher perspectives.
Stakeholder for the study. The stakeholder focus for the current project was school site
administrators. The investigator is a school site administrator in PUSD.
Background of the Problem
Lyndon B. Johnson remarked, “The answer for all of our national problems, the answer
for all the problems of the world, comes down, when you really analyze it, to a single word:
education” (Johnson, 1964, p. 1). This statement embodies the dream of educating every child.
However, moving into the 21
st
Century, American public educators strain under the growing
burden of public expectations along with state and federal policies that dim this dream. There is
no clearer example of this than the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

21

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 gave birth to the era of standards-
based reform that has continued to grow in complexity and gravity. Responding to concerns of a
weak educational system that were brought to national attention by A Nation at Risk (1983), No
Child Left Behind (2001) ushered in the era of standards and high stakes accountability. As a
result, public schools today are under increasing pressure to demonstrate program effectiveness
through student achievement as measured by federal Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) and the
state Academic Performance Index (API).
While policy changes outside of the schoolhouse were unfolding, internal changes were
occurring as well. The landscape of American schools was becoming increasingly
heterogeneous. Classrooms were growing more diverse with respect to race, ethnicity, language
and socioeconomic status. Since the 1990s, the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) has shed light on achievement differences between Black and Hispanic students and
their White and Asian counterparts. Differential expectations and outcomes compel educators to
close this achievement gap (Rueda, 2011). Moreover, an increasingly competitive and
unpredictable global economy has made it a moral imperative to close the achievement gap and
prepare all students for post-secondary education and the workplace.
In sum, these pressures require school districts to identify and implement systemic
reforms that have been demonstrated to improve student achievement. One such promising
reform has centered on the role community plays in schools (Louis & Marks, 1998; Vescio,
Ross, & Adams, 2008). Louis and Marks (1998), in their examination of 24 elementary, middle,
and secondary schools, found that the strength of professional community in these schools
predicted quality of teaching practice, support for student achievement, and quality of student
learning. Offering further evidence, Vescio, Ross, and Adams (2008) reviewed eight studies that
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

22

had established direct links between collaborative learning communities and student achievement
gains. There are a variety of models of collaborative learning communities including
Professional Learning Communities (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Hord, 1997), Communities of
Practice (Wenger & Snyder, 2002) and Purposeful Learning Communities (Marzano et al., 2005)
whose key components include shared goals and collaboration. These models provide a structure
for leadership and a process for purposeful interaction (DuFour & Marzano, 2011).
Importance of the Problem
Institutionalizing effective collaboration around student achievement is important
because it develops and makes available the collective capacity of all stakeholders so that this
capacity can be applied to pursue the goals that matter most to stakeholders. In addition,
institutionalizing collaboration promotes innovation, the spreading of best practices, and the
curtailment of ineffective practices. In the absence of collaboration, valuable human capital is
left untapped and faulty practice is allowed to persist. As stated previously, with the moral
imperative to close the achievement gap and prepare all students to be viable in the 21
st
century
global economy, institutionalizing effective collaboration around student achievement is critical.
Purpose of the Study and Questions
The overall purpose of this inquiry project was to assist PUSD with its organizational goal
to institutionalize effective collaboration around student achievement. The project was driven by
two inquiry questions:
1. What are the challenges for PUSD school site administrators, in knowledge and skills,
motivation, and the organizational dimension, that may impede the achievement of
PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student
achievement?
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

23

2. What are the potential solutions to address PUSD school site administrators’ challenges
in knowledge and skills, motivation, and the organizational dimension, and thereby
support PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around
student achievement?
Definitions
Definitions of key terms can be found in Appendix A.
Organization of the Study
This chapter presented the background and the importance of the inquiry team’s focus on
collaboration around student achievement. It also provided a brief overview of the scope of the
project. Chapter Two will provide a review of the literature related to collaboration around
student achievement. Chapter Three provides the methodology used by the inquiry team and an
analysis of assumed causes of the performance gaps. In Chapter Four the results of the data
collection will be discussed. In Chapter Five, solutions will be proposed along with
recommendations for implementing these solutions. Finally, Chapter Six will provide a
discussion of project limitations and propose an evaluation plan for the project.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

24

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Authors: Anthony Carruthers, Sonia Llamas, Esther Salinas
2

Public education in the United States has been the object of reform efforts for the past
thirty years. Recently federal, state, and local agencies have implemented accountability
measures that focus on student achievement. The federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB),
state-level end-of-course and high school exit exams, and value-added teacher evaluations are
but a few examples of these achievement-centered accountability systems. Meeting the demands
of these accountability systems requires central office leaders, school site administrators, and
classroom teachers (tri-level) to work collaboratively to develop the environments and practices
that optimize achievement for all students.
It is widely accepted and empirically supported that collaboration capacity predicts
student achievement and can determine the success or failure of any school reform effort (Gajda
& Koliba, 2007, 2008; Goddard, Goddard, & Tschannen-Moran, 2007; Hord, 1986; Lawson,
2004; Welch, 1998). Efforts to build collaboration capacity within schools, which have taken on
a multitude of names, have common characteristics. These efforts have generally sought to
provide structures for distributed leadership and processes for purposeful collaboration to
ultimately promote student achievement.
This literature review will examine various topics related to collaboration around student
achievement and will be organized as follows:
1. Organizational capacity and internal accountability
2. Forms of isolation in educational organizations
3. Models of collaboration in educational organizations

2
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed reflecting the team approach to this
project. These authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

25

4. Common characteristics for collaboration
5. Knowledge requirements for successful collaborations
6. Motivational requirements for successful collaboration
7. Organizational requirements for successful collaboration
8. Tri-level considerations for leadership and organizational change
Organizational Capacity and Internal Accountability
This section of the literature review begins with an examination of the characteristics and
dynamics associated with external accountability systems. Then it examines on the need to
develop organizational capacity and internal accountability in order to meet the demands of these
high-stakes external accountability systems.
Researchers (Center on Educational Policy (CEP), 2007; Dee & Jacob, 2009) have noted
gains on standardized tests under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). This suggests that
external accountability systems promote student achievement. However gains have been modest
and have not been consistent across grade levels or content areas (Sahlberg, 2010). Moreover, it
is difficult to attribute increased test scores to NCLB because multiple reforms were being
implemented concurrently with NCLB (CEP, 2007).
External accountability systems also neglect important aspects of student achievement
not measured on standardized tests. For example, while strong state accountability systems have
been associated with higher average scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP), educational attainment and ninth grade retention, for example, were not significantly
affected by these accountability systems (Carnoy & Loeb, 2002).
External accountability systems also produce unintended negative effects. For example,
external accountability systems create tensions that contribute to teacher burnout (Berryhill,
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

26

Linney, & Fromewick, 2009). Schoen and Fusarelli (2008) argue that schools have responded to
the pressures of NCLB in ways that have diminished their capacity to provide a 21
st
century
education. Similarly, Sahlberg (2010) suggests that external accountability systems have stunted
the development of 21
st
century skills such as critical thinking and creativity.
Responding to external accountability pressures, and mitigating their harmful effects,
requires organizational capacity building. As Elmore (2002) explains, “Schools do not ‘succeed’
in responding to external cues or pressures unless they have their own internal system for
reaching agreement on good practice and for making that agreement evident in organization and
pedagogy” (p. 20). In order to create these conditions, the central office must perform the
strategic function (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006). That is, it must develop a strategy for
improving teaching and learning and align all organizational components with the strategy.
Additionally, norms of reciprocal accountability must be established (Elmore, 2002). According
to Elmore (2002), if leaders want increases in student achievement, “the quid pro quo is
investing in the knowledge and skill necessary to produce it” (p. 5). Similarly, “If educators want
legitimacy, purpose and credibility for their work, the quid pro quo is learning to do their work
differently and accepting a new model of accountability”(p. 5).
Hall (2010) describes this new model of accountability as internal accountability. It
requires educators to (a) modify content and practice, (b) monitor progress toward specific goals,
and (c) institute a system of rewards and sanctions (Hall, 2010, p. 10).
Citing Newmann et al. (1997), Hall (2010) reports that strong internal accountability
reflects the capacity of a school to collectively organize the following four dimensions: (a)
effective leadership, (b) teachers’ professional knowledge and skills, (c) technical and financial
resources, and (d) autonomy to act according to the demands of local contexts (p. 10). School
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

27

districts with strong internal accountability systems have (a) shared expectations among
stakeholders at all levels about what constitutes quality work and (b) processes for monitoring
whether these expectations are being met (Elmore, 2002).
This section established a vision of organizational capacity building and internal
accountability. The current state of affairs in educational institutions stands in stark contrast to
this vision of internal accountability and coherence. The next section examines the
organizational forms and culture typically found in educational institutions.
Isolation
School districts typically reflect a culture of isolation (Flinders, 1988; Gratch, 2000; Tye
& Tye, 1984). This section reviews literature on isolation within the central office, principal
isolation, and teacher isolation. Literature identifying strategies that institutions have employed
to address the isolation problem at all three levels is also discussed.
Isolation within the Central Office
Central offices have historically been organized as silos (Fullan, as cited in Borman,
Carter, Aladjem, Kerstin, & Carlson LeFloch, 2004). The silo organizational structure is
problematic (Waite, 2010). For example, the inherent insularity of silo organizations makes it
difficult for innovations that occur in one silo to spread throughout the organization. Silos also
create inefficiency due to duplication of efforts. Silo structures tend to leave critical
organizational functions not accounted for through a phenomenon called “responsibility floating”
(Bauman, as cited in Waite, 2010). Responsibility floating occurs when each silo is aware of the
failures that are resulting from particular organizational functions falling through the cracks, but
because these functions do not fall within the purview of any particular silo, no one takes
responsibility.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

28

School districts that have successfully addressed the problematic nature of silo
organizations without undergoing wholesale central office restructuring have (a) taken a systems
approach to reform, (b) created a learning community at the central office, (c) focused intently
on teaching and learning, (d) supported professional learning and instructional improvement, and
(e) used data to support accountability (Borman et al., 2004, p. 116). Borman et al. (2004) also
highlight the importance of all central office administrators being knowledgeable about district
reforms so that their resource allocation decisions are coherently aligned with district reform
efforts.
Principal Isolation
Principal isolation stems from the following variables: (a) role ambiguity, (b) role
overload, and (c) lack of social support (Stephenson & Bauer, 2010). Stephenson and Bauer
(2010) surveyed 196 first- and second-year elementary, middle, high, and alternative school
principals from across the state of Louisiana in order to examine the relationships between
various factors and principal burnout. The authors found that principal isolation mediated the
relationship between the above-mentioned variables and physical and emotional burnout.
Ironically, individual coaching provided to principals increased role overload and thereby
exacerbated principal isolation and burnout.
In a study of five high-poverty districts making strides in improving student achievement
system-wide, Togneri and Anderson (2003) reported that these districts countered principal
isolation by (a) forming networks of high-performing principals to increase leadership capacity,
(b) convening principals to share challenges and strategies and develop common understanding
on emerging issues, and (c) incorporating tools for improving collaboration.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

29

Teacher Isolation
Teacher isolation impedes school reform. Schmoker (2006) implicates the buffer as “a
protective barrier that discourages and even punishes close, constructive scrutiny of instruction
and the supervision of instruction” (p. 13). He argues that shielding instruction and
supervision—the heart of schooling—from external criticism prevents school improvement.
In order for schools to improve, teachers must be connected to external knowledge, and
conditions within the school must promote the sharing of knowledge (Tye & Tye, 1984).
Historically, teachers have been disconnected from external sources of new knowledge and have
not shared knowledge with each other (Goodlad, as cited in Tye & Tye, 1984). “New ideas in
education travel rather randomly through the system, from school to school and person to person;
they tend to be pursued individually, if at all—not in concert” (Goodlad, 1983, p. 555). Goodlad
(1983) asserts, “The culture of the school must operate in such a way as to encourage and give
legitimacy to alternative ideas, if such ideas are to take root and grow” (p. 555).
Teacher isolation also threatens human capital. For example, teacher isolation is a risk
factor for alienation and burnout (Brooks, Hughes & Brooks, 2008; Schlicte, Yssel, & Merbler,
2005). Flinders (1988) offers an alternate view of teacher isolation as an adaptive strategy that
teachers use to protect themselves psychologically. Flinders reasons that the inherent stresses of
collaboration pose a psychological threat to teachers who are already overwhelmed. Flinders
advises administrators and policy-makers to use a two-pronged approach that (a) removes
antecedents of isolation and (b) supports teachers in order to lower psychological barriers to
collaboration.
While isolation is clearly problematic, there are also intermediate states between isolation
and collaboration that can pose problems. For example, in a culture of contrived collegiality
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

30

(Hargreaves & Dawe, 1990) administrators contrive interactions between teachers in order to
engineer predetermined outcomes. In balkanized cultures (Hargreaves & Macmillan, 1992),
small groups of educators (e.g., departments) isolate themselves from the rest of the staff. These
groups typically adopt partisan stances and put their own interests above the collective interests
of the school community.
Fallon and Barnett (2009) found in a case study of an elementary school that restructuring
to foster collegiality and collaboration addressed the challenge of teacher isolation. Restructuring
schools as learning communities, in particular, holds hope for facilitating the transition from
isolation to a culture of collaboration (Rasberry & Mahajan, 2008).
In this section, the case was made for moving away from a culture of isolation toward a culture
of collaboration. The next section examines models that have been conceived to facilitate this
transition.
Models of Collaboration in Educational Settings
Although learning communities hold great promise for improving education, as Rasberry
and Mahajan (2008) explain:
Many schools across the country are currently using the term “professional learning
community” to loosely describe groups of teachers that work together at specified times
in their buildings. Unfortunately, a great majority of these schools falter in their efforts to
truly create PLCs because they are not implementing them appropriately or they do not
provide them with proper support (p. 3).
Collaboration within educational settings has come to be defined by a number of different
models and conceptions—not just PLCs—referred to generally herein as collaborative learning
communities (CLCs). It is important for practitioners to have an intimate knowledge of the
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

31

unifying and distinguishing features of the various models in order to avoid faltering in their
efforts to create CLCs. The models that will be reviewed here include Communities of
Commitment (Kofman & Senge, 1993), Communities of Practice (Wenger, 1998), Critical
Friends Groups (Costa & Kallick, 1993), Coalition Of Essential Schools (Sizer, 1986),
Professional Learning Communities (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, &
Karhanek, 2010; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2010; Hord, 1997), and Purposeful
Communities (Waters & Cameron, 2007).
Many case studies have examined the impact of CLC implementation on student
achievement outcomes (Hughes & Kritsonis, 2007; Taylor, Pressley, & Pearson, 2000; Vescio et
al., 2008). When implemented correctly, CLCs have been found to foster collective
accountability and coherence and in doing so raise student achievement. This section examines
the various models of collaboration that have been implemented within educational settings.
Communities of Commitment

‘Learning organization’ is a linguistic representation used to articulate a vision for
creating “a type of organization we would truly like to work within and which can thrive in a
world of increasing interdependency and change” (Kofman & Senge, 2003, p. 20). The learning
organization vision is grounded in (a) a culture based on values of love, humility, wonder,
empathy, and compassion; (b) a set of practices for generative conversation and coordinated
action; and (c) a capacity to see and work with the flow of life as a system (p. 20). Kofman and
Senge (2003) explain how pursuing one’s vision of a learning organization requires patience,
courage, and servant leadership. It requires community and commitment to building learning
environments that support individual transformation and collective agency. Communities of
commitment are at the heart of learning organizations and represent a frame of reference that is
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

32

countercultural to the fragmentation, competition, and reactiveness reflected in society. This
frame of reference promotes systems thinking, team building, and preemptive strikes of proactive
leadership.
Communities of Practice
Communities of Practice (CoP) evolved from a study of apprenticeship (Lave & Wenger,
1991). The study revealed that apprenticeship involves a set of complex social interactions
through which all involved participants learn—not just the apprentices. As a result, new
professional behaviors are collectively created, practiced, and refined (Harris & Jones, 2010).
CoPs are comprised of “groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they
do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (Wenger, 2009, p. 1). A CoP is
defined by three factors: (a) the domain, (b) the community, and (c) the practice.
The domain is the field of shared interest that unites the CoP members. The domain
ultimately derives value from the CoP’s collective enterprise. The community is built upon
relationships that enable its members to engage in common activities, help one another, and learn
from one another. The practice is the common repertoire of resources including experiences,
stories, tools, and problem solving strategies. Its improvement is the object of CoP interactions.
As co-participants, members engage in meaningful activity through which identity and practices
develop (Handley, Sturdy, Fincham & Clark, 2006; Wenger, 1998, 2009). These elements, when
developed, constitute a community of practice.
Critical Friends Group

Critical Friends Group (CFG) is a model developed by National School Reform Faculty.
CFGs usually consist of a small group who are committed to improving their practice and
increasing student achievement. CFGs are characterized by mutual trust and inquiry. They invite
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

33

reflection, public practice, meaningful questions, and substantive feedback that challenge
assumptions, habits, and practices. A critical friend is “a trusted person who asks provocative
questions, provides data to be examined through another lens, and offers critiques of a person’s
work as a friend” (Costa & Kallick, 1993, p. 49). A critical friend takes time to fully understand
the context of the work presented and the desired outcomes toward which the person and group
are working. The friend essentially becomes an advocate for the success of that work.
CFG participants use processes and protocols to promote meaningful interaction, learning,
and problem solving. The term “critical” distinguishes that which is important, key, essential, or
urgent (National School Reform Faculty, 2012). CFGs meet at least once per month for about
two hours. Four design features characterize CFGs: (a) a diverse menu of protocol choices, (b)
decentralized structure, (c) interdisciplinary membership, and (d) protocol reliance.
Coalition of Essential Schools

Theodore Sizer founded The Coalition of Essential School (CES) in 1984 in response to
the Carnegie Task Force’s insistence that schools should not continue to accept existing school
design, but should rather rebuild schools for better student performance (Muncey & McQuillan,
1993; Sizer, 1986). The Coalition of Essential Schools, originally sponsored by the National
Association of Secondary School Principals (Sizer, 1986), is a group of autonomous schools
united by a set of ten common principles for school-wide reform: (a) intellectual focus that helps
students use their minds well; (b) simple goals that value depth and mastery over breadth of
content covered; (c) universal goals that apply to all students; (d) personalization of teaching and
learning; (e) transition from student-as-worker and teacher-as-coach to teaching students how to
learn, then teach themselves; (f) student exhibitions of content mastery; (g) tone of decency,
portraying high expectations, trust and values of fairness, generosity and tolerance; (h) staff are
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

34

first generalists, then specialists; (i) budget or resources dedicated to teaching and learning; and
(j) democracy and equity (MacMullen, 1996).
Instructional Improvement Through Inquiry and Collaboration was a later project of the
Coalition of Essential Schools. It integrated the ten principles with elements of critical friends
groups and the cycle of inquiry to examine student work as a resource to improve instruction and
increase student achievement (Little, Gearhart, Curry, & Kafka, 2003).
Professional Learning Communities According to Hord
Professional learning communities have been the result of school reform efforts (Hord,
1997) through a process of continuous development of individuals who effect organizational
change (Fullan, 1993). The professional learning community has evolved over time. Hord (1998)
described five attributes that define a professional learning community of continuous inquiry and
improvement: (a) shared leadership, (b) collective creativity, (c) shared vision and values, (d)
supportive conditions, and (e) shared practice.
Supportive and shared leadership is collegial and facilitates staff input (Hord, 1997). The
site principal, for example, shares authority, facilitates the work of staff members, and
participates as a peer and colleague without dominating (Louis & Kruse, 1995; Prestine, 1993).
Collective creativity occurs when people work collaboratively and engage in inquiry activities
and reflective dialogue around teaching and learning (Hord, 1997; Sergiovanni, 1994). Shared
vision and values involve all staff in the development of a shared vision that guides decisions
about teaching and learning. Supportive conditions determine when, where, and how people
collaborate (Hord, 1997; Louis & Kruse, 1995). Physical supportive conditions include
allocation of time and space to meet and structures for communication. Human capacities
conditions include willingness to visit and review teachers’ classrooms, engage in inquiry, accept
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

35

feedback, and demonstrate collegial respect and trust (Hord, 1997). Shared practice is the
process of routinely observing and learning from the behaviors of colleagues (Hord, 1997; Louis
& Kruse, 1995). Together, these attributes nurture a community of continuous learning.
Professional Learning Communities According to DuFour and Eaker

DuFour and Eaker (1998) describe six characteristics of professional learning
communities: (a) shared mission, vision, and values; (b) collective inquiry; (c) collaborative
teams; (d) action orientation and experimentation; (e) continuous improvement; and (f) results
orientation. Each characteristic addresses a specific question that is posed to PLC members.

An organization’s shared vision and mission, for example, answers the questions, “Why
do we exist?” and “What do we hope to become?” How a school chooses to answer these
questions reveals the organization’s underlying assumptions, beliefs and values (DuFour &
Eaker, 1998). Collective inquiry (Ross, Smith, & Roberts, 1994) occurs when team members (a)
participate in public reflection, (b) arrive at shared meaning and common understanding of
assumptions and beliefs, (c) engage in joint planning to test their shared insights, and (d)
implement the action plans they develop (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
Teams are “a critical component of every enterprise – the predominant unit for decision
making and getting things done” (Senge, Ross, Smith, Roberts, & Kleiner, 1994, p. 354). Action
orientation and experimentation turn vision into reality when team members test their ideas,
evaluate their theories, reflect on the outcome of those experiments and develop new theories.
Failures are integral to the experimentation process and provide opportunities for team learning
(DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Continuous improvement requires a never-ending commitment to
innovation and experimentation that define the daily habits of the organization. This occurs when
members engage in answering key questions such as: (a) “What is our fundamental purpose?” (b)
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

36

“What do we hope to achieve?” (c) “What are our strategies?” and (d) “What criteria will we use
to assess our improvement efforts?” (DuFour & Eaker, 1998, p. 28). All efforts of the
organization must come under the scrutiny of assessed results, not intentions. Furthermore, the
extent to which the PLC is developing a shared mission, vision and values, engaging in
collective inquiry, building collaborative teams, taking action, and focusing on continuous
improvement must be subject to ongoing assessment (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
DuFour et al. (2010) present three big ideas of PLC:
1. The purpose of school is to ensure that all students learn.
2. Ensuring that all students learn requires a culture of collaboration.
3. Ensuring that all students learn requires a focus on results.
PLCs require an ongoing cycle of inquiry and dialogue (DuFour, 2004). DuFour et al. (2010)
identify four core questions PLCs must address:
1. What are the essential learning outcomes that all students must reach?
2. How will we know whether or not students have reached the essential learning
outcomes?
3. How will we respond when students do not reach the essential learning outcomes?
4. How will we respond when students demonstrate the need for enrichment?
Purposeful Community
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) conducted a meta-analysis
of the effect of school leadership on student achievement and found a significant correlation. The
researchers identified 21 leadership responsibilities and 66 corresponding practices that have
empirically been shown to raise student achievement (Marzano et al., 2005). McREL also
conducted three studies on the effects of classroom, school, and leadership practices on student
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

37

achievement (Waters & Cameron, 2007). From their analyses, Waters and Cameron (2007)
developed the Balanced Leadership Framework, which organized the 21 responsibilities into a
structure comprised of (a) leadership, (b) focus, (c) magnitude of change, and (d) purposeful
community.
Leadership. Leadership is the foundational component within the balanced leadership
framework because of how it permeates the other three components of focus, magnitude of
change, and purposeful community (Waters & Cameron, 2007). The 21 identified leadership
responsibilities are distributed among these three components and are designed to “help
principals balance their time and efforts in fulfilling important and essential responsibilities
[related to student achievement]” (Waters & Cameron, 2007, p. 18). Among the essential
responsibilities found to support student achievement are (a) providing resources in the form of
materials and professional development, (b) involvement in curriculum, instruction, and
assessment; (c) focusing on establishing clear and challenging goals for students and teachers,
(d) outreaching to all school stakeholders, (e) establishing an orderly environment, (f) providing
protection from instructional distractors, and (g) recognizing and rewarding accomplishments
(Waters & Cameron, 2007).
Magnitude of change. The magnitude of change is based on the nature of change, the
implications of change, the change process, and the skill required to lead change. Distinctions are
made between first-order change and second-order change. First-order change, perceived as an
extension of past practice, is contrasted with second-order change, which is perceived as a break
from past practice. Not all stakeholders will share the same perception of change so educational
leaders must be knowledgeable of the four phases of the change process which include (a)
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

38

creating demand, (b) implementation, (c) managing personal transitions, and (d) monitoring and
evaluating the effectiveness of the initiative on student learning.
Purposeful community. School community engagement comes from the intentional
creation of voluntary communities that focus on student and adult learning (Wagner, 2003).
Purposeful communities are ones “with the collective efficacy and capability to use all available
assets to accomplish purposes and produce outcomes that matter to all community members
through agreed-upon processes” (Waters & Cameron, 2007, p. 46). This definition is made up of
four interconnected characteristics (italicized). A purposeful community develops collective
vision around purposes that can only be accomplished through community. All available assets,
tangible and intangible, are developed and utilized to accomplish these purposes (Waters &
Cameron, 2007). Agreed-upon processes are organizing principles that establish order and
discipline. They influence patterns of interaction, relationships among community members,
connections between the school and other critical institutions, and shared leadership
opportunities (Waters & Cameron, 2007). Collective efficacy is the shared conviction that the
purposeful community can organize and implement a specific course of action. It is the shared
belief that together the community can positively impact student achievement.
The literature reviewed in this section explored the characteristics that define the various
individual models and conceptions of collaboration in educational settings. The next section
identifies the common characteristics shared by these various models and conceptions.
Common Characteristics of Collaboration
In the previous section, various collaborative models were examined (see Appendix B for
a table summarizing the models). Regardless of the particular model, there are core
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

39

characteristics and competencies related to effective collaboration around student achievement.
This section of the literature review identifies these core characteristics and competencies.
The following five common characteristics of collaboration around student achievement were
identified from the literature: (a) supportive and shared leadership, (b) learning as the
fundamental purpose, (c) culture of collaboration, (d), focus on results, and (e) collective
efficacy. Table 1 displays the five common characteristics and 12 associated competencies along
with the seminal works from which they were identified (see Appendix C for a detailed
explanation of the five characteristics and the associated competencies).

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

40

Table 1
Common Characteristics and Competencies of Collaboration Around Student Achievement (CASA)
Synthesized From Literature Reviewed
Common Characteristics and Competencies Literature Reviewed
Supportive and Shared Leadership
1. Building capacity
2. Defining autonomy
3. Allocating resources
Costa and Kallick (1993)
DuFour and Eaker (1998)
DuFour and Marzano (2011)
Hord (1997, 1998)
Kofman and Senge (1993)
Marzano et al. (2005)
Wenger and Snyder (2000)
Learning as the Fundamental Purpose
4. Building collective knowledge regarding essential
learning outcomes
5. Developing and deploying an assessment and
monitoring system
6. Developing timely, directive, systematic
interventions and enrichment opportunities
7. Evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in
producing the essential learning outcomes
DuFour et al. (2010)
DuFour and Marzano (2011)
Hord (1997, 1998)
Kofman and Senge (1993)
Marzano et al. (2005)
Sizer (1986)

Culture of Collaboration
8. Allocating time to meet
9. Working interdependently to gather, analyze and
determine best practices and transfer best practices
across all team members
Costa and Kallick (1993)
DuFour et al. (2010)
DuFour and Eaker (1998)
DuFour and Marzano (2011)
Hord (1997, 1998)
Kofman and Senge (1993)
Marzano et al. (2005)
Wenger and Snyder (2000)
Focus on Results
10. Using common assessment data to identify needs for
intervention and enrichment
11. Using assessment data to identify strengths and
weaknesses in individual and collective teaching as
part of a continuous improvement cycle
DuFour et al. (2010)
DuFour and Eaker (1998)
DuFour and Marzano (2011)
Hord (1997, 1998)
Sizer (1986)
Marzano et al. (2005)
Wenger and Snyder (2000)
Collective Efficacy
12. Sharing the belief that the team can organize and
execute a course of action that positively impacts
student achievement
DuFour and Marzano (2011)
Marzano et al. (2005)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

41

This section of the literature review narrowed the discussion of collaboration around
student achievement to five common characteristics and 12 associated competencies. Each of
these characteristics and competencies requires adequate levels of knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational support (see Appendix D for the 12 competencies parsed into
their knowledge, motivation, and organizational components). As such, there are knowledge,
motivation, and organizational requirements for effective collaboration around student
achievement. The next section discusses the knowledge requirements.
Knowledge Requirements for Effective Collaboration
It is important for all stakeholders to possess the factual, procedural, conceptual, and
metacognitive knowledge required to participate in effective collaboration around student
achievement. Asking uninformed people to make decisions will likely result in a group of people
making uninformed decisions (DuFour et al., 2010). The essence of collaboration around student
achievement is building the shared knowledge needed to make informed decisions (DuFour et
al., 2010). Ensuring that all team members have access to the same quality of information and
knowledge increases the likelihood that the members will arrive at conclusions that are of
similar, if not the same, quality (DuFour et al., 2010).
Factual Knowledge
Factual knowledge is fundamental because it forms the building blocks for higher levels
of knowledge construction. Knowledge of terminology is one of the major divisions of factual
knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). At a basic level, then, effective school districts
establish a shared understanding of common terminology embodying professional practice
(Marzano & Waters, 2009).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

42

Practitioners in less effective districts use established vocabulary loosely or fail to
establish a common vocabulary at all (Marzano & Waters, 2009). For example, terms such as
PLC, formative assessment, project-based learning, differentiated instruction, remediation, and
enrichment are used commonly. However, people’s usage of these terms often reveals that they
have incomplete understanding, or else complete misunderstanding of these terms. For example,
Fullan (2010) reports that the term PLC has traveled faster than the concept itself. Consequently,
many schools have implemented what they believe is a professional learning community
superficially and can show only minimal effects on student achievement. Districts that produce
notable effect sizes on student achievement develop a common “language of instruction” and
work to ensure that all stakeholders know this language (Marzano & Waters, 2009).
Teaching learners the meaning of important terms they will encounter in their routine
operations through direct instruction facilitates factual knowledge acquisition (Marzano, 2004).
An effective sequence for teaching essential vocabulary is (a) identifying a list of critical terms,
(b) providing a description, explanation, and example for each, and (c) providing opportunities
for groups to collaboratively develop accurate, learner-friendly definitions (Marzano & Waters,
2009). To ensure success throughout the organization, district leaders must identify the key
vocabulary needed for effective collaboration around student achievement and employ strategies
to ensure that all teams develop a common working knowledge of this vocabulary.
Based on the five common characteristics of collaboration around student achievement,
educators must have factual knowledge that the fundamental purpose of school is to ensure that
all students learn at high levels (DuFour et al., 2010). Acknowledging this as a fact initiates a
process of higher knowledge construction that ultimately results in practitioners identifying the
implications this fact has for their practice. Educators at all levels must also have factual
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

43

knowledge of the essential learning outcomes that all students must achieve (Marzano & Waters,
2009). These include outcomes specified by content and process standards as well as dispositions
and habits of mind that students are expected to acquire by the end of a particular learning
progression (Marzano & Waters, 2009). In addition, all stakeholders must agree on
operationalized definitions of key CLC elements. For example, there should be common
understanding of terms such as “action research” (Marzano & Waters, 2009) and “collaborative
analysis of student learning” (Langer, Colton, & Goff, 2003)
Conceptual Knowledge
Conceptual knowledge is related to factual knowledge. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001)
give a rationale for distinguishing conceptual knowledge from factual knowledge. Conceptual
knowledge is characterized by the connections that are made between discrete pieces of
knowledge in order to form an organized body of knowledge that is greater than the sum of its
parts. The authors associate conceptual knowledge with mental models, schema, and explicit and
implicit theories from cognitive psychology. The hallmark of conceptual knowledge, according
to Anderson and Krathwohl, is that it enables transfer of knowledge across domains and to novel
contexts.
In their revised taxonomy, Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) divide conceptual knowledge
into three categories. The first is Knowledge of Classifications and Categories. The second
category is Knowledge of Principles and Generalizations, and has to do with the deep
abstractions that can be made from the knowledge in a subject. Finally, conceptual knowledge
includes Knowledge of Theories, Models and Structures. This category, according to Anderson
and Krathwohl (2001), is distinct from the previous category because it relates to how groups of
principles and generalizations coalesce into larger theories, models, and structures.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

44

Working collaboratively to ensure that all students learn requires conceptual knowledge
of all three types described above. Having the ability to classify and categorize, for example, is
required when making distinctions between formative assessment and summative assessment.
This is an important distinction as it affects the mode of assessment, nature of feedback, and
impact on grades. With respect to principles and generalizations, it is important for educators to
understand, for example, core principles such as “Learning is the constant; time and support are
variables” (DuFour et al., 2010), and the implications this principle holds for all aspects of the
educational program. Finally, regarding theories, models, and structures, it is important for
educators at all levels to internalize (a) the cycle of continuous improvement and (b) the concept
of reciprocity of accountability for capacity building (Elmore, 2002) so that these mental models
shape every aspect of their practice.
Procedural Knowledge
Procedural knowledge is the knowledge of skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods—
the steps to be taken in a sequence or series. Aside from knowing the steps to take, procedural
knowledge also includes the knowledge of the criteria and conditions under which the
procedures should be followed (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Procedural knowledge is specific
to particular subjects and disciplines. For example, in math there are algorithms for solving
quadratic equations, and in science there is the scientific method of conducting experiments.
When following the steps of the procedure, the outcome or product is generally a predetermined
or fixed result. The emphasis of procedural knowledge is not the ability to use the procedure, but
rather the knowledge about the procedure (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Procedural knowledge
also includes the disciplinary norms that are subject-specific. This is the knowledge of the
heuristics used to solve problems within a particular discipline, and not necessarily the solutions
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

45

to the problems, themselves. Procedural knowledge is what one knows of the various methods
and techniques of a specific subject (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Procedural knowledge also
includes the knowledge of when and where to use the appropriate procedures. This knowledge is
often historical because it involves knowing the ways in which the procedures have been applied
in the past. Experts in their particular fields will know when and how to use the appropriate
procedures based on subject-specific criteria that will help them determine which method,
technique or procedure to apply (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
Collaboration around student achievement requires significant amounts of procedural
knowledge. For example, to enact the cycle of continuous improvement, educators must know
procedures for (a) identifying learning outcomes, (b) creating assessments, monitoring and
feedback systems, (c) planning instructional activities, (d) generating and analyzing assessment
data, (e) creating action plans based on assessment data, (f) executing action plans, and (g)
evaluating the impact of the actions taken. Additionally educators must know how to collaborate.
For example, they must know how to plan and conduct meetings, work interdependently, and
navigate interpersonal dynamics.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Metacognitive knowledge is knowledge about cognition in general, as well as knowledge
about one’s own cognitive processes and the cognitive strategies that are required for particular
tasks (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Metacognitive awareness allows, for example, teams to
gauge their progress through the stages of team development (Tuckman, as cited in Tuckman &
Jensen, 1977).
Tuckman (as cited in Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) identified stages through which
collaborative groups typically progress. With regard to the internal dynamics of the teams,
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

46

themselves, Tuckman (as cited in Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) proposed the following
developmental trajectory. In the first stage, team members are oriented with each other and begin
to test the boundaries of their interpersonal relations. They also start to develop dependency
relationships with one another. In the second stage, interpersonal conflict and resistance to group
conformity begin to surface. The third stage is marked by the lowering of resistance to group
identity formation and by the development of group cohesion. In this third stage, roles are
defined, standards of performance are developed, and modes of operation are established. In the
final stage, the group begins to function as a unit with interdependent roles flexibly assigned to
accomplish tasks with maximum effectiveness and efficiency.
With regard to a team’s engagement with a particular task, Tuckman (as cited in
Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) proposed the following trajectory:
1. The team gets oriented to the task.
2. The team has emotional responses to the demands of the task.
3. The team has an open exchange of relevant interpretations of the task.
4. Solutions begin to emerge.

The parallels between the trajectories of interpersonal dynamics and engagement with a
new task led Tuckman (as cited in Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) to organize the stages of
development, generally, into the four stages of forming, storming, norming and performing. It is
expected that all collaborative teams will progress through these stages. It is therefore important
for team members, first, to know that there is a developmental progression that plays out when a
new team is formed or when an existing team is presented with a new task. Secondly, it is
important for team members to use metacognition to locate themselves on the developmental
continuum so that they choose appropriate strategies to continue progressing along the
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

47

continuum rather than stagnating. Miller (2003) proposes an instrument for measuring the
constructs in Tuckman’s model (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977), which can be used by teams to
assess their own progress along the developmental continuum.
Dooner, Mandzuk, and Clifton (2008) similarly addressed the issue of stages of team
development as it relates specifically to PLCs. The authors asserted that a significant pitfall
involved in PLC implementation is prospective members’ ignorance of the inherent conflict that
PLCs involve. This ignorance, which can be seen as a lack of metacognitive knowledge, leads to
maladaptive responses to the conflicts that inevitably occur. As the authors explain, the inquiry
process that is part and parcel of learning communities is characterized by interpersonal tension
and teachers often view tension as a problem rather than an opportunity.
This section provided information on factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge. Additionally, the synergistic roles that these knowledge types play in promoting
effective collaboration around student achievement were discussed. The next section reviews
literature on motivational requirements for effective collaboration.
Motivation Requirements for Effective Collaboration
Knowledge alone is useless if people are not motivated. Motivation determines the extent
to which people choose to exert mental effort and persist in the face of difficulties. This section
reviews literature on constructs related to motivation. More specifically, in keeping with Clark’s
(1998) Commitment And Necessary Effort (CANE) model, this section reviews literature on the
effects of capability beliefs, affective factors, and task value on motivation.
Capability Beliefs
Self-efficacy. Clark (1998) postulated that capability beliefs are shaped by external and
internal factors. External sources that impact capability beliefs about collaboration include, for
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

48

example, organizational impediments like (a) inadequate time and resources or (b) conflicting
schedules. Organizational requirements of effective collaboration will be discussed in the next
section. Suffice it to say for the time being, though, that capability beliefs play a mediating role
between organizational factors and motivational variables.
Self-efficacy is an internal source of capability beliefs. Proposed and studied by Bandura
in the late 1970s and early 80s, self-efficacy relates to the perceived capabilities of an individual.
As a psychological construct, self-efficacy has been applied broadly in contexts from inquiries
about clinical phobias, depression, and recovery from heart attack to the study of smoking
cessation. This widespread applicability of the construct has created some ambiguity regarding
its meaning. This literature review aims to clarify the role of self-efficacy in the context of
collaboration around student achievement. While this study will ultimately consider perceived
collective teacher efficacy (CTE), the discussion begins with an articulation of Bandura’s (1977)
seminal theory of self-efficacy. Following this critical examination of self-efficacy, a discussion
of how the construct has been applied in educational research will be provided.
Bandura (1977) defines efficacy as the belief a person holds regarding his or her ability to
accomplish a given task (1977). Stated another way, Bandura (1977) defined perceived self-
efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capacity to organize and execute the courses of action required to
manage prospective situations” (p. 2). Self-efficacy has to do with a person’s perception of
competence rather than their actual level of competence (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).
Self-efficacy beliefs influence emotions and thoughts, thereby determining the extent to which
individuals exert the necessary effort to (a) initially pursue goals, (b) persist when tasks become
difficult, and (c) recover from failures and setbacks (Bandura, 1977).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

49

Self-efficacy and teacher efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief about his or
her capabilities to control his or her own level of functioning in response to events (Bandura,
1977). Related to self-efficacy beliefs, teacher efficacy beliefs refer to teachers’ judgments of
their ability to produce desired student outcomes, particularly with unmotivated or challenging
students (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Perceived teacher efficacy is essentially a teacher’s
perception of the extent to which they can impact student achievement (Tschannen-Moran et al.,
1998).
Bandura’s four sources of efficacy. Having established the importance of self-efficacy,
sources of efficacy will now be discussed. Bandura (1977, 1997) identified four sources of self-
efficacy beliefs: (a) performance accomplishments (also known as mastery experiences), (b)
vicarious experience, (c) physiological and emotional states, and (d) verbal-social persuasion. Of
the four sources, this review will focus primarily on mastery experiences, as these are the most
influential of the four sources (Bandura, 1997).
Mastery experiences relate to how an individual has performed a specific task in the past
and the outcomes they have experienced as a result. The perception by an individual that they
have been successful in the past with a particular task raises their efficacy related to that task.
Conversely, past experiences of failure with a task make it more likely that a person will expect
to perform the task poorly in the future.
In a quantitative study of 37 urban elementary schools conducted by Hoy and Woolfolk
(1993), it was found that teachers who had more teaching experience and higher levels of
education had higher levels of teaching efficacy. This is likely due, at least in part, to the fact that
the more seasoned teachers had more mastery experiences than less experienced teachers.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

50

Bandura’s (1997) second source of efficacy-shaping information is vicarious experiences.
Vicarious experiences occur by witnessing someone else model the skill desired. The person
modeling the skill must be perceived as reasonably similar to the observer. In other words, the
observer must identify with the model. If this condition is satisfied and the model executes the
skill successfully, the efficacy of the observer increases. One example of a vicarious experience
in the educational arena is peer observation of teaching (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). To the
extent that educators at all levels have opportunities to witness their peers having success with
students similar to the ones they serve, efficacy related to impacting student achievement will
increase.
Bandura’s (1997) third source of efficacy-shaping information are emotional and
physiological states, which can enhance or diminish one’s sense of efficacy. The level of anxiety
or excitement one experiences while performing a task determines whether they judge the
experience as a mastery experience or a failure (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). More
specifically, if someone experiences high levels of arousal, they perceive that they must not be
good at the task and his or her level of efficacy decreases. According to Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy
(2004), this can greatly impact individuals’ and organizations’ ability to respond to stressful
challenges that are bound to arise.
The fourth source of efficacy-shaping information is verbal-social persuasion. Verbal-
social persuasion is most influential in increasing teachers’ perceived efficacy when combined
with vicarious experiences and mastery experiences. As the name implies, verbal-social
persuasion involves colleagues or supervisors persuading teachers to feel efficacious through
encouragement, timely, task-specific feedback, or informal conversations about instances of
teachers raising student achievement.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

51

Collective teacher efficacy. Collective efficacy is a new construct that builds on
Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy formulation and Tschannen-Moran et al.’s (1998) model of
teacher efficacy (Goddard et al., 2004). Collective efficacy refers to the beliefs that the members
of a team hold about their team’s capability to interdependently produce desired results
(Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). In other words, it is the team’s belief in the collective power of
the interactive, synergistic dynamics of the group.
Within education, collective efficacy is a measure of teachers’ perceptions that the entire
faculty can organize and execute a plan of action necessary to produce desired student outcomes
(Goddard et al., 2004). Goddard et al. (2004) suggests that collective efficacy beliefs impact
student achievement by influencing teachers’ self-efficacy. According to Goddard and Skrla
(2006), the stronger an organization’s collective efficacy beliefs, the more its members will put
forth the sustained effort necessary to achieve organizational goals. Hence, teams’ sense of
collective efficacy plays a key role in determining whether individual educators will do what is
required to raise student achievement.
Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2000) proposed that two additional factors contribute to
teachers’ sense of collective efficacy: (a) analysis of the teaching task and (b) assessment of
teaching competence. The analysis of teaching task is related to teachers’ appraisals of the
complexity of the instructional tasks that are required to raise student achievement. Assessment
of teaching competence describes the internal process whereby individual teachers assess the
competency of their peers in order to judge whether or not the group has the collective skills to
successfully complete the task.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

52

Affective Factors
The CANE model (Clark, 1998) proposes that people’s affective states impact
motivation. To the extent that people experience positive emotions they will be more motivated.
When a person’s basic psychological needs are met, they tend to experience positive emotions.
When these needs are not met, negative emotions are likely to be the result. According to Deci
and Ryan’s (1987) Self-Determination Theory, people have three basic, non-hierarchical needs:
(a) autonomy, (b) competence, and (c) relatedness. Therefore, motivation is enhanced when
people feel that they have control over their actions, have a high sense of efficacy, and find
themselves in environments that allow them to connect with other human beings. Properly
functioning CLCs satisfy all three of these basic psychological needs, which suggest that CLCs
are highly motivating work structures.
Task Value
Task value relates to the perceived benefits that are associated with performing a
particular task. With regard to collaboration around student achievement, these benefits might be
internal or external. Internal benefits would include the satisfaction of working autonomously
and creatively to achieve a goal, raising one’s own sense of teaching efficacy, or the social
benefits of working closely with others on a team. External benefits might include student
achievement outcomes and positive recognition by other stakeholders. Conversely, when teams
experience dysfunction, task value decreases and motivation erodes.
This section discussed the integral role that motivation plays in determining the
effectiveness of collaboration. The next section reviews literature on the organizational
requirements. Because organizational factors influence how knowledge is developed and the
extent to which conditions are motivating, the organizational dimension is critically important.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

53

Organizational Requirements for Effective Collaboration
Although individuals within an organization may possess the knowledge, skills, and
motivation required to accomplish a given organizational goal, inadequate resources, structures,
and processes may prevent goal achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008). Furthermore, problems in
the organizational dimension can create problems with knowledge, skills, and motivation
(Rueda, 2011). Organizational culture is arguably the most important factor determining
performance in organizations because it dictates how people work together to complete a job
(Clark & Estes, 2008). In this section literature on critical organizational factors is reviewed.
Trust
Lack of trust can be a serious impediment to school reform efforts (Tschannen-Moran &
Hoy, 2000). Trust is a multifaceted construct as evidenced by its many connotations. Words used
to describe trust include willing vulnerability, benevolence, reliability, competence, honesty and
openness (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). Trust “reduces the complexities of transactions and
exchanges far more quickly and economically that other means of managing organizational life”
(Powell, as cited by Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000, p. 549). Trust is also a critical component
of shared leadership. Leaders must have faith in the people they lead in order to trust them with
decision-making authority (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000).
From an organizational standpoint, trust is often a collective judgment that another
individual or group will not take advantage, will be honest, and will follow through on their
commitments (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). Lencioni (2002) suggests that teams that lack
trust are unwilling to be vulnerable with each other and therefore avoid conflict. Further,
Lencioni asserts, lack of trust drains teams of their energy and diverts their attention away from
important tasks. Teams that lack trust are characterized by lack of commitment, deception, and
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

54

sabotaging tactics (Lencioni, 2002). Trust is the confidence among team members that their
peers’ intentions are good. This makes team members comfortable being vulnerable with one
another (Lencioni, 2002).
Trust brings with it the willingness to be vulnerable in times of risk and interdependence.
Interdependence engenders trust. Interdependence is the understanding that one individual or
department cannot do their job without the rest of the team (Rousseau, 1998 as cited in
Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). Multiple experiences of interdependence over time builds
confidence that goals, which have garnered collective commitment, will be brought to fruition
through interdependent efforts (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000).
If organizations are to create positive, trusting work environments, it is incumbent upon
the leaders of the organization to initiate trusting relationships by modeling trustworthy behavior.
For example, leaders should facilitate open communication without risk of reprisal (Tschannen-
Moran & Hoy, 2000). In addition, trust is built when leaders share decision-making authority
(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). In education, this type of shared leadership empowers
teachers to be responsive to student needs and communicates high levels of trust and respect
(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). Trust, therefore, contributes to an environment that is
conducive to student achievement.
Tan and Lim (2009) found a positive correlation between trust in coworkers and trust in
the organization. For the purposes of the study, coworkers included supervisors or colleagues.
This suggests that informal interactions among coworkers provide a context in which employees
obtain information about organizational norms and formulate their perceptions of the
organization. If employees do not have trust in their colleagues or supervisors, they may be less
likely to have trust in the organization they belong to. Coupled with past research on the
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

55

relationship between trust in supervisor and trust in organization (Tan & Tan, 2000), this
research highlights the important role that all employees play in shaping perceptions of
organizational integrity.
Leadership
Today’s American educational system calls for instructional leaders who can create and
sustain both student and adult learning and include all stakeholders in leadership responsibilities
(Thompson, Gregg, & Niska, 2004). Hence, a key focus of creating a collaborative environment
must be the development of leadership skills and capacities in the entire staff (Fullan, 2004).
Leaders, then, must have the inventory of skills required to build capacity in this way (Murphy,
Smylie, Mayrowetz, & Louis, 2009). Specifically, leaders must have knowledge of structures,
systems, and processes for distributing leadership throughout the staff, and then they must work
successfully through those structures, systems, and processes (Marzano et al., 2005).
Building capacity is about seeking answers and asking questions, as opposed to simply
giving directives. Leadership is about aiding learning and seeking out flexible solutions to
flexible problems (Marzano et al., 2005). This requires humility in the leader’s approach, and a
determination to improve (Fullan, 2001). For example, in conducting staff meetings, the focus
should be on learning (Schmoker, 2006). Reflecting on current practice, the center of attention
should be on improvement (Fullan, 2001). In considering changes to instruction, adult learning
should be central (Guskey, 2003).
Leadership is about learning (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998). Leadership is about finding and
meeting the needs of everyone in the system (Deming, 1986). Leadership aims to modify the
organization, itself, through continuous improvement. This perspective distinguishes leadership
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

56

from management (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998). In other words, leadership works on the system
rather than being confined to working in the system.
Resources and Reciprocal Accountability
According to Deering, Dilts, and Russell (2003), resources that are aligned at all levels of
an organization are necessary to analyze, plan, and take action in response to current and
potential problems. When administrators are able to anticipate potential issues, the organization
as a whole, is better positioned to overcome these issues and sustain its level of functioning
(Deering et al, 2003). Fullan (2001) expanded on this, stating that in order to improve
instruction, it requires additional resources in the form of space, time, and access to new ideas
and expertise. In other words, the responsibility of an instructional leader is providing the
necessary resources beyond basic equipment and supplies, and into the realm of resources such
as professional development and coaching to develop capacity within the organization. This
includes creating an environment and culture where collaboration for the improvement of student
learning is the norm and expectation.
According to Marzano et al. (2005), an abundance of professional learning opportunities
for teachers is a hallmark of schools that perform at high levels. In a review of existing literature
on professional development, Guskey (2003) concurs that ongoing teams meeting on a regular
basis engaged in learning, curriculum development, joint lesson planning, and problem solving
coupled with teaching observations is the most powerful form of professional development.
Further, Newmann and Wehlage (1995) highlighted the principal’s role in establishing a
collegial atmosphere conducive to professional learning not only for teachers, but for the
organization as a whole. For example, principals who had established collaborative cultures did
not merely encourage collaboration; they created structures and expectations to ensure that
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

57

teachers worked together purposefully in teams. When teachers were provided adequate time and
support to work collaboratively, they reported that collaboration was beneficial, motivating, and
valuable. In addition, providing opportunities for teachers to network with colleagues with whom
they wouldn’t normally collaborate provided even more momentum for collaborative culture.
These findings suggest that teachers value opportunities to collaborate. However, they
need more than simple encouragement. In order to facilitate collaboration, teachers need to be
provided the processes, structures, and impetus to collaborate (Easton, 2008). Fullan (2010)
cautions school districts not to neglect the need for a systemic strategy for institutionalizing
collaborative learning communities. Otherwise, Fullan (2010) warns, CLC implementation is
typically sporadic and doesn’t lead to systemic change. DuFour and Marzano (2009) suggest that
administrators are obligated to create the structures that facilitate job-embedded professional
learning and make collaboration meaningful.
As Elmore (2002) eloquently states,
Accountability must be a reciprocal process. For every increment of performance I
demand from you, I have an equal responsibility to provide you with the capacity to meet
that expectation. Likewise, for every investment you make in my skill and knowledge, I
have a reciprocal responsibility to demonstrate some new increment in performance. (p.
5).
This quote by Elmore (2002) demonstrates the principle of “reciprocity of accountability for
capacity,” which is the glue that holds accountability systems together.
Quality Assurance and Monitoring
When scarce resources have been allocated, it is important to have systems for ensuring
that these resources produce the intended outcomes that initially justified their allocation.
According to Marzano et al. (2005), the single most important factor in increasing student
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

58

achievement is monitoring and feedback. Thus, the role of school leaders in monitoring the
effectiveness of school practices in terms of their impact on student achievement is key
(Marzano et al., 2005). According to a meta-analysis conducted by Marzano et al. (2005), two
specific behaviors and characteristics were associated with improved student achievement. The
first was the continuous monitoring of the effectiveness of the school’s curricular, instructional
and assessment practices. The second was the ongoing awareness of the impact the school’s
practices have on student achievement.
Foord and Haar (2012) also identified two key strategies for ensuring that collaborative
learning communities produce the intended student achievement outcomes. The first strategy
involves alignment of student learning goals with professional learning goals and goals for
organizational culture and structure.. The second strategy involves systematic coaching using
evidence for continuous improvement.
Foord and Haar (2012) provide a list of questions that can be asked by evaluators, or by
teams, reflectively, to gauge the effectiveness of CLCs. The questions are designed to elicit
evidence of (a) student progress toward growth targets; (b) stakeholder perceptions and quality
of school processes; (c) professional growth; (d) effective use of professional development and
resources; (e) clear purposes, values and norms; (f) commitment to common academic, structural
and social goals; (g) role differentiation in pursuit of interdependent PLC goals; (h) assessment
and leadership in interpersonal and group processing skills; (i) formative and summative
assessment to determine areas in which coaching is needed; and (j) distributed leadership and
coherence.
Gajda and Koliba (2007, 2008) present the Teacher Collaboration Improvement
Framework (TCIF) and the Teacher Collaboration Assessment Rubric (TCAR). According to the
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

59

authors, the TCIF is presented “as a blueprint for supervising, assessing, and improving the
quality of teacher collaboration within a [collaborative] learning community” (p. 134).
The TCIF, which is grounded in action research theory, includes six non-linear stages: (a)
raise collaboration literacy, (b) identify and inventory communities of practice, (c) reconfigure
teacher teams, (d) assess quality of collaboration, (e) make corrections, and (f) recognize
accomplishments. Designed to be used in tandem with the TCIF, the TCAR measures a
collaborative learning community in four domains: (a) Dialogue, (b) Decision-Making, (c)
Action, and (d) Evaluation.
Lencioni (2002) provides an instrument for assessing (and activities for improving)
teams’ (a) trust, (b) willingness to engage in conflict, (c) commitment to decisions, (d)
willingness to hold themselves accountable, and (e) focus on results. Bernhardt (2011) provides
recommendations for measuring school processes, including collaboration, and also provides a
host of quality assurance and progress monitoring instruments.
This section presented literature-identifying trust as the foundation of effective
collaboration. The role of leadership in developing trust and other important organizational
conditions was also discussed. Then, literature establishing the basis for reciprocity of
accountability for capacity building was reviewed. Finally, the case was made for the
development of effective monitoring and quality assurance systems.
The next section focuses on the need for tri-level reform (district, school, and classroom)
with regard to (a) the manner of collaboration that occurs within, and between, the three levels,
and (b) the type of leadership that supports increased accountability in an era of limited funding.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

60

Tri-Level Considerations for Leadership and Organizational Change
Central Office Leadership and Organizational Change
Tri-level reform requires a system that has all of its levels aligned and connected with
each other (Fullan, 2009). Tri-level reform requires the district to become a learning organization
(Senge, 1990). As such, the central office has an integral role in developing the leadership
component, which is critical to institutionalizing effective collaboration around student
achievement.
Effective central office leadership promotes school success and, ultimately, promotes
student achievement. According to Fullan (2009), districts fail to garner buy-in, commitment,
and clarity relative to district reforms when they utilize top-down approaches. Central offices
that have successfully impacted student achievement have established relationships of defined
autonomy (Marzano & Waters, 2009) as a balanced alternative to extreme top-down or hands-off
approaches.
During the course of their meta-analysis of the effects of school-level factors on student
achievement, Marzano and Waters (2009) developed the concept of defined autonomy to
reconcile two seemingly paradoxical findings: (a) As site autonomy increased, student
achievement increased; and (b) Site-based management, which gives schools near complete
autonomy regarding goals, spending, and instruction, had no overall impact on student
achievement. The authors reasoned that autonomy, in order to reliably have a positive impact on
student achievement, must be nested within boundaries defined by district goals. Hence the term
defined autonomy.
Marzano and Waters (2009) explain that superintendents develop relationships of defined
autonomy when they (a) implement an inclusive goal-setting process that results in board-
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

61

adopted non-negotiable goals for achievement and instruction, (b) assure that schools align their
use of professional development resources with district goals, and (c) monitor and evaluate
progress toward goal achievement. Marzano and Waters (2009) assert that non-negotiable goals
for achievement and instruction are the centerpiece of any comprehensive district reform effort.
Additionally, Marzano and Waters (2009) argue that adequate resource allocation is one of the
foundations for ensuring that the non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction are met.
Providing a menu of research-proven instructional strategies, and a theory of action (Childress &
Marietta, 2008) connecting these strategies with the non-negotiable goals for learning is also an
important central office function. Districts jeopardize meeting their goals when they fail to
clearly delineate what is expected of schools, fail to allocate the resources required to meet
expectations, or fail to provide strategies for meeting expectations. (DuFour & Marzano, 2011).
Districts have moved toward the collaborative learning community model to move
teachers away from the professional isolation that has marked the last century (Elmore, 2004).
Effective collaboration does not occur naturally. The central office must ensure that teachers gain
the capacity to collaborate effectively. Ideally, the superintendent must work with district
leadership and site leadership to ensure that teachers at every school site have the time to meet
weekly with other teachers to discuss best practices (Thessin & Starr, 2011). This time should be
monitored (Foord & Haar, 2012; Gajda & Koliba, 2007, 2008) to ensure that it is used
purposefully for collaboration around student achievement. Despite the best intentions on the
part of teachers and site leaders, they need professional development on how to collaborate
around student achievement.
In a districtwide implementation of collaborative learning communities, Stamford Public
Schools found that there are four key roles the central office plays to successfully institutionalize
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

62

CLCs: (a) involving teachers and administrators in developing and leading the CLC process, (b)
developing teachers’ and administrators’ capacity to collaborate, (c) showing how CLCs fit into
the district’s improvement process so that each CLC’s work fits into an overall framework for
improving student achievement, and (d) supporting schools according to their unique needs in
order to help them move to the next stage in their CLC development (Thessin & Starr, 2011).
In addition, Wayman, Midgley, and Stringfield (2006), in a study of four school districts
utilizing observational and reflective data, examined the role of central office administrators and
found that the central office plays a crucial role in the realm of data generation and use. Kerr,
Marsh, Ikemoto, Darilek, & Barney (2006), in a study of three urban school districts utilizing a
mixed methods comparative case study design, found that the central office’s efforts to promote
instructional improvement through the use of data and monitoring was critical in improving
student outcomes. The central office should provide organized and refined data (i.e.,
information) that CLCs can use to create actionable knowledge (Mandinach, Honey & Light,
2006). Providing processes and protocols to facilitate collaboration is also a critical central office
function.
Furthermore, the central office is responsible for identifying promising practices and
sharing them throughout the district (Elmore, 2004). In essence, the central office develops the
districtwide strategy and builds a coherent organization that enables stakeholders at all levels to
see and fulfill their role in implementing the strategy (Childress et al., 2006). One key
stakeholder group is school site administrators, and they are the focus of the next section.
School Site Leadership and Organizational Change
The role of the school site administrator is critical to affecting the character and outcomes of
collaboration at the school site level. Principals significantly influence the success of schools
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

63

and, ultimately, student achievement. Marzano et al. (2005), in a meta-analysis of 69 studies
examining the correlation between school leadership of principals and student achievement,
found effective school site leadership to be an essential factor in creating the supporting
conditions for collaboration around student achievement. See Appendix E for the list of the 21
principal responsibilities (Marzano et al., 2005) that have been found to support student
achievement.
The sustainability of a collaborative learning community depends largely on school site
leadership. Several researchers agree that principal leadership is one of the most important
factors underlying the success of a collaborative learning community (Boyd & Hord, 1994;
DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Graham, 2007; Thompson et al., 2004).
Researchers have identified several characteristics of principals who support the success
of collaborative learning communities. Supportive principals create environments in which
shared leadership (Thompson et al., 2004), shared decision-making (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998),
and frequent, purposeful teacher interaction (Boyd & Hord, 1994) are the norm. For a principal
to share leadership, it requires letting go of some power (Hord, 1997). Newmann, Rutter, and
Smith (1989) found that principal leadership is highly correlated with both efficacy and
community.
The literature suggests that principals should begin by identifying the current values,
beliefs, and norms of the staff (Boyd & Hord, 1994). Without following this advice, principals
cannot guide their staff in the development of a clear vision focused on student learning.
According to Thompson et al. (2004), a leader cannot singlehandedly set the vision of the school.
Rather, the leader must facilitate the development of the mission by the stakeholders for it to be
accepted and implemented. Team and staff norms can also be anchors for success and should be
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

64

established early in a principal’s tenure. Furthermore, the principal needs to model what is
expected and hold high expectations for staff and students (Senge, 2006).
The principal’s relationships with the staff are the foundation of a collaborative learning
community. The principal must be open and trust the staff, must give frequent, meaningful, and
positive feedback, and encourage teachers to partake in leadership responsibilities. Building
relationships and developing trust are important leadership functions in collaborative learning
communities (Thompson et al., 2004). Hoy and Woolfolk (1993) conclude that it is important for
principals to inspire loyalty, trust, motivation and commitment in their teachers. Visibility on
campus, interacting with teachers and students, and frequent classroom visits are also important
because these activities allow the principal to monitor the school’s culture and adjust leadership
styles as needed.
Thompson et al. (2004) also found the importance of the principal sharing his or her
vision early on and reminding the staff of that vision regularly. This vision must be aligned with
that of the teachers in order to enhance consensus on what the school hopes to become. Teachers
and administrators should also work together to create shared goals and maintain ongoing
communication. The shared vision then helps guide the work of teachers and administrators
(Olsen & Chrispeels, 2009).
Although their actions and behaviors do not directly affect student learning, principals
indirectly impact student achievement through teacher interactions in the classrooms (DuFour &
Marzano, 2011; Marzano et al., 2005). Leaders who want to support collaborative learning
communities need to provide teachers with time to collaborate, develop lines of communication,
and increase interdependent teaching roles by sharing best practices (Liebman, Maldonado,
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

65

Lacey & Thompson, 2005). In practice, DuFour, Eaker, and DuFour (2005) enunciate this tenet
by stating that “principals in PLCs are called upon to regard themselves as leaders of leaders
rather than leaders of followers, and broadening teacher leadership becomes one of their
priorities” (p. 23). Again, this is a shift in thinking from classical notions of principals. Instead of
assuming the burden of being the only experts regarding curriculum, instruction, and assessment
practices (Marks & Printy, 2003), principals must learn to draw upon and build the capacity of
teacher leaders.
Despite the research supporting the benefits of collaborative culture there is a traditional
tendency for teachers to be isolated in their classrooms from other teachers, and for schools to be
isolated from other schools (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). Schmoker (2006) refers to isolation as
the enemy of improvement. Creating collaborative learning communities changes the traditional
path of influence that once flowed from principal to teacher to student, to a path that flows from
principal to collaborative team, to teacher, to student. Within the structure of collaborative
learning communities, principals can create opportunities for shared leadership. It is imperative
that principals create strong leadership teams (Marzano et al., 2005; Sergiovanni, 2005).
Building capacity involves change, which can be difficult. After ten years of reforming
schools using the principles of the Essential Schools Movement, Ted Sizer stated, “it is
exceedingly difficult to change schools – and particularly in a volatile environment where
assessment systems, political control, and collective bargaining are themselves in flux”
(Goldberg & Sizer, 1996, p. 687). The school site administrator must understand (a) change, (b)
the implications of change, (c) the change process, and (d) the leadership of change in order to
successfully implement collaborative learning communities (Waters & Cameron, 2007). Change
can be perceived as either first-order change or second order change, depending on the perceived
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

66

implication of change on the individual team members (Waters & Cameron, 2007). Thus, the
magnitude of change will be different based on each team member’s perceptions. Table 2 shows
the differences between first and second-order change.
Table 2
Comparison of First-order Change and Second-order Change
First-order Change Second-order Change
When a change is perceived as: When a change is perceived as:
• An extension of the past • A break with the past
• Within existing paradigms • Outside of existing paradigms
• Consistent with prevailing values and
norms
• Conflicted with prevailing values and
norms
• Implemented with existing knowledge
and skills
• Requiring new knowledge and skills

Change is complex and recursive, but essential for continuous improvement. Waters and
Cameron (2007) describe four phases of the change process as being interdependent: (a) creating
demand, (b) implementation, (c) managing personal transitions, and (d) monitoring and
evaluation.
Creating demand involves developing a tension between present reality and the preferred
future. When accomplished, this can create the motivation to move individuals and teams from
the status quo toward the preferred outcome, in this case, the successful implementation of
collaboration around student achievement (Waters & Cameron, 2007). Creating demand requires
school site administrators to expose their teams to research related to effective collaborative
practices. They must also be willing to challenge present conditions and routinely communicate
beliefs about collaboration around student achievement (Waters & Cameron, 2007).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

67

Implementing collaborative learning communities will require leading staff members
through the implementation with focus, fidelity, and consistency. The tension created must be
sustained in order to see successful implementation. Implementation requires school site
administrators to know about collaborative learning communities as well as inspiring their team
members to utilize the research-based practices. They must believe that their teams can
successfully implement a collaborative learning community and they must convey that belief to
them (Waters & Cameron, 2007).
External organizational changes cause internal personal transitions. Marzano and Waters
(2009) explain how managing personal transitions created by second-order change requires
flexibility to differentiate leadership behaviors and adapt to the needs created by change.
Additionally, taking on the role of leading change may be a second-order change for school site
administrators, themselves. Thus, they must reflect upon, and be aware of, the implications of
change for themselves as well as for those they lead (Waters & Cameron, 2007).
Monitoring the implementation of collaboration around student achievement will require
school site administrators to collect and analyze data on the quality, fidelity, consistency, and
intensity of implementation. They will also need to assess the impact that collaborative learning
communities have on student achievement as well as the impact it has on team members (Waters
& Cameron, 2007).
Since collaboration is a shared responsibility, leadership teams can help to mitigate
negative consequences by helping to articulate the vision, develop and provide new structures to
guide and support team members, listen to concerns, provide clarity, and seek input from other
team members to see what is or is not working (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). This positive support
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

68

will help ensure a successful implementation of collaboration around student achievement
(Waters & Cameron, 2007).
The structure of collaborative learning community works against isolation and demands
interaction between team members for the purpose of improving student achievement (DuFour &
Marzano, 2011). “Principals are in a key strategic position to promote or inhibit the development
of a teacher learning community in their school. School administrators set the stage and
conditions for starting and sustaining the community development process (McLaughlin &
Talbert, 2006, p. 56). Principals who can successfully lead the implementation of collaboration
around student achievement will not only positively impact student achievement, but also
facilitate the learning of those who directly serve students (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). As
mentioned earlier in this section, one of the key functions of school site administrators is to
develop teacher leaders. Teacher leadership as a facilitator of organizational change is the focus
of the next section.
Teacher Leadership and Organizational Change
The purpose of schools is to ensure that all students learn at high levels (DuFour et. al.,
2010). Teachers are charged with directly carrying out this fundamental purpose daily in
classrooms, face to face with students. Because of this daily direct interface with students,
teacher practice is the dominant factor in determining student achievement (Sanders, Wright, &
Horn, 1997). Teacher leaders, as both individual classroom practitioners and facilitators of
collective improvement on their teams, are powerfully positioned to impact student achievement.
Teacher leadership has become a division of managerial labor (Little et al., 2003).
Department chairpersons and lead teachers now fulfill managerial functions that were once the
purview of school site administrators. In CLCs, the role of the teacher leader takes on an even
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

69

greater significance. Zboralski (2009) identified several key roles for teacher leaders in
collaborative learning communities including (a) leading the community, (b) motivating
community members, (c) planning and organizing community work, (d) providing specialized
coaching and support, and (e) fostering communication and dissemination of information.
The culture of collaboration that undergirds CLCs is antithetical to the traditional culture
of isolation that has existed in schools (Flinders, 1988; Gratch, 2000; Tye & Tye, 1984).
Collaborative culture does not develop on its own. Teacher leaders, along with district and site
leaders, shoulder the primary responsibility for cultivating it. As one who cultivates land must
guard against the infringement of weeds, so teacher leaders must guard against threats to
collaborative culture. For example, teacher leaders must guard against attempts to co-opt
collaboration time for the purposes of fulfilling administrators’ directives (Hargreaves & Dawe,
1990; Little et al., 2003; Wood, 2007). Teacher leaders must be careful not to let their teams
mistake friendly congeniality or feigned consensus for collaborative culture (Cranston, 2009;
Dooner et. al., 2008; Williams, Brien, & Sullivan, 2008). Teacher leaders must bear in mind that
expecting or allowing collaboration to instantly bring shared values and social cohesion limits
the potential for true community to develop and undermines reform efforts (Achinstein, 2002).
Shifting from a culture of isolation to a culture of collaboration requires transformative
learning (Mezirow, 1997). Transformative learning changes points of view and habits of mind,
which shape thoughts, feelings, expectancies, and actions (Mezirow, 1997). Transformative
learning is psychically threatening because it challenges people’s views of themselves and their
core assumptions and beliefs. Mezirow (1997) defined three roles for facilitators of
transformative learning that inform teacher leaders as they do the tough work of developing a
culture of collaboration. Teacher leaders must help team members to (a) become aware and
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

70

critical of their own assumptions and those of others, (b) recognize frames of reference and use
imagination to reframe problems, and (c) engage effectively in critical discourse.
In a similar vein, Heifetz and Laurie (1997), defined adaptive work as that “required
when our deeply held beliefs are challenged, when the values that made us successful become
less relevant, and when legitimate yet competing perspectives emerge” (p. 38). Heifetz and
Laurie (1997) provide guidance for teacher leaders as they lead adaptive change. Accordingly,
teacher leaders must (a) maintain an elevated perspective on the adaptive change process, (b)
define and keep attention on adaptive challenges, (c) regulate distress so that it motivates without
disabling, and (d) empower their team members.
A hallmark of a culture of collaboration is situated learning (Horn, 2005). As Horn
(2005) explains, situated learning locates learning, in the case of CLCs, in the context of
interactions with colleagues and experiences in the learning community. Using this framework,
Horn (2005) defines learning as “a change in participation in a community of practice” (p. 211).
Particularly, with respect to CLC participation providing a context for carrying out reform, it is
important for teacher leaders to lead their teams in the process of engaging with reform artifacts.
Reform artifacts, according to Horn (2005), include slogans, policy documents, theories of
action, and the like. Whereas central offices devise reform strategies and principals create the
conditions to facilitate the implementation of these strategies, teachers implement the strategies
directly. In order for teachers to implement reform authentically and effectively, teachers must
extract from reform artifacts the larger ideas of the given reform and reflect upon the
implications of these ideas for classroom practice.
Horn (2005) also identified teachers’ conversation-based classification schemes (e.g.,
slow vs. smart students) and renderings of classroom practice as important reframing
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

71

opportunities upon which teacher leaders should capitalize. More specifically, when teachers
reveal their pedagogical assumptions and practices through collegial conversations, teacher
leaders can facilitate critical discourse that (a) identifies and challenges these assumptions and
practices, and (b) offers alternate frames of reference for consideration.
Teacher leaders must also work to establish a climate of trust on their teams. The
literature consistently underscores the importance of trust to effective collaboration (Datnow,
Park & Wohlstetter, 2007; Dooner et. al., 2008; Hipp, Huffman, Pankake & Olivier, 2008;
Servage, 2008). Teachers, for example, must feel safe admitting that their instructional practices
have been inadequate when faced with compelling data. They must trust the collective
competency of the community to help them improve, and they must trust that data will not be
used to hurt them. According to Datnow et al. (2007), such trust is built upon mutual
accountability among teachers and between teachers and administrators. Lencioni (2002)
suggests that this trust is fostered when team leaders authentically demonstrate vulnerability by
exposing their challenges and shortcomings.
Finally, ensuring that all students learn at high levels requires a focus on results (DuFour
et. al., 2010). Focusing on results requires teachers to develop several competencies. Teacher
leaders must be adept at taking inventory of their teams’ knowledge and skills to make sure that
these critical competencies are developed. Among these competencies, teachers must be skilled
at developing formative assessments and using formative assessment strategies (Wiliam, 2011)
that reveal students’ understanding and progress with respect to learning goals. Teachers must
also be skilled at using data management systems (Datnow et al., 2007; Mandinach et. al., 2006;
Wayman, 2005) to store, analyze and communicate data. Teachers must have the capacity to
collectively analyze student work in order to identify strengths and weaknesses in individual and
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

72

collective practice (Langer et al., 2003; Little et al., 2003). Finally teacher teams must develop
the collective capacity to respond in a timely, directive, and systematic manner whenever there is
a demonstrated need for intervention or enrichment (DuFour et. al., 2010).
This literature review began by establishing the need to move from the isolation that
characterizes educational institutions toward a vision of organizational capacity and internal
accountability. Developing a collaborative culture was identified as a high-leverage strategy for
facilitating this transition. Various models of collaboration in educational settings were presented
and common characteristics of effective collaboration were identified. Specific consideration
was given to requirements in the areas of knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
factors. Finally, the roles that central office administrators, school site administrators, and
teacher leaders play in bringing about organizational change were discussed.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

73

Chapter Three: Methodology
Authors: Anthony Carruthers, Sonia Llamas, Esther Salinas
3

Purpose of the Inquiry and Inquiry Questions
The overall purpose of this inquiry project was to assist PUSD with its organizational
goal of institutionalizing effective collaboration around student achievement. The project was
marked by three distinct stages. The objective of the first stage was to examine various aspects
and forms of collaboration around student achievement in order to distill essential components
that drive its success. The objective of the second stage was to utilize the Clark & Estes (2008)
gap analysis problem-solving framework to determine and analyze the challenges in knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational factors that may impede PUSD as it pursues its
organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student achievement. In the
third stage of the project the team developed potential solutions to address the root causes of
these challenges. The inquiry questions for this study were:
1. What are the challenges for PUSD school site administrators, in knowledge and skills,
motivation, and the organizational dimension, that may impede the achievement of
PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student
achievement?
2. What are the potential solutions to address PUSD school site administrators’ challenges
in knowledge and skills, motivation, and the organizational dimension, and thereby
support PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around
student achievement?

3
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed reflecting the team approach to this
project. These authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

74

Methodology Framework
The framework for the methodology in this study was the Gap Analysis Problem Solving
Approach (GAP or Gap Analysis) (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011) The elements of the Gap
Analysis framework address measurement, diagnosis, evaluation, and proposed solutions. The
Gap Analysis Process Model addresses gaps in knowledge and skills and expands beyond these
realms to include gaps in motivation, organization, and culture to improve performance (Rueda,
2011). Whereas the classic Gap Analysis framework addresses gaps with respect to specific
organizational metrics, the current project used the framework to analyze gaps in the
implementation of a comprehensive innovation: Collaboration Around Student Achievement
(CASA). More specifically, the analysis diagnosed the root causes of the discrepancy between
current conditions and institutionalization of the innovation.
Gap Analysis uses both qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative methodology
leads one to discover how people feel, know, perceive, think, and act in a setting or situation
(Patton, 2002). It clarifies the human causes behind the performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008).
As such, the Gap Analysis framework relies on qualitative data to validate, and add depth of
understanding to, gaps in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational factors identified
through quantitative methods.
Figure 1 is a schematic diagram showing the sequence of steps in the Gap Analysis
Process. The figure also displays the cyclical nature of the Gap Analysis Process.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

75

Figure 1. Gap Analysis Process. Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
The steps of the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Process Model are:
Step 1: Goals: Identify the organizational goal.
Step 2: Current Achievement: Determine the current levels of performance with respect
to the identified goal areas.
Step 3: Gaps: Determine gaps between goals and current performance.
Step 4: Causes: Hypothesize causes in knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational culture, and empirically validate which of these are root causes.
The following steps of the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Process Model will be discussed
in Chapters Four, Five and Six of the dissertation and will not be incorporated into this
methodology chapter.
Step 5: Solutions: Plan systemic and individual gap-closing solutions.
Step 6: Implement: Implement systemic and individual gap-closing solutions.
Step 7: Evaluate: Evaluate and modify solutions for continual improvement.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

76

The significance of this study was the development of an Innovation Gap Analysis
process that may be adapted by other school districts to measure the institutionalization of
collaboration around student achievement or other innovative reforms.
Step 1: Identify the Organizational Goal
Through a meeting with PUSD’s superintendent and chief academic officer, it was agreed
that the focus of the current project would be the district’s goal to improve collaboration in order
to raise student achievement. For the purposes of this project, the term collaboration around
student achievement (CASA) describes the gestalt of collaborative efforts taking place between
stakeholders at all levels of the organization whose primary purpose is student achievement.
Collaborative Learning Communities (CLCs) is herein used as a generic term for models of
collaboration including, but not limited to, Purposeful Communities (Waters et al., 2005),
Professional Learning Communities as defined by DuFour & Eaker (1998), Communities of
Practice (Wenger & Snyder, 2000), and Professional Learning Communities as described by
Hord (1997). Appendix B shows the various models of collaboration in educational settings and
displays the salient concepts and characteristics of each model.
To operationalize PUSD’s organizational goal, a review of literature related to
collaboration around student achievement was conducted. The review revealed five key
characteristics required for effective collaboration around student achievement. Using the five
key characteristics as an organizing framework, the team identified 12 critical competencies that
support each of the characteristics. See Appendix D for a description of the characteristics and
the competencies based on knowledge and skill, motivation, and organization. PUSD’s
organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student achievement, then,
was operationalized as follows. PUSD will have achieved its organizational goal to the extent
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

77

that, districtwide, knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational factors are sufficient to
sustain high marks on measures of the 12 competencies.
Step 2: Current Achievement
The Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) has embarked on multiple initiatives and
projects supporting diverse goals. Examples of these include Excellent Middle Schools, STEM
Education, College and Career Pathways: Linked Learning, Special Education Information
System (SEIS), Behavior Response to Intervention (RtI), Redistricting Task Force, John Muir
High School Reinvention, Step Up To Writing (Auman, 2003), Kagan student engagement
strategies (Kagan & Kagan, 2009), Thinking Maps, ConnectEd and National Academy
Foundation Certification, Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI), Every Classroom Everyday (ECED),
and technology infrastructure improvement. Against this backdrop, collaboration around student
achievement is currently seen as one of many initiatives that teachers, site leadership teams, and
district administrators must juggle. Each of these initiatives and reform efforts have been
researched and implemented with varying degrees of fidelity. Consequently, their impacts on
student achievement have been mixed.
With regard to collaboration around student achievement, specifically, individual schools,
teams, and teachers demonstrate various stages of concern (Hall & Loucks, 1979) and levels of
use (Hall, Loucks, Rutherford & Newlove, 1975). Some teachers do not belong to a collaborative
team at all, and although many teachers do belong to grade-level or department teams, the
quality of collaboration on these teams varies widely. California Partnership Academies, of
which collaboration around student achievement is an integral part, exist within three of PUSD’s
four high schools. However, these academies also display a wide range of performance with
regard to collaboration around student achievement. The current performance in PUSD is
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

78

consistent with empirical findings that efforts to institutionalize models of collaboration are often
met with varying levels of commitment to learning and collaborating (Mullen & Schunk, 2010).
Step 3: Gaps
The PUSD seeks to ensure consistent and effective collaboration around student
achievement by all teams within the organization. In PUSD, there are 28 schools with grade-
level, department, academy, and administrative teams. In addition there are various departments
and teams working within the central office. During informal interviews, grade level and
department chairs, site administrators, and central office administrators were asked to gauge the
effectiveness of collaboration on their teams. The responses suggested that there is room for
improvement on all teams at all levels. It was hypothesized, therefore, that no department or
team within PUSD has achieved the desired level of performance with regard to collaboration
around student achievement. Hence, the gap between current performance and full
institutionalization of the desired level of collaboration around student achievement was assumed
to be 100%.
Step 4: Causes
Step four of the Gap Analysis Model (Clark & Estes, 2008) is to hypothesize and then
validate the causes of performance gaps. People often have naive and unfounded theories for
explaining performance problems (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). These assumed causes
can provide valuable insights. However, before they are determined to be actual causes, they
should be validated through systematic investigation. Otherwise, as Rueda and Clark and Estes
relate, organizations choose solutions that often fail to produce the results they desire. In the
current project, assumed causes were identified through (a) informal interviews, (b) consultation
of learning, motivation and organizational theory, and (c) review of the literature on
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

79

collaboration around student achievement (see Table 3 for a summary of the assumed causes
derived from these three sources).
Causes informed by informal interviews. To elicit the perceptions and perspectives of
stakeholders from multiple levels within PUSD about the implementation of learning
communities, informal interviews were conducted with 7 teachers, 13 school principals, and 9
district leaders. The guiding questions were: How are learning communities implemented at your
site? and What are the likely causes of any performance challenges with regard to the
implementation of learning communities?
Informal interviews with central office administrators. One central office administrator
shared that, until recently, the Pasadena Unified School District has given “little attention to a
coherent framework” that supports district-wide improvement. Although there have been
“sporadic attempts to implement forms of collaboration, they have been applied in “various
capacities and with varying degrees of success…but without collective purpose.” These
responses seem to indicate that the district’s attempt to implement multiple initiatives
unsystematically has resulted in uneven success throughout the district.
Central office administrators also expressed frustration over what they perceived as a
series of “unconnected” demands they are expected to meet year after year. There was a “shared
belief” among central office administrators that current initiatives would not continue for the
following year. A central office administrator commented, “We buy the new thing and use it
until the next new thing comes out. We never evaluate progress and we are not held accountable.
That’s why we don’t progress.”
When asked about their understanding of the characteristics of learning communities, no
central office administrator could define the approach to learning communities that was currently
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

80

being implemented within the PUSD. The term, “Professional Learning Community” (DuFour
et. al., 2010) was mentioned in several responses, but there was no elaboration with regard to the
defining characteristics of the model.
Informal interviews with site-level administrators. Thirteen principals were informally
interviewed. In response to How are learning communities implemented at your site? an
elementary school principal said, “The number of district initiatives is difficult to manage, given
the constraints of time to meet with faculty and staff during the monthly allotted meeting times.”
Another stated, “ Prioritizing initiatives coming from different district departments is
challenging, especially when each initiative competes for the same small allocation of time.” A
secondary principal commented “It would be great if district departments collaborated so we
[principals] wouldn’t get conflicting information from different departments. This is a problem
when it comes to our school budgets.” Another secondary principal stated, “Our current culture
[in PUSD] promotes isolation among the schools. We don’t really know what other schools are
doing.” An elementary principal stated, “I don’t really like how PLCs are being implemented and
feel that PLCs should be as individual as schools and not something we all have to implement in
the same way.”
Informal interviews with teachers. Seven teachers were interviewed informally. One
teacher leader shared “The district lacks focus and does not provide the direction needed to make
the gains with students.” When teachers were asked to define learning communities, no two
answers were the same. Responses included, “We meet everyday during lunch,” “We meet once
a week,” and “We can’t get our team to meet because, according to the contract, we can only
meet as grade levels on ‘A’ Mondays [A Mondays, per the union contract, are 14 specific days
within the school year when administrators can require teachers to meet.] No one shared an
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

81

understanding of what was being asked of teachers. Each teacher expressed that “the district is
not transparent or mutually accountable, and they [central office administrators] lack clear
direction about the outcomes for the district.”
Causes informed by learning, motivation, and organizational theories. The body of
knowledge in learning, motivation and organizational theory informed possible causes for
performance gaps. Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) Taxonomy, was used as a framework for
considering knowledge causes. The Commitment And Necessary Effort (CANE) model (Clark,
1999), was used for considering motivation causes. The Gap Analysis framework (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011) was used to analyze organizational gaps and identify possible
organizational causes.
Knowledge theory. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) categorize knowledge according to
four domains: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and
metacognitive knowledge. Possible causes of knowledge performance gaps were identified
according to these four domains. All four types of knowledge are required to sustain
collaboration around student achievement, whereas deficiencies in any of these types of
knowledge could lead to performance gaps (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). Table 3 lists the four
domains of knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) and provides examples of each related to
collaboration around student achievement.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

82

Table 3
Possible Causes of Knowledge Performance Gaps
Type of Knowledge Examples
Factual Knowledge Key vocabulary related to CASA; Knowledge of the various models
of CASA and the prominent features of each; Operationalized
definition of CASA.
Conceptual Knowledge Knowledge of the key principles of CASA; Understanding of the
fundamental ideas of CASA and how the elements are interrelated,
Understanding of the benefits of CASA; Understanding of the
generalizations, theories, models, and structures of CASA.
Procedural Knowledge Knowing how to carry out the key functions of CASA, e.g.,
facilitating meetings and conducting action research.
Metacognitive Knowledge Goal-Setting; Knowing when and why to apply interventions; Self-
reflection regarding progress through the stages of team
development

Motivation theory. Motivation is what the learner contributes to the process of learning
and is considered a prerequisite to meaningful learning (Mayer, 2011). Clark’s (1999)
Commitment And Necessary Effort (CANE) model posits that motivation is the product of
capability beliefs, affective factors, and task value. As such, these three factors, in addition to
other important motivation constructs, were considered as possible sources of performance gaps.
With respect to capability beliefs, in particular, lack of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) and lack of
collective efficacy (Goddard et al., 2004) were identified as the primary probable causes of
performance gaps.
Organization theory. Clark and Estes (2008) identify key aspects of organization that are
possible sources of performance gaps. According to the authors, gaps usually exist in work
processes, material resources, organizational culture, and features of effective organizational
change. As such, potential causes in these areas were considered.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

83

Causes informed by the literature. The literature related to collaboration around student
achievement is extensive. A review of this literature yielded key elements that are required for
effective collaboration around student achievement. See Appendix B for prominent concepts and
characteristics of models of collaboration in educational settings. Deficiencies in any of the key
elements were considered as possible sources of performance gaps.
Table 4 displays the assumed causes, organized by source and classified as Knowledge,
Motivation, or Organization.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

84

Table 4
Summary of Assumed Causes for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization
Sources

Knowledge

Motivation Organizational
Processes
Interview
No clear definition of
CASA
Lack of self-reflection on
progress as a learning
community
Lack of understanding of
the process – what and why
Lack of procedural
knowledge (i.e., how to
conduct CLC business)
Lack of collective
efficacy
Value
Interest
Attribution beliefs
Lack of planning time
Resource allocation
Lack of collaboration
Lack of prioritization
No clear goals
Theory
Factual
Conceptual
Procedural
Metacognitive

Self-efficacy
Collective efficacy
Perceived value
Attributions
Professional identity
Beliefs
Values
Goals
Isolation
Collective
accountability

Literature
Failure to operationalize the
reform goal
Procedures
Lack of conceptual
framework
No cycle of continuous
improvement due to lack of
reflection
Level of efficacy
Perceived Task Value
Norms and beliefs
Clear goals
Isolation
Distrust
Procedures
Multiple initiatives
Competing
allegiances
Lack of accountability

Step 5: Validated Causes
Mixed methods captured data in order to validate the assumed causes listed in Table 4,
and to identify other causes of performance gaps relative to PUSD’s goal of institutionalizing
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

85

effective collaboration around student achievement. Quantitative data were obtained using the
Collaboration Around Student Achievement Team Competency Survey. Qualitative data,
collected via semi-structured interviews, achieved methodological triangulation and added depth
to the quantitative data. In keeping with the principles of qualitative research (Patton, 2002),
secondary goals of the qualitative data collection were to add a personalized dimension to the
project and to clarify the human causes behind the performance gaps in the organization (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
Population and Sample
The survey population consisted of all 915 certificated staff (teachers, assistant
principals, principals, and central office administrators) employed in PUSD during the 2011-
2012 school year. Pasadena Unified School District was selected for this inquiry because, at the
onset of the project, the researchers were employed within the district and represented three
levels within the district: central office administrator, school site administrator, and classroom
teacher. Of the 915 employees in the target population, 281 PUSD certificated staff members
submitted a response to the quantitative survey.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
The following section describes the data collection instruments and the procedures that
were utilized to collect data for this project.
Surveys
Quantitative data were obtained using the Collaboration Around Student Achievement
(CASA) Team Competency Survey Protocol (see Appendix F). The survey addresses five
essential characteristics of effective collaboration around student achievement, broken down into
12 critical competencies (see Appendix D for the CASA team characteristics and competencies).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

86

Survey items were developed to assess Knowledge and Skills (K), Motivation (M), and
Organizational Factors (O) related to the competencies. For each competency, one to three items
were developed for each of the three levels (K, M, and O) of the Clark and Estes (2008)
framework. Additionally, several items were developed to assess teams’ perceived collective
efficacy. The survey contained 69 items. For each item, excluding six demographic items,
respondents were able to respond on a sliding scale from 0 to 100 with 0 indicating “Strongly
Disagree” and 100 indicating “Strongly Agree.”
The Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) administered the CASA Team
Competency Survey. On June 7, 2012, the Superintendent of Schools sent an email to all 915
certificated staff detailing the nature of the survey, and providing a direct link to the web-based
survey, which was hosted by Qualtrics. The survey window closed on August 23, 2012.
Qualtrics’ forced response feature was enabled, requiring respondents to answer all survey items
before moving on to the next group of items. Respondents were only allowed to submit the
survey once.
The Qualtrics instrument maintained respondents’ confidentiality as no identifying data
were collected. Survey data were uploaded to SPSS. Data were also stored and backed up on a
password-protected computer.
Interviews
Standardized semi-structured interviews were conducted for the following advantages:
(a) the instrument was made available for those reading the findings of the study, (b) the focus of
the interview respected participants’ time, and (c) analysis was facilitated by making responses
easily comparable (Patton, 2002, p. 346). The CASA interview protocol consisted of 20
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

87

questions related to the assumed causes in Table 4. See appendix G for a list of the 20 interview
questions.
Survey respondents indicated whether or not they were willing to participate in the
qualitative portion of the study. Key informants (Patton, 2002) from all three levels (central
office administrators, school site administrators, classroom teachers) were selected for individual
interviews. The pool of interviewees included six central office administrators, six school site
administrators, and six classroom teachers.
In each case, the inquiry team member sent a formal recruitment letter to the interviewee,
which initiated the process of the researcher and the interviewee mutually agreeing upon a time
and place to conduct an interview. With the interviewees’ consent, the interviews were audio
recorded. The interviews typically lasted between 60 and 90 minutes. Interviews were conducted
at each of the three levels (central office administrators, school site administrators, classroom
teachers) until redundancy (Patton, 2002), marked by interviewees’ tendency to duplicate
answers and provide limited amounts of new information, was reached. As it turned out, four
interviews were conducted at each of the three levels within the district. The setting for each
interview was a private room. Care was taken to obtain a quiet room with ample space, where
interviewee and interviewer could have open discussion without interruption, and without
compromising confidentiality.
Data Analysis
The unit of analysis for this inquiry project was the Pasadena Unified School District.
The purpose of this inquiry project suggested a mixed methods approach. This section explains
the strategies that were used to analyze survey and interview data.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

88

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the survey data. Specifically, means and
standard deviations were computed for each survey item. Additionally, means and standard
deviations were computed for each of the 12 competencies. Finally, grand means of the
knowledge items, motivation items, and organization items were computed.
Audio recordings of the semi-structured interviews were transcribed and coded using the
12 competencies in conjunction with the K/M/O classification scheme (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The researchers reviewed the transcripts and identified emergent themes relevant to the current
project. Specifically, the researchers looked for patterns in the interview data that (1) clarified
ambiguous results from the survey, (2) bolstered the findings from the survey, or (3) registered
as completely new. Additionally, the researchers looked for interesting convergences and
divergences of the perspectives between the three levels in the district.
The results of the data collected and analyzed are presented in Chapter Four, which
follows.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

89

Chapter Four: Results
Author: Esther Salinas
Purpose of Study
This inquiry project was designed to assist Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD)
with its organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student
achievement. The inquiry questions for this project, which focus specifically on the role of
school site administrators in supporting PUSD’s organizational goal, were:
1. What are the challenges for PUSD school site administrators, in knowledge and skills,
motivation, and the organizational dimension, that may impede the achievement of
PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student
achievement?
2. What potential solutions would address PUSD school site administrators’ challenges in
knowledge and skills, motivation, and the organizational dimension, and thereby support
PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student
achievement?
Mixed methods captured data to identify and validate the causes of performance gaps pertaining
to PUSD school site administrators, the results of which are reported in this chapter. These
causes, associated with school site administrators’ knowledge and skills, motivation, or with the
organizational dimension, need to be addressed in order to achieve PUSD’s organizational goal.
Potential solutions to address the validated causes of the gaps will be presented and discussed in
Chapter Five.
District Survey
To validate the assumed causes, quantitative data were obtained using the Collaboration
Around Student Achievement (CASA) Team Competency Survey (see Chapter Three for a
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

90

discussion of assumed causes and a description of the survey). The survey population consisted
of all 915 certificated staff (teachers, assistant principals, principals, and central office
administrators) from the PUSD employed during the 2011-2012 school year. Of the 915 solicited
participants, 281 PUSD certificated staff members (30.7%) completed a survey. Though the
response rate of the survey is low (30.7%), a low response rate is typical for a web-based survey
(Nair & Adams, 2009; Shih & Fan, 2009).
Of the 281 certificated staff members who completed the survey, the 34 who were school
site administrators formed the subsample (n = 34) for the current study, which examines
collaboration around student achievement from a school site administrator-level perspective.
Two concurrent studies (Carruthers, 2013; Llamas, 2013) were conducted from the same original
data set (n = 281), isolating teachers (n = 219) and central office administrators (n = 18).
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the survey data. All statistical analysis was
conducted using SPSS 20.0 statistical package for Windows (see Appendix H for data on n =
281).
School Site Administrator Interviews
Interviews were conducted subsequent to the administering of the Collaboration Around
Student Achievement (CASA) Team Competency Survey as a form of methodological
triangulation (Patton, 2002). The CASA Team Competency Survey contained an item requesting
consent for participation in a focus group or individual interview. After analyzing the data,
participants were sorted by levels: central office administrator, school site administrator, and
teacher levels. Twenty-three school site administrators consented to participate in the qualitative
portion of the project. Six key informants (Patton, 2002) were identified to ensure the emergence
of meta-themes, as recommended by Guest, Bunce, & Johnson (2006) and selected to participate
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

91

in individual interviews. Of the six interviewees, five were female and one was male. An
interview schedule, based on mutual availability of the interviewee and interviewer was
developed. Each interview lasted between 70 and 90 minutes. A point of redundancy was
reached after the fourth interview when no new information was forthcoming (Lincoln & Guba,
as cited in Patton, 2002).Thus, of the six originally planned interviews, four were conducted and
it was not necessary to conduct the final two interviews.
Demographic Data
The first section of the survey included 12 demographic items, broken down into three
categories: participant information, current work setting, and models of collaboration used. For a
complete breakdown of the demographic data, see Appendix I.
Of the 34 school site administrators surveyed, 23 of the participants were female (68%)
and 11 were male (32%). Participants’ ages were distributed as follows: one was in the 29-34
year range; five were in the 35-40 year range; nine were in the 41-46 year; 11 were in the 47-52
year range; five were in the 53-58 year range; and three were 59 years or older.
Fifteen participants were Caucasian, the second largest participant group was Hispanic
with nine participants, eight participants were African American and two participants were
multiracial.
School Site Administrators in the survey predominantly had Master’s degrees. The
distribution of educational attainment was as follows: One had completed some work toward a
master’s degree, 20 had a Master’s degree, seven had completed some level of study toward the
completion of a doctoral degree and six had earned a doctoral degree.
Eighteen participants had less than five years at their current position. Nine had served 6-
10 years, four had served 11-15 years, two had served 16-20 years, and one had served 21-25
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

92

years. In addition, 18 participants had fewer than five years at their current work setting. Five
had served 6-10 years, six had served 11-15 years, and one had served16-20 years.
Of the 34 school site administrators who completed the survey, 28 respondents indicated that
they had received training on a particular model of collaboration around student achievement. Of
the 28 who participated in training, 22 were trained in Professional Learning Communities, four
were trained in Communities of Practice, and two indicated they were trained in “other” models,
although they did not identify which model. When asked about the implementation of a
particular model of collaboration, six of the 34 respondents indicated that no particular model
was being implemented. Of the 28 respondents who identified a particular collaborative model,
19 indicated Professional Learning Communities (PLC), five named “other” models, three
indicated Purposeful Communities, and one indicated the implementation of Communities of
Practice.
Respondents were asked to indicate the number of collaborative teams to which they
belonged. Twenty respondents indicated belonging to three teams, six belonged to two teams,
five belonged to one team and three did not identify themselves as belonging to any team.
Of the four school site administrator interviewees, three of the participants were female and one
was male. Their ages were distributed as follows: one was in the 41-46 year range; three were in
the 47-52 year range. Two participants were Caucasian, one was African American, and one was
Hispanic. Their educational attainment was distributed as follows: Three had a Master’s degree,
and one had completed a doctoral program. In regard to administrative experience, one had five
years of experience, one, eight years, one, 10 years and one 17 years. Lastly, in regard to years in
their current position, two interviewees had served three years, and two had served five years.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

93

Validation of the Causes of the Perceived Performance Gap
Inquiry Question #1: What are the challenges for PUSD school site administrators in
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational dimension that may impede the
achievement of PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around
student achievement?
Knowledge Results
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Causes
In Chapter Three, the assumed causes of the knowledge gap, distilled from informal
scanning interviews, theories of learning, and literature related to collaboration around student
achievement, were classified as factual, procedural, conceptual, or metacognitive (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001). Scanning interviews revealed that staff (a) did not have a clear definition of
collaboration around student achievement (factual knowledge), (b) lacked an understanding of
the process of collaboration around student achievement (conceptual knowledge), (c) lacked the
procedural knowledge to conduct CLC business, and (d) had not engaged fully in self-assessment
of their progress as a learning community (metacognitive knowledge).
The literature on collaborative learning communities (CLCs) revealed the following common
gaps associated with CLC implementation: (a) failure to operationalize the term PLC (factual
knowledge), (b) lack of knowledge with regard to fundamental CLC procedures, (c) incomplete
understanding of the conceptual framework that undergirds CLCs, and (d) failure to engage in
the cycle of continuous improvement due to the absence of meaningful reflection (metacognitive
knowledge).
The gap analysis methodology attempted to validate these assumed causes. In this section
the results of the application of this methodology is presented.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

94

Knowledge Survey Results
In total, the CASA Team Competency Survey included 17 items, which elicited
respondents’ self-reports of their teams’ knowledge and skills pertinent to collaboration around
student achievement. Respondents ranked each item on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 indicating
“Strongly Disagree” and 100 indicating “Strongly Agree.” Mean (M) site administrator
responses (n = 34), the standard deviation (SD), and the grand mean for the 17 knowledge and
skills survey items are reported in Table 5. The grand mean for the 17 knowledge items was
74.29 on a scale of 0 to 100 indicating that respondents, on the whole, reported a moderate level
of agreement with the statements presented in the 17 knowledge items.
As a matter of practicality, only the two items with the lowest mean responses (i.e.
highest priority) will be analyzed in further detail and validated by qualitative data gathered
during interviews with school site administrators. A cross analysis of the two concurrent studies
examining knowledge factors from the perspective of central office administrators (Llamas,
2013) and teachers (Carruthers, 2013) will also be reviewed.
The fact that only these two highest-priority items are analyzed in further detail does not
imply that the other items are not worthy of similar attention. In fact, the results from all of the
survey items warrant PUSD’s attention as it pursues its goal to institutionalize effective
collaboration around student achievement. For tri-level competency comparison, see Appendix J.
Table 5 displays the survey items used to assess school site administrators’ knowledge
and skills with their corresponding means (M) and standard deviations (SD). Each mean
represents the average school site administrator response to the associated survey item on a scale
of 0 to 100, with 0 indicating “Strongly Disagree” and 100 indicating “Strongly Agree.” The
items are presented in ascending order according to their means. The respective competency is in
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

95

parenthesis at the end of each knowledge item. The complete list of knowledge competencies can
be found in Appendix D.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

96

Table 5
Knowledge Item Results in Ascending Order by Means (n = 34)
Knowledge (0 = Strongly Disagree; 100 = Strongly Agree) Mean SD
My team knows how to develop high quality assessments that produce useful data
about whether students have met essential learning outcomes.
67.06 22.36
My team members know the specific knowledge and skills required for our team to
achieve the outcomes for which we are accountable.
67.65 15.39
My team knows how to engage in team learning activities that raise our capacity to
achieve the outcomes for which we are accountable.
68.82 17.01
My team knows how to collect various data to determine how effective a particular
intervention has been.
70.59 18.58
My team knows how to connect students with interventions for remediation and
enrichment when there is a demonstrated need.
70.88 21.23
My team has been given the responsibility and authority for determining how to meet
the goals set by central office.
71.76 18.66
My team knows how to use common assessment data to refer students for
interventions for remediation and enrichment.
72.65 19.90
My team understands that there are inherent tensions embedded in the collaborative
process but we implement strategies to overcome these interpersonal challenges.
72.65 16.75
My team analyzes student achievement data in order to identify instructional
strengths and weaknesses as part of ongoing improvement.
73.24 21.28
Members of my team know how to organize and execute a course of action to
positively impact student achievement.
74.41 18.62
My team works together to gather, analyze, and implement best practices. 75.59 16.18
My team knows how to use a data management system (e.g. DataDirector) to store,
analyze and communicate assessment data.
76.76 15.90
My team knows how to prioritize resources that benefit student achievement
outcomes.
77.35 16.20
My team knows how to establish the tasks and purposes for working together. 78.53 18.11
My team has clarity about the essential learning outcomes that all students are
expected to achieve.
80.59 17.22
My team knows how to identify struggling students in need of remediation. 81.47 17.26
My team knows how to identify proficient and advanced students in need of
enrichment opportunities.
82.94 14.88
Note. SD = Standard Deviation.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

97

Knowledge cause #1.
Survey results. On a scale of 0 to 100 with 0 indicating “Strongly Disagree” and 100
representing “Strongly Agree,” the knowledge item with the lowest mean response among school
site administrators was “My team knows how to develop high quality assessments that produce
useful data about whether students have met essential learning outcomes.”. The mean response
for this item was 67.06. This knowledge gap was related to Competency #5: Developing and
deploying an assessment and monitoring system. The possible causes of this gap may be
dependent on the school site administrator’s perception of their teams understanding of how to
develop high quality assessments related to what students should be learning. The creation of
high quality assessments is one of the critical functions of collaborative central office level
instructional leadership teams in conjunction with school site instructional leadership teams
made up of teacher leaders and the school site administrator. Thus, it is pertinent that this
knowledge and skill gap be addressed in order for the PUSD to achieve its global goal of 100%
collaboration around student achievement.
Interview results. During the interviews, school site administrators were asked questions
(see Appendix G) in order to better understand the causes of the knowledge and skill gaps that
exist within the PUSD. School site administrators could have responded from one of at least two
perspectives: (a) as a district-level team member of a collaborative team of school site
administrators, or (b) as a school-level team leader overseeing their respective school leadership
team. Responses indicate that school site administrator’s predominately responded from the
perspective of a school-level team leader.
All the interviewees utilize California state assessment data when setting school-wide
goals. California Standardized Test (CST) was used to establish students’ level of achievement at
the beginning of the year. District trimester assessment results are used to track student progress,
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

98

but, as one interviewee noted, “there have been challenges with the validity of the trimester data”
and another stated that “they were very aware of assessments but sometimes the quarterlies were
never really useful or aligned to anything.” This further shows that the assessment measures
being provided to sites and teachers misaligned with the present scope and sequence of the
curriculum as provided by central office. When it comes to developing interim assessments,
school site administrators rely on assessments created by their teachers but as all interviewees
mentioned, these assessments vary, not only from school to school, but can also vary from
teacher to teacher. Central office, under the direction of the professional development
coordinator, is currently working with a team of teachers in a curriculum revision workshop
(CRW) effort. One interviewee posed these questions:
What are we doing for the kids who are at advanced and proficient? We’ve got schools
that are the advanced and proficient…what are you doing to sustain that? What are they
[central office] getting so that they know what they’re doing is working? What are those
[proficient and advanced] schools doing that is working that can then be worked on at
schools that perhaps are not [proficient and advanced]?
All four interviewees mentioned the need for common assessment tools and protocols. One
mentioned the need to collaboratively develop common data analysis tools from which schools
could choose. Two interviewees described their need to develop writing rubrics that span the
curriculum.
Tri-level results. All three levels: central office administrators (Llamas, 2013), school site
administrators and teachers (Carruthers, 2013), expressed low levels of efficacy in the area of
“developing high quality assessments to produce useful data about meeting essential learning
outcomes.” The average mean for all three levels ranged from 58.33 to 67.65. During the
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

99

interviews with central office staff (Llamas, 2013) one of the four interviewees discussed that the
creation of assessments was the responsibility of a few (4 curricular coaches). But this was “not
their priority or their sole responsibility.” In addition, three of the four interviewees agreed that
assessments are being created now and is a priority to implement district wide (Llamas, 2013).
Concerns also came from teachers (Carruthers, 2013). One teacher explained that teacher teams
used to collaboratively develop common units and assessments around the CST, but now the
principal does not have the resources to pay for the team to develop pacing, outlines and
assessments. Since there are no common standardized assessment measures, teachers are left to
decide for themselves what will best meet the needs of their students and schools thus, creating
inequity between classrooms and schools.
In order to effectively create systemic tri-level change from the classroom to central
office, assessment measures must be standardized and used with fidelity across classrooms and
schools. Otherwise, not all students will receive equitable instruction or assessment measures
commensurate with other classrooms and schools (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). Given
that central office is charged with developing common assessments to measure effective student
achievement, school site administrators are charged with analyzing the outcome data of the
assessments and teachers are charged with administering the assessments poses a significant
concern that the assessments, currently in place, are not effectively measuring whether students
are achieving the essential learning outcomes. Currently, the professional development
coordinator from central office is working with a team of teachers in a K-12 curriculum revision
(CRW) effort. This effort demonstrates the strides that the PUSD is making in beginning the
process of standardizing assessments across the district.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

100

Knowledge cause #2.
Survey results. The knowledge item with the second lowest mean response was “My
team members know the specific knowledge and skills required for our team to achieve the
outcomes for which we are accountable.” The mean response for this item was 67.65 on a scale
of 0 to 100. This knowledge gap was related to Competency #1: Capacity building. There may be
several causes of this gap. First, possible causes may be dependent upon which collaborative
team school site administrators perceived as the most important, and which collaborative team
they considered their primary team when they responded to the survey items. School site
administrators belong to at least two teams. The first team is the team they belong to and share
with fellow school site administrators. The second team is the team they lead on their respective
school sites. According to Lencioni (2005), the team you belong to is the team that must be given
priority. This priority puts team results (district goals) ahead of individual agendas and results in
organizational alignment (Lencioni, 2005) between the district and school levels.
Additionally, the causes of the gap may also be dependent on the school site
administrator’s perception of their team’s understanding of the specific knowledge and skills
required for their team to achieve the outcomes for which they are accountable.
This knowledge is also critical when identifying deficits that inhibit people from
achieving the outcomes. Thus, it is imperative that this knowledge and skill gap be addressed in
order for PUSD to transform data into information that better informs practice and leads to
informed decisions surrounding whether students are achieving the essential learning outcomes
(DuFour et al., 2010, p. 215).
Interview results. Responses indicate that school site administrators predominately
responded from the perspective of a school-level team leader. The survey data indicated that
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

101

school site administrators are challenged in regard to knowing the knowledge and skills required
to achieve outcomes for which they are accountable. None of the interviewees responded from
the perspective of a team member who belonged to the team with fellow administrators and
indicated areas where increased knowledge and skill was needed at the school site level. Each
school site administrator was able to identify specific areas of need such as how to teach writing,
how to analyze data using DataDirector, how to meet the needs of at-risk students, and how to
implement the common core. In regard to common core implementation, one interviewee stated,
“we need to know more about what it is or how [central office administrators] want us to be
doing things.”
All four of the interviewees described the configuration of weekly early release days that
provide 120 minutes of “professional development” time. According to the contract between the
teachers union and the district, these early release professional development days are designated
as “A” Mondays and “B” Mondays where “A” Mondays are planned by administrators and “B”
Mondays are planned by teacher unit members. One of the four interviewees talked about one
planned professional development day when teachers were expected to participate, but nearly
38% did not come. Non-participation may also contribute to this knowledge gap, which may also
be a motivation issue, as teachers are not actively choosing to participate in planned professional
development when offered by the district and facilitated by school site administrators. While
interviewees discussed plans for professional development, none mentioned the role of team
collaboration in meeting identified needs.
When responding to interview questions from the perspective of a principal team
member, one interviewee mentioned it would be helpful to have time to spend with colleagues.
Another mentioned calling on colleagues for help and a third shared the wish of visiting other
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

102

schools. These comments suggest a lack of collaboration among school site administrators.
Barren results from the perspective of school site administrators collaborating with their
principal colleagues may indicate an absence of organized collaboration and will need to be
explored further.
Tri-level results. Results from concurrent projects which focus on collaboration around
student achievement from the teacher perspective (Carruthers, 2013) and central office
administrator perspective (Llamas, 2013) validate the need to need to know the knowledge and
skills required for teams to achieve the outcomes for which they are accountable, but indicate
lack of time and resources as barriers. Teacher interviewees cited examples such as lack of time
to collaborate and the desire for structure during collaboration times. Central office
administrators talked about their recent efforts in providing a professional development series on
the common core and 21
st
century learning to principals and curriculum resource teachers. It
could be argued that both knowledge gaps may be related. Without the creation of high quality
assessments, how is one to obtain the knowledge and skills necessary to achieve the essential
learning outcomes? It may also be that teams lack the knowledge and skill to lead collaborative
inquiry and analysis of student work (Langer et at., 2003) and lesson study. For a comparison of
the validated knowledge causes among the three levels, see Appendix K.
Summary of School Site Administrators’ Strengths and Challenges
Based on the qualitative and quantitative data at the central office administrator level,
several positive themes emerged. The results indicate that PUSD school site administrators
possess relatively high levels of knowledge and skill with respect to identifying proficient and
advanced students in need of enrichment opportunities (M = 82.94) and identifying struggling
students in need of remediation (M = 81.47). This was further validated by interviews conducted
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

103

with school site administrators. Two of the four interviewees mentioned successfully
accelerating students either by advancing students to the next grade level or by adjusting the
students’ schedule to accommodate more advanced curriculum. One interviewee stated that they
were able to offer an accelerated math program for those students who indicate readiness.
Additionally, all mentioned the ability to identify students who needed remediation. Three of the
four interviewees mentioned they were looking forward to using the universal screening tool,
Review 360, that was recently purchased as part of the Behavior Response to Intervention (RtI)
initiative and will be used to identify students who exhibit external or internal behaviors that
inhibit learning.
On the other hand, results also revealed that PUSD school site administrators would
benefit from gaining key knowledge and skills in order for PUSD to achieve its organizational
goal of institutionalizing consistent and effective collaboration around student achievement
districtwide. Toward that end, it will be important for school site administrators to (a) know how
to create high quality assessments and (b) know the specific knowledge and skills required for
teams to achieve the outcomes for which they are accountable. Specific solutions to address the
organizational dimension will be proposed in Chapter Five.
Motivation Results
Summary of Assumed Motivation Causes
Assumed motivation causes were distilled from informal scanning interviews, theories of
motivation, and related literature. Clark’s (1999), Commitment And Necessary Effort (CANE)
model of motivation was used as a guiding framework to consider possible causes of motivation
gaps. The CANE model frames goal commitment as the product of capability beliefs, affective
factors, and task value. A summary of the assumed causes of the gaps in knowledge and skills,
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

104

motivation, and organizational factors related to PUSD’s organizational goal to implement
successful collaboration around student achievement is found in Table 4.
Assumed motivation causes were related to efficacy, self-efficacy, and collective
efficacy. Survey items administered to school site administrators assessed staff’s perceptions of
whether the team had the collective efficacy and other motivational variables such as
commitment and value, to carry out specific tasks needed to develop collaborative learning
communities (CLC). Self-efficacy measures a person’s confidence in their ability to execute a
particular task under specific conditions, and is a predictor of collaboration (Bandura, 1997).
Collective efficacy is related to self-efficacy, and measures the extent to which members of a
team feel that the team is capable of working together to execute a particular task under specific
conditions (Goddard et al., 2004). Team members who do not believe in the efficacy of the team
may be hesitant to put forth their best efforts. They may also be less likely to trust other team
members enough to share the responsibility for achieving collective outcomes. Finally, perceived
value is another relevant construct from motivation theory that plays a role in determining school
site administrators’ motivation to collaborate. To the extent that school site administrators do not
experience collaboration as valuable, they will not be motivated to collaborate.
Motivation survey results. In total, the CASA Team Competency Survey included 29
items, which elicited respondents’ self-reports of their teams’ motivational factors related to
collaboration around student achievement. Respondents ranked each item on a scale of 0 to 100,
with 0 indicating “Strongly Disagree” and 100 indicating “Strongly Agree.” Mean (M) school
site administrator responses (n = 34), the standard deviation (SD), and the grand mean for the 29
motivation items are reported in Table 6. The grand mean for the 29 Motivation items was 79.88
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

105

on a scale of 0 to 100 indicating that respondents, on the whole, reported a moderately strong
level of agreement with the statements presented in the 29 motivation items.
As a matter of practicality, only the two items with the lowest mean responses (i.e.,
highest priority) will be analyzed in further detail and validated by qualitative data gathered
during interviews with school site administrators. A cross analysis of the two concurrent studies
examining motivation factors from the perspective of central office administrators (Llamas,
2013) and teachers (Carruthers, 2013) will also be reviewed.
The fact that only these two highest-priority items are analyzed in further detail does not
imply that the other items are not worthy of similar attention. In fact, the results from all of the
survey items warrant PUSD’s attention as it pursues its goal to institutionalize effective
collaboration around student achievement. See Appendix I and Appendix J for further analysis of
the motivation survey results relative to the 12 competencies.
Table 6 displays the survey items used to assess school site administrators’ self-reports of
their team’s motivation with their corresponding means (M) and standard deviations (SD). Each
mean represents the average school site administrator response to the associated survey item on a
scale of 0 to 100, with 0 indicating “Strongly Disagree” and 100 indicating “Strongly Agree.”
The items are presented in ascending order according to their means. The respective competency
is in parenthesis at the end of each motivation item. The complete list of motivation
competencies can be found in Appendix D.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

106

Table 6
Motivation Item Results in Ascending Order by Means (n = 34)
Motivation (0 = “Strongly Disagree”; 100 = “Strongly Agree”) Mean SD
My team respectfully addresses group tension when working collaboratively to gather,
analyze and transfer best practices across all team members.
70.00 17.75
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole, can do the following:
Identify specific knowledge and skill deficits that inhibit our team from achieving the
outcomes for which we are accountable.
70.59 17.74
My team values comparing assessment results and sharing instructional strategies to
identify strengths and weaknesses in individual and collective teaching.
72.94 22.23
How certain, working together as a whole, can your team: Collaborate interdependently
to gather, analyze and determine best practices and transfer best practices across all team
members.
74.71 17.79
How certain, working together as a whole, can your team: Identify strengths and
weaknesses in our collective and individual practice as part of an ongoing cycle of
improvement.
75.00 20.49
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole, can do the following:
Engage ourselves in knowledge- and skill-building activities that raise our team’s
capacity to achieve the outcomes for which we are accountable.
76.76 18.21
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole can do the following:
Provide students with additional time and support whenever there is a demonstrated need.
76.76 18.38
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole, can do the following:
Accept and carry out the responsibility and authority for determining how to meet the
clear, non-negotiable goals set by site and/or district leadership.
77.06 18.01
How certain, working together as a whole, can your team: Make use of available time to
hold productive collaboration meetings.
77.35 17.29
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole can do the following:
Provide students with enrichment opportunities whenever there is a demonstrated need.
77.35 15.43
How certain, working together as a whole, can your team: Use common assessment data
to identify needs for intervention and enrichment.
78.24 19.30
My team values being given the responsibility and authority for determining how to meet
district goals.
78.24 17.49
My team is committed to developing our professional knowledge and skills so that we
can achieve the outcomes for which we are accountable.
78.24 16.78
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

107

How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole, can do the following:
Agree to be held accountable to clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction
set by site and/or district leadership.
78.53 17.94
My team values feedback from colleagues when identifying and implementing best
practices.
78.53 15.00
Using common assessment data to refer students for interventions for remediation and
enrichment is important to my team.
78.82 17.19
My team makes a concerted effort to connect students with interventions for remediation
and enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need.
79.12 19.60
My team values having access to a data management system that can communicate to all
team members the extent to which students are achieving essential learning outcomes.
79.71 18.34
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole can do the following:
Use data to measure the impact of interventions.
80.29 20.37
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole, can do the following:
Develop clarity among all team members regarding the essential learning outcomes that
all students are expected to achieve.
80.29 15.27
It is important to my team to make all members feel that their contribution is vital to our
success.
80.88 16.58
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole can do the following:
Make resource allocation decisions that provide the greatest benefit to student
achievement outcomes
81.47 17.08
My team values the time we spend together collaborating. 82.65 18.31
My team is committed to the belief that, working collectively, we have the ability to
produce the student achievement results we truly desire.
82.65 15.82
My team believes that all members of our team play an essential role in positively
impacting student achievement.
83.24 17.01
It is important that my team can make decisions about how to spend allocated resources
that provide the greatest benefit to student achievement outcomes.
87.06 15.28
It is important for my team to develop clarity about the essential learning outcomes that
all students are expected to achieve.
90.59 10.43
It is important to use data to determine how effective an intervention has been. 94.41 10.21
It is important that students are provided with interventions for remediation and
enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need.
95.00 8.96
Note. SD = Standard Deviation.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

108

Motivation cause #1.
Survey results. On a scale of 0 to 100 with 0 indicating “Strongly Disagree” and 100
representing “Strongly Agree,” the motivation item with the lowest mean response among
teachers was “My team respectfully addresses group tension when working collaboratively to
gather, analyze and transfer best practices across all team members.” The mean response for
this item was 70.00. The data from this item suggest that school site administrators have not been
able to effectively deal with the tensions that are inherent in collaboration around student
achievement. The literature consistently emphasizes the importance of collaborative teams
finding ways to embrace and address the tensions that arise as teams develop (Lencioni, 2002;
Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). If school site administrators do not find productive ways to address
these tensions, the discomfort created by these tensions can act as powerful de-motivating forces.
It is therefore important to build teams’ capacity to navigate the inherent conflicts and tensions
that arise in the midst of collaboration.
Interview results. When responding to interview items, school site administrators could
have responded from one of at least two perspectives: (a) as a district-level team member of a
collaborative team of school site administrators, or (b) as a school-level team leader overseeing
their respective school leadership team. Responses indicate that school site administrators
predominately responded from the perspective of a district-level team member.
The survey results revealed a challenge in the area of respectfully addressing group
tensions. When conflict goes unresolved, it reduces a team’s ability to carry off a task effectively
and cohesively. Conflict is not easy to navigate, but it is needed and can be beneficial when
successfully managed. It requires a level of trust, which safeguards colleagues to disclose
differing opinions or alternative options, which may not be in alignment with the greater group
without fear of reprisal and respect (Lencioni, 2005). The qualitative interviews revealed varied
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

109

responses depending on the relationship and contextual level. These include: (a) school site
administrator to school teams, (b) school site administrator to school site administrator, and (c)
school site administrator to central office administrator. When school site administrators referred
to the school teams, there was little mention of group tension outside of that which is considered
a normal part of team development. All school site administrators referred to having positive
interactions with their school site administrative colleagues. When talking about the district
relationships, the tenor of conversation drastically changed. One school site administrator
contended, “As a site leader, sometimes I feel like this type of [collaborative] culture does not
exist at the district level. They are still in silos. So I feel… it’s very top-down.” Another
interviewee stated, “It’s very negative and disrespectful, and disconcerting in the fact that it
makes people feel like, “why should I keep moving on or trying to help my school?
None of the school site administrators mentioned making attempts to address the tension
between school site and central office administrators. This could be related to a lack of trust to
safely address the tension with central office administrators, however, if left unaddressed, it will
continue to erode and threaten effective collaboration and cohesion.
Tri-level results. Results from a concurrent project, which focuses on Collaboration
Around Student Achievement from the teacher perspective (Carruthers, 2013) also identified this
item as the highest-priority motivation item. This concurrence with the results from school site
administrators calls attention to the need for capacity building in the area of navigating group
tensions during the collaborative process. The data from this item suggest that administrators and
teachers have not been able to effectively deal with the tensions that are inherent to
collaboration.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

110

Motivation cause #2.
Survey results. The motivation item with the second lowest mean response was “How
certain are you that your team, working together as a whole, can do the following: Identify
specific knowledge and skill deficits that inhibit our team from achieving the outcomes for which
we are accountable.” The mean response for this item was 70.59. The data from this item
suggests that school site administrators do not feel that their teams are able to identify the
knowledge and skill deficits preventing their team from achieving their goals. This could be
related to the lack of ability to identify the specific knowledge and skill deficits that inhibit their
team from achieving their desired outcomes. This could also be attributed to the lack of time and
resources needed to identify deficits caused by limited human resources, as validated by the
related knowledge item and the low mean responses to the organization items related to time, (M
= 60.00) and resources to learn and grow professionally (M = 60.88). This seems to suggest that
the team’s inability to recognize the deficits preventing task attainment may be inhibited by not
having adequate time and resources to acquire the specific knowledge and skills needed to
address the deficits. The organization items will be discussed in greater detail in the organization
section.
Interview results. Responses indicate that school site administrators predominately
responded from the perspective of a school-level team leader. This cause is validated by
concurring statements made by school site administrators who were able to name specific areas
of need their teams identified as not having adequate knowledge and skills to accomplish the
desired outcomes. One interviewee described writing as a curricular area that both the
administrator and teachers identified as needing to be strengthened, but no one at the school site
had the capacity to address it. Another administrator described the need for knowledge and skill
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

111

in serving the unique needs of students who come from group homes, stating, “I think my staff
really needs training, and we recognize this and talked about this three years ago, But, we
haven’t really had the resources to move forward.” One site administrator explained that there is
not time to find the root causes when “everyone is running on crisis mode and trying to set order
in the school…there is no time to focus on instruction.” These responses suggest that school site
administrators may actually have the skill to identify the specific knowledge and skill deficits
that inhibit their teams from moving forward, but may be deterred from acting on that knowledge
due to other possible causes that include a perceived culture of distrust, lack of time and
misaligned resources on limited priorities.
Tri-level results. Llamas (2013), examining motivation challenges from the central office
administrator perspective, discovered low levels of efficacy with regard to identifying specific
knowledge and skill deficits that inhibit the team from achieving the outcomes for which they are
accountable. Carruthers (2013), examining motivation challenges from the teacher perspective,
found that teachers are not fully motivated to engage in team learning activities. Considered
together, these findings suggest that PUSD will need to find ways to increase motivation for
capacity building in order to achieve the goal of effective collaboration around student
achievement. For a comparison of the validated motivation gaps among the three levels, see
Appendix K.
Summary of School Site Administrators’ Strengths and Challenges
There are evident strengths among school site administrator team members, in regard to
motivation. In general, school site administrators place a high level of importance on intervening
with students, developing clear learning outcomes, and allocating resources for student benefit.
Collectively, survey respondents from school site leaders strongly agreed that providing students
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

112

with interventions for remediation and enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need is
important (M = 95.00). They strongly agree that data is needed to determine the effectiveness of
interventions (M = 94.41). They believe that clarifying essential learning outcomes (M = 90.59)
and allocating resources that provide the greatest benefit to student achievement outcomes (m =
87.06) is important. Finally, school site administrators strongly believe that their team members
play an essential role in positively impacting student achievement. One interviewee put it this
way, “I love the collaboration of having everybody together…we have one sole purpose and that
is to have our kids learn.”
While saying that something is important indicates motivation, exerting the necessary
effort to produce results around the things one says are important requires a deeper level of
commitment (Clark, 1999). The results of this study indicate a motivation gap between
proclaimed value and demonstrated value. Value is demonstrated when both commitment and
necessary effort are exhibited (Clark, 1998). All four-school site level administrators indicated
having a high value for their school site administrator colleagues, but this appears to be eclipsed
by task assessment problems that question, “Can I do it? and “Will I be permitted to do it?”
(Clark, 1998, p. 41) that hinders the sharing of best practices. Additionally, all three levels are
motivated to assist students, however, motivation deteriorates when staff is not positively
acknowledged, resources are unavailable and guidelines for working as collective and
collaborative teams are not provided. Instead, motivation necessary to ensure effective
collaboration around student achievement wanes due to distrust, lack of clear focus, inadequate
time, diminished resources and poor communication among all three levels. Therefore, results
indicate that school site administrators’ commitment and effort could improve in these key areas.
Specific solutions to address the organizational dimension will be proposed in Chapter Five.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

113

Organizational Results
Summary of Assumed Organizational Causes
In Chapter Three, assumed organizational causes were distilled from informal scanning
interviews, theories of organizational culture and change, and literature related to collaboration
around student achievement. A summary of the assumed causes of the gaps in knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational factors related to PUSD’s organizational goal to implement
successful collaboration around student achievement is found in Table 7
Key aspects of organizational culture and support were identified as possible sources of
performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). Gaps usually exist in work processes, material
resources, organizational culture, and features of effective organizational change (Clark & Estes,
2008). Additionally, Rueda (2011) suggests looking for organizational gaps in culture, structure,
and policies and practices. As such, potential causes in these areas were considered. A culture of
isolation (Tye and Tye, 1984; Flinders, 1988; Gratch, 2000) and lack of organizational coherence
(Childress et al., 2007) were identified as potential causes of the performance gap. Other
potential causes related to the organizational dimension include: (a) failing to communicate
throughout the organization that learning is the fundamental purpose, (b) failing to cultivate a
culture of collaboration, (c) failing to focus on results rather than intentions (DuFour & Eaker,
1998), (d) failing to build teams’ capacity to collaborate through job-embedded professional
development (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006) and (e) failing to provide protocols and
processes for collaborating around student achievement (DuFour et al., 2010).
School site administrators were asked about their perceptions of the implementation of
collaboration around student achievement. One principal stated, “It would be great if district
departments collaborated so we [principals] wouldn’t get conflicting information from different
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

114

departments.” Another commented, “Our current culture [in PUSD] promotes isolation among
the schools. We don’t really know what other schools are doing.” Finally, another stated, “The
number of district initiatives is difficult to manage, given the constraints of time to meet with
faculty and staff during the monthly allotted meeting times.” Responses such as these formed the
assumed causes of the gaps in organizational factors related to PUSD’s organizational goal to
institutionalize effective collaboration around student achievement. Possible gaps may occur in
work processes, material resources, organizational culture, and features of effective
organizational change.
Organization Survey Results
In total, the CASA Team Competency Survey included 17 items , which elicited
respondents’ assessments of organizational factors related to collaboration around student
achievement. Respondents ranked each item on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 indicating “Strongly
Disagree” and 100 indicating “Strongly Agree”. Mean (M) school site administrator responses
(n = 34), the standard deviation (SD), and the grand mean for the 17 organization items are
reported in Table 7. The grand mean for the 17 organization items was 68.74 on a scale of 0 to
100 indicating that school site administrators, on the whole, communicated weak agreement with
the statements proposed in the 17 organization items.
As was noted earlier, school site administrators scored the organization items
substantially lower than the knowledge and motivation items. In fact, the means for all but one of
the 17 organization items were below the overall mean for the motivation items, and the means
for all but four of the 17 organization items were below the overall mean for knowledge items.
This warrants a closer examination of organizational factors. For this reason, the four (instead of
two) organization items with the lowest mean responses (i.e., the highest priority) will be
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

115

analyzed in further detail and validated by qualitative data gathered during interviews with
school site administrators. A cross analysis of the two concurrent studies examining
organizational factors from the perspective of central office administrators (Llamas, 2013) and
teachers (Carruthers, 2013) will also be reviewed.
The fact that only these four highest-priority items are analyzed in further detail does not
imply that the other items are not worthy of similar attention. In fact, the results from all of the
survey items warrant PUSD’s attention as it pursues its goal to institutionalize effective
collaboration around student achievement. A further analysis of the organization survey results
relative to the 12 competencies can be seen in Appendix I and Appendix J.
Table 7 displays the survey items used to assess school site administrators’ perception of
organizational factors with their corresponding means (M) and standard deviations (SD). Each
mean represents the average school site administrator response to the associated survey item on a
scale of 0 to 100, with 0 indicating “Strongly Disagree” and 100 indicating “Strongly Agree.”
The items are presented in ascending order according to their means. The respective competency
is in parenthesis at the end of each organization item. The complete list of organizational
competencies can be found in Appendix D.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

116

Table 7
Organization Item Results in Ascending Order by Means (n = 34)
Organization (0 = “Strongly Disagree”; 100 = “Strongly Agree”)
M SD
My team is provided the necessary time to learn and grow professionally. 60.00 20.60
My team is provided with the time to develop clarity about the essential learning
outcomes that all students are expected to achieve.
60.59 18.08
My team is provided the necessary resources to learn and grow professionally. 60.88 20.50
Intentional communication occurs between central office and school sites regarding
clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction.
63.24 25.13
My team uses a systematic, collaborative process to develop common assessments that
are aligned with essential learning outcomes.
64.71 21.49
My team is provided the systems, processes and/or resources necessary to provide
students with interventions for remediation and enrichment whenever there is a
demonstrated need.
65.00 19.11
Central office sets clear goals and expectations for site performance. 66.18 22.16
Resource allocation criteria are consistently applied and managed. 66.47 23.60
My team is provided with processes and resources that enable us to develop clarity
about the essential learning outcomes that all students are expected to achieve.
66.76 17.18
My team consistently uses norms and protocols for working collaboratively to gather,
analyze, and transfer best practices across all team members.
70.59 19.22
Protocols, models, and/or other resources for determining the effectiveness of
interventions, have been available to my team.
70.88 20.94
My team is provided an environment where we can safely share and examine strengths
and weaknesses in individual and collective teaching.
73.82 19.54
My team has specific protocols and processes for analyzing common assessment data. 73.82 18.43
My team is provided structured opportunities to develop the clear actionable steps (i.e.,
action plans) necessary to produce the student achievement results we truly desire.
75.00 14.20
My team has access to a data management system that communicates to all
stakeholders the extent to which students are achieving essential learning outcomes.
76.18 21.88
Administration supports and facilitates collaboration time through helpful scheduling
arrangements.
77.65 19.24
School culture fosters the notion that, working collectively, we have the ability to
produce the student achievement results we truly desire.
82.35 14.78
Note. SD = Standard Deviation.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

117

Organizational cause #1.
Survey results. On a scale of 0 to 100 with 0 indicating “Strongly Disagree” and 100
representing “Strongly Agree,” the organization item with the lowest mean response among
school site level administrators was “My team is provided the necessary time to learn and grow
professionally.” The mean response for this item was 60.00 on a scale of 0 to 100. The literature
has identified time as one the most important factors for sustaining effective collaboration
around student achievement (Donahoe, 1993; DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Raywid, 1993; Watts &
Castle, 1993). Closing staff knowledge and skill gaps requires dedicated time. The survey results
indicated that school site level administrators lack adequate time to learn and grow through
effective collaboration.
Interview results. When responding to interview items, school site administrators could
have responded from one of at least two perspectives: (a) as a district-level team member of a
collaborative team of school site administrators, or (b) as a school-level team leader overseeing
their respective school leadership team. Responses indicate that school site administrators
responded from both perspectives.
The qualitative interviews provided strong corroboration for challenges in the
organizational dimension. All four interviewees listed time as one of their needs for making their
collaborative team more effective. Interviewees articulated the need for time to learn and grow
professionally. One school site level administrator stated:
I wish we had time that can be utilized, not just after school, but also for a retreat day.
That’s a lot of people to take on school time, but the team is always seeking new things.
With more time, maybe we could come up with fresher ideas. In addition, to that, time to
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

118

go to other schools and…see a different perspective then just seeing your own building. I
think that would help.
Another interviewee stated:
I would love to have more time with [school-level leadership team members] because I
think they’re fascinating and I love learning from them too because it’s really a reflective
time. I think that’s maybe one of the things, the opportunity for feedback and reflection, I
would love to have more time with my fellow colleagues as well as people that I serve
with at my school.
Tri-level results. The need for time to learn and grow professionally was within the top
three organizational challenges cited within the concurrent projects examining teacher
perspectives (Carruthers, 2013) and central office administrator perspectives (Llamas, 2013) as
they relate to collaboration around student achievement. This confirms the need to provide time
for professional growth and development.
Organizational cause #2.
Survey results. The Organization item with the second lowest mean response was “My
team is provided with the time to develop clarity about the essential learning outcomes that all
students are expected to achieve.” The mean response for this item was 60.59. The literature
identified time as one the most important factors for sustaining effective collaboration around
student achievement (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Schmoker, 2006).
Also, in order to answer the first question of Professional Learning Communities, What must all
students know? (DuFour et al, 2006; DuFour, et al., 2010), staff needs dedicated time to unpack
the common core standards and 21
st
century learning skills and to develop clarity about essential
learning outcomes. Time is also required to create high quality common assessments, which was
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

119

identified earlier as a key knowledge and skill gap. Creating and managing multi-tiered systems
of intervention and enrichment also require substantial amounts of time. In order to share best
practices, school site level administrators need time together. This is fundamental to the work of
collaborative teams.
Interview results. Responses indicate that school site administrators predominately
responded from the perspective of a school-level team leader. Interviewees articulated the need
for time to develop clarity about the essential learning outcomes that all students are expected to
achieve. One school site administrator stated:
You would find people finding excuses on why they couldn’t come to a meeting. Having
a meeting around here has been a total collapse, especially with the way the budget is. So,
every administrator is always dealing with chaos, or as I call it, organized chaos. It is a
crisis. It’s an actual breakdown because there isn’t enough labor to go around.
Another interviewee stated:
This district has A-Days and B-Days are unstructured, basically for teachers. It’s their
day. I would like to see more collaboration on a B-Day for example, “Hey, let’s have an
English department meeting on a B-Day.” That would never happen here unless I paid
them somehow to do it. But there’s still an underlying feeling among some teachers that
are very literal with their contract so when it comes to sharing best practices it is a
challenge, because right now I don’t have any substitute money to pull people out of
classes to share best practices.
Tri-level results. Teachers (Carruthers, 2013), school site administrators and central
office administrators (Llamas, 2013) all agreed that insufficient time has been allocated to the
process of clarifying essential learning outcomes for students. Since learning is the fundamental
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

120

purpose of schools, the primary question concerns the essential learning outcomes that all
students must achieve.
One central office administrator stated,
We can meet for a lot of reasons, but many of the meetings are not productive because
they do not focus on student achievement and learning outcomes for our students. If our
final goal is consistently about our students then every task that appears around that
becomes important and a priority.
One teacher lamented,
It’s a bad year to ask me these things [about collaboration]. I feel the lack of time more
this year and last year. So I don’t know if that’s district directive, or if that’s school site,
or what it is, but we’ve met less these last two years . . . we just haven’t met really . . .
and a lot of that is missed.
One lead teacher explained that, although the site principal supports collaboration in word, the
principal has not provided adequate time for collaboration to take place.
Organizational cause #3.
Survey results. The Organization item with the third lowest mean response was “My team
is provided the necessary resources to learn and grow professionally.” The mean response for
this item was 60.88. The alignment of several levels of resources is necessary for instructional
improvement (Marzano, et al., 2005). The data from this item suggests that school site level
administrators do not feel that their team is provided with the necessary resources to learn and
grow in a manner, which would enable them to better support their school sites and ultimately,
students. In addition, it also suggests that teams are not provided opportunities to share best
practices after attending conferences or trainings. Another important factor that may be
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

121

contributing to this low mean is the lack of school funding. As such, teams are not being
afforded the opportunity to attend valuable training in a time when there are significant changes
in curriculum such as the new Common Core, practices and strategies for working with certain
sub populations at risk of needing remediation. School site level administrators need to know
how to utilize their resources, budgets and staffing to maximize support to students.
Interview results. Responses indicate that school site administrators predominately
responded from both the perspective of a district-level team member and a school-level team
leader. One interviewee stated:
If we’re going to have to be more innovative in how we bring our teams together and
what we do on our own campus, I would like both more boundaries or protocols or menu
of options so I don’t have to create everything on my own, just like we’re doing with the
CRW.
Another interviewee stated:
We just don’t have the resources in order to be able to deal with [students endangering
themselves and others], so yesterday we asked [central office] for training. When do you
restrain a student?” We had a couple issues last year and even this year when staff was
just terrified of students. They don’t know how to deal with them and, as administrators,
we don’t because we haven’t faced these issues before. So, we need training around that.
Tri-level results. In concurrent projects, central office administrators agreed that they
were not given adequate resources to learn and grow professionally (Llamas, 2013). One central
office administrator expressed the need for aligned resources, suggesting “people in upper
leadership need to take the time to understand what is going on in the district.” The interviewee
gave examples of how resources are spent that are not aligned with where the district is going.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

122

They suggested that District leadership take the time to understand where instruction is headed.
It is imperative for PUSD to allocate adequate time and resources, to gain clarity about the
essential learning outcomes for students and to build capacity at all levels to ensure that they are
met.
Organizational cause #4.
Survey results. The Organization item with the fourth lowest mean response was
“Intentional communication occurs between central office and school sites regarding clear, non-
negotiable goals for learning and instruction.” The mean response for this item was 63.24 on a
scale of 0 to 100. The survey results indicated that school site level administrators do not
perceive the central office as clearly communicating goals for learning and instruction, it
becomes clear that lack of defined autonomy is a major area of concern for PUSD. The goal of
effective collaboration around student achievement throughout the district will not be realized
without clear and ongoing communication to all stakeholders (DuFour & Marzano, 2011).
Interview results. Responses indicate that school site administrators predominately
responded from the perspective of a district-level team member. Interviewees articulated the
need for intentional communication between the central office and school sites regarding non-
negotiable goals for learning and instruction. One site administrator stated, “What I need from
this district is validation [that we’re going in the right direction] and that’s the one thing that we
don’t get in any authentic way.” One site administrator suggested the following:
I think one of the things that’s been really helpful is that the executive director of special
education has offered these opportunities to have special education talks. I think that’s a
piece that has given us, as site leaders, an opportunity to come together and have a
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

123

common voice and . . . an opportunity to feel like we’re professionals and guests. I think
that was. . . a really good step in the right direction and more of that should be happening.
Tri-level results. The organization findings in the examination of teachers (Carruthers,
2013) coincide with the findings in the current study regarding a lack of intentional
communication between the central office and the school sites about student achievement goals.
This organization item had the second lowest mean response for teachers (48.20) and the fourth
lowest for site administrators (m = 63.24). As noted earlier, the survey results indicated low
knowledge and skill to achieve the essential learning outcomes pertaining to student achievement
Additionally, teachers (Carruthers, 2013) did not feel they had been given responsibility and
authority for determining how to go about achieving central office goals. These findings may
suggest that school sites did not perceive central office as clearly communicating goals for
learning and instruction or clearly defining district expectations. Organization findings validate
defined autonomy and intentional communication as major areas of concern for PUSD. For a
comparison of the validated organizational gaps among the three levels, see Appendix K.
Summary of School Site Administrators’ Strengths and Challenges
Overall, the school site administrative team exhibits strong collective efficacy, sharing
the belief that they can make a positive impact on student achievement. This was validated by
quantitative and qualitative measures. It is interesting to note that all three levels shared the same
item as their highest dimension: School culture fosters the notion that, working collectively, we
have the ability to produce the student achievement results we truly desire. This item speaks to
the collective efficacy of school site administrators. The school site administrative team has
developed a high level of trust in one another’s abilities and strengths to accomplish tasks
assigned. All four interviewees mentioned their interdependence upon their colleagues for
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

124

knowledge and support. One interviewee stated,
“Whether you are new or whether you’ve been here a long time, I don’t feel that hinders
anybody from picking up the phone and saying, “Hey, I need help with this. I think
we’re all here for the same reason, I think we all want to see each other be
successful….That has been one of the greatest things.”
In addition, all four interviewees mentioned the positive horizontal relationships they enjoy with
their school site administrative colleagues. One interviewee stated, “I love learning from them. I
would love to have more [time] with my fellow colleagues.” Nonetheless, no interviewees
mentioned any coordinated or intentional opportunity for school site administrators to come
together to collaborate.
The organization findings in Carruthers’ (2013), examination of teachers and in Llamas’
(2013) examination of central office administrators, coincide with the findings in the current
study in some interesting ways. Of all three dimensions, the organizational dimension had the
lowest grand mean (M=68.74) and is considered the underpinning of some of the lowest
motivational and knowledge and skills gaps. This was validated by quantitative and qualitative
measures and suggested that organizational factors represent the largest impediment and the
highest-leverage points as PUSD pursues its organizational goal of institutionalizing consistent
and effective collaboration around student achievement.
Teachers, school site administrators, and central office administrators, alike, are
motivated to collaborate and welcome knowledge and skill building efforts. School site
administrators are encouraged by the district’s stated commitment to collaboration. However, for
school site administrators, the greatest needs in the organizational dimension included time and
resources to learn and grow professionally. Addressing this gap will increase the capacity for
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

125

school site administrators to achieve the outcomes, for which they are accountable, i.e. student
learning. This leads to the organizational need for time to develop clarity about the essential
learning outcomes to ensure that all students achieve. However, all this is for naught without the
intentional communication between the central office and school sites that sets clear, non-
negotiable goals for learning and instruction. School site administrators can set the structures in
place that support a collaborative learning community and engage staff members in utilizing the
tools for collaborative analysis of student work using high quality assessments that have been
developed at the school level. The results of the current study suggest that the next step is to
ensure that the organizational supports are in place to fulfill PUSD’s goal of institutionalizing
effective collaboration around student achievement. Specific solutions to address the
organizational dimension will be proposed in Chapter Five.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

126

Chapter Five: Solutions and Implementations
Author: Esther Salinas
The overall purpose of this project was to assist Pasadena Unified School District
(PUSD) in closing the performance gap relative to its organizational goal to institutionalize
effective collaboration around student achievement. Toward that end, this project is driven by
two inquiry questions:
1. What are the challenges for PUSD school site administrators, in knowledge and skills,
motivation, and the organizational dimension, that may impede the achievement of
PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student
achievement?
2. What are the potential solutions to address PUSD school site administrators’ challenges
in knowledge and skills, motivation, and the organizational dimension, and thereby
support PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around
student achievement?
Utilizing the Gap Analysis Process Model (Clark & Estes, 2008), PUSD identified the goal, and
the gap between the desired outcome and current performance. Informal scanning interviews and
observations helped identify potential causes of the gap. These assumed causes were also
identified from theories of learning, motivation, and organization, and from the literature on
collaboration around student achievement. Survey and interview items were designed to validate
potential causes of the performance gap. Data from the CASA Team Competency Survey and
CASA interviews were used to validate and prioritize assumed causes. This chapter will address
Inquiry Question Two.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

127

Thus, the purpose of this chapter is to discuss potential solutions that have been designed
to address the highest priority validated causes of PUSD’s performance gap for school site
administrators. This chapter will also provide recommendations for implementing these
solutions. Chapter Six will provide recommendations for evaluating the effectiveness of the
proposed solutions once they have been implemented.
Solutions
Inquiry Question #2: What are the potential PUSD school site administrator solutions to
address the challenges in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational issues that may
effect the successful achievement of PUSD’s organizational goal to implement collaborative
learning communities at the school site administrator level?
Knowledge and Skill
Survey and interview data validated the assumed causes related to PUSD’s school site
administrators’ knowledge and skills gaps. Two significant gaps were revealed. First, school site
administrators perceive a need for knowledge and skill development relative to creating high
quality assessments that produce useful data about whether students have met essential learning
outcomes. Results also revealed a second significant gap that indicated the need for school site
administrators to identify specific knowledge and skills required for teams to achieve the student
learning outcomes for which they are accountable. These two problems and their solutions will
be discussed next.
Principal teams need to collaboratively engage in the cycle of continuous improvement
and gain the procedural knowledge to create high quality assessments. Black and Wiliam (1998)
found that when high-quality formative assessment systems are implemented, student
achievement is raised for all students, and to an even greater extent for low achieving students.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

128

If school site administrators lack the capacity to create the quality formative assessments
used to measure essential student learning outcomes and identify specific knowledge and skills
needed to achieve the desired outcomes, then the professional capacity of teams will not increase
and student achievement within the PUSD will not improve. Therefore, PUSD must close these
gaps in knowledge to increase proficiency of the critical team competencies leading to improved
student achievement.
Knowledge is categorized according to four dimensions: factual knowledge, conceptual
knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl,
2001). As knowledge solutions are crafted, then, potential deficits in each of these four
knowledge dimensions must be considered. An in-depth analysis is needed to determine which
deficits in each of the four knowledge dimensions contribute to PUSD’s performance gap and
insures that appropriate solutions are selected and applied.
Learning is a change in the learner’s knowledge initiated by experience and changes the
learner (Mayer, 2011). In order to design appropriate solutions to the knowledge and skills gaps
of the school site administrators, one must first identify the cognitive process needed to meet the
learning objective (Mayer, 2011). Solutions must be in synchrony with the knowledge
dimensions and the cognitive processes. Anderson and Krathwohl’s Taxonomy (2001), lists four
general types of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive Utilizing the
taxonomy table created by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) as a framework, the following
cognitive processes will help match appropriate solutions with the learning needed (Rueda,
2011).
1. Remember: Recognizing or recalling relevant knowledge form long-term memory
2. Understand: Constructing meaning from oral and written sources
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

129

3. Apply: Using a procedure in a specific situation
4. Analyze: Breaking something into smaller parts and determining how they are related
to one another as well as to the overall structure, framework or purpose
5. Evaluate: Making judgments and distinctions based on specific criteria or standards
6. Create: Forming a new structure, pattern, or whole from distinct elements
Therefore, solutions for gaps in the knowledge dimension, related to school site administrators,
depend on the type of knowledge needed.
Create high quality assessments. Assessments are an important part of the cycle of
continuous improvement. Assessments are tools with a dual purpose. They are an instructional
tool used during the learning process and an accountability tool used to determine if the required
learning has taken place (Ainsworth, 2007). However, developing competence in assessments
has not been a requirement for teacher certification or administrator certification at any level
(Stiggins, 2002). For this reason, he suggests, teacher and administrator preparation programs
have neglected assessment training. As a result, teachers and administrators at all levels typically
lack important knowledge and skills related to assessment. Results from the current project,
along with findings from two concurrent projects (Carruthers, 2013; Llamas, 2013) confirm that
developing assessment competence is, in fact, a critical need area for PUSD teachers, school site
administrators, and central office administrators.
Creating assessments require procedural knowledge. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001)
emphasize that procedural knowledge reflects the knowledge of knowledge is knowing how to
do a task (Schraw, 1998). When people do not know how to accomplish performance goals, and
when future challenges arise, they will require innovations such as information, job aids,
training, continuing or advanced education to accomplish their performance goals (Clark &
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

130

Estes, 2008). Llamas (2013) proposes that central office provide all staff with information, job
aides, and training on how to create high quality assessments. To facilitate this effort at the
school site level, school site administrators must be aligned with central office solutions that
address the district learning focus
It would be beneficial to determine if there are additional causes within the knowledge
subsets: factual, procedural, conceptual and metacognitive. Since the primary gap is in
procedural knowledge, then training is a proposed solution to this knowledge gap, as
recommended by Clark and Estes (2008).
Merrill (2002) identified five ‘first principles’ of instructional design that can be used as a
research-based framework for providing PUSD teachers with training to develop assessment
competence.

Figure 2. Merrill’s (2002) first principles of instruction.
Figure 2 represents Merrill’s first principles of instruction. The phases are explained as follows:
1. Problem-centered: Learning will be promoted when school site administrators are
engaged with authentic problems of practice—problems they will be able to solve once
they have learned to create high-quality assessments.
2. Activation Phase: Learning will be promoted when school site administrators’ existing
knowledge is activated as a foundation for learning to create high-quality assessments.
Give analogies and examples that relate their relevant prior knowledge to new learning.
Integration
Phase

Activation
Phase

Application
Phase
Demonstration
Phase

Problem
Centered

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

131

3. Demonstration Phase: Learning will be promoted when the creation of high-quality
assessments is demonstrated for school site administrators. In the example, offer clear
and complete demonstrations by an expert of how to perform key tasks and solve
authentic problems.
4. Application Phase: Learning will be promoted when school site administrators are
required to use their new knowledge of creating high-quality assessments. Insist on
frequent practice opportunities during training to apply what is being learned (by
performing tasks and solving problems) while receiving corrective feedback.
5. Integration Phase: Creating high-quality assessment as one component in a
comprehensive assessment for learning system. Require applied practice that includes
“part task” (practicing small chunks of larger tasks) but also “whole tasks” (applying as
much of what is learned as possible to solve the complex problems that represent
challenges encountered in operational environments) both during and after instruction
(Clark, Yates, Early, & Moulton, 2010).
Professional development, based on Merrill’s (2002) principles, is a possible solution to a
training gap. Since training methods use an authentic problem, learner’s prior knowledge about
the subject material is activated, task and performance is demonstrated, and time to integrate
practice into their own work is provided (Merrill, 2002). When these practices are integrated into
a training structure, training effectiveness is increased. Barklay, Gur, and Wu (2004) analyzed
the extent to which these five principles were included in the hundreds of training courses
presented on over 1400 web sites in five different nations and found that the best training courses
included only half of the principles (Merrill, 2002).

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

132

Another proposed solution is professional development based on knowledge and skills
captured by experts while practicing that skill (Clark et al., 2010). In this context, procedural
knowledge will increase during professional training when the knowledge and skill of the expert
is recorded while creating an assessment or engaging in a lesson study, and incorporated into the
professional development. Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA) is used to capture and represent the
knowledge and skills experts use.
Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA) captures both the overt observable behavior and the
covert cognitive functions behind difficult problem/tasks to form an integrated whole (Chipman,
Schraagen, & Shalin, 2000). It captures the unobservable judgments through the lens of the
expert. Thus, a valuable approach to task analysis is to capture both the observable actions and
the underlying “cognitive” knowledge experts use to successfully and consistently perform a
complex task (Clark & Estes, 1996). Clark, Feldon, van Merrienboer, Yates, and Early (2008)
describe a relatively straightforward CTA method that is effective when capturing both the
conceptual knowledge and procedural skills experts use to solve complex problems. The CTA
method uses semi-structured interviews with multiple subject matter experts (SMEs) who have
demonstrated consistent and successful proficiency in performing a task over a long period of
time. In addition, these SMEs have not served as instructors because instructors tend to report
what they teach but not necessarily what they do (Clark et al., 2008). CTA would assist in
capturing the decisions experts make with automaticity to accomplish a task or goal. This step-
by-step procedure would assist in the reduction of cognitive load and promote learning for all
levels. With this method, CTA is generally performed in stages in which a trained specialist first
interviews at least three SMEs with recent successful experience to capture:
1. The sequence of stages to perform a complex job or task.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

133

2. The equipment or materials required to perform the job or task.
3. The procedural steps about when and how to make decisions and perform actions.
4. The conceptual knowledge (concepts, processes, and principles) required as pre-requisite
knowledge to perform the complex job or task.
5. Quality or proficiency standards required for expert performance.
Experts edit and correct their own information, which is then aggregated into one “gold standard
procedure,” in which any differences are resolved by the group or by a fourth, more senior,
expert (Yates, Sullivan, & Clark, 2012). At every step, clarification is elicited to ensure succinct
steps are formulated to carry out a task. Optimal instructional design methods, then, should
integrate both cognitive task analysis (CTA) and Merrill’s five principles (Merrill, 2002).
Identify knowledge and skill for student learning. In addition, school site
administrators could also benefit from increasing their procedural knowledge of how to identify
the specific knowledge and skills needed to achieve the essential learning outcome for students.
One possible solution is to provide training to school administrators on how to engage in
collective analysis of student work. Collaborative analysis helps develop a culture of inquiry for
the purpose of understanding the relationship between teaching and learning (Langer et al.,
2003). The focus on student work samples related to a particular standard. Teachers engage in
the study of selected student work over time. This process follows a systematic analysis cycle
and occurs within a collaborative culture (Langer et al., 2003). The process of collaborative
analysis of student learning has four components: (a) guiding conceptual framework, (b) culture
for collaborative inquiry, (c) shared inquiry into students and (d) supportive facilitation and
leadership. The framework of this reflective process is interdependent by nature. The purpose of
collaborative analysis is to foster and build a safe and trusting environment (Langer et al., 2003).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

134

It also serves the purpose of encouraging team members to reexamine, clarify, and transform
their own thinking so they can help students succeed. Team members will need to check their
own values and beliefs about student learning. The collaborative process is divided into five
phases over the course of three to seven months. During the first phase, school site
administrators guide teams through the process of five collaborative phases which include (a)
define the target learning area, (b) analyze classroom assessments to identify focus students, (c)
then (d) analyzing whole-class performance on target learning areas, and (e) reflect and celebrate
the growth. The outcome for students is improved learning and increased clarity about the
intended outcomes.
Empirical evidence suggests that productive professional development is intensive,
ongoing, is connected to practice, focused on specific content, and fosters strong professional
relationships among teachers (Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Ricardson, & Orphanos, as cited
in Chong & Kong, 2013). Like collaborative analysis of student work, the practice of lesson
study focuses teachers on specific content, and provides a collaborative learning context, which
has shown to be linked to teacher efficacy and improved student achievement. Chong and Kong
(2013) examined lesson study as a protocol for collaborative analysis. Lesson study is a practice
borrowed from Japanese teachers who engage in professional learning within a structure by
which teachers work collaboratively. The lesson style cycle involves small groups of teachers
who share the same content areas or grade levels and engage in collaborative lesson planning
that is designed to improve student learning (Chong & Kong, 2013). Once planned, one member
of the team will teach the lesson while the others observe and take notes about teacher and
student behaviors and interactions. The team will reconvene to provide feedback, discuss the
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

135

lesson and make adjustments for improvement. The next team member will teach the revised
lesson and the cycle repeats. The process to vet one lesson takes about six weeks (Chong &
Kong, 2013).
If training provided for site administrators is informed by cognitive task analysis (content)
and Merrill’s five principles of instructional design (methodology), staff will acquire the
knowledge and skill to achieve the student learning outcome for which they are accountable, and
be able to integrate this knowledge and skill into their professional practice (Merrill, 2002).
Motivation
Survey and interview results revealed two significant motivation gaps that inhibit one’s
active choice, persistence or mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008) that would otherwise contribute
to motivated performance. School site administrators struggle to effectively address group
tensions that arises while working collaboratively and hold a weak belief in their collective
ability to identify specific knowledge and skill deficits that inhibit their teams from achieving the
outcomes for which they are accountable.
Address group tension. Survey and interview data revealed that school site
administrators struggle to find respectful ways of addressing group tensions that arise when
collaboratively to gather, analyze and transfer best practices across all team members. This was
particularly evident from interview responses describing interactions between school site
administrators and some central office administrators.
Tension is a natural and necessary part of collaboration. Teams that fail to embrace conflict and
address group tensions severely limit their potential for organizational learning and change
(Achinstein, 2002). In fact, if team members are not making each other feel a little
uncomfortable, then they are not pushing each other outside their comfort zone and quite likely
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

136

not making the best decisions for the organization (Lencioni, 2005). Healthy conflict will not
hesitate to disagree, challenge, question all for the purpose of finding the best answers and
making the best decisions for the organization (Lencioni, 2005). However, persistent, unresolved
conflict and tension produce negative emotions and negative emotions lower commitment to
goals (Clark, 1998). Additionally, negative, critical, biased, and prejudicial feedback kills
motivation. When faced with this kind of feedback, people respond negatively by exhibiting
anger, depression, or stop trying altogether (Clark, 2005). Unresolved conflict is the symptom of
the deeper problem of distrust.
According to Lencioni (2002) unresolved group tensions indicate the team dysfunction:
fear of conflict but the root dysfunction—lack of trust—is what should be addressed first. Teams
without trust of one another will not engage in healthy conflict. Moreover, teams that lack trust
dread meetings and find reasons to avoid spending time together. Lencioni (2002) describes team
trust, as team members’ willingness to make themselves vulnerable to one another, and to have
faith that the vulnerabilities and weaknesses they expose to the group will not be used against
them. Lencioni (2002) suggests that trust building is a gradual process that requires shared
experience over time, various instances of trustworthiness, and an in-depth understanding of each
team member’s individual makeup. Lencioni (2002) provides various exercises to engage teams
(Personal Histories Exercise; Team Effectiveness Exercise; Personality and Behavioral
Preferences Profiles; and 360-degree Feedback, pp. 198-200). Finally, Lencioni (2002)
highlights the critical role of the team leader in building trust on the team by authentically
demonstrating vulnerability and creating an environment that does not punish vulnerability.
It is important for school site administrative teams to find productive ways to address
conflict and tension. It is recommended that PUSD promote Lencioni’s (2002) The Five
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

137

Dysfunctions of a Team as essential reading for collaborative teams. It equips teams with
valuable language and strategies for avoiding dysfunction and attaining high levels of team
functioning.
Collective efficacy to identify learning outcome deficits. School site administrators
need to find effective ways to increase belief in their collective ability to identify specific
knowledge and skills deficits that inhibit their teams from achieving the outcomes for which they
are accountable. If not addressed, then the professional capacity of teams will not increase and
student achievement within the PUSD will not improve.
Knowledge and skill issues can be at the root of performance issues and can lead to
motivational gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). Therefore, PUSD must close these gaps in knowledge
and skill to identify essential learning outcomes to increase proficiency of the critical team
competencies leading to improved student achievement. Developing skills alone will not be
sufficient to change the instructional outcomes. Chong and Kong (2013) describe the importance
of applying the will to persist, even in the face of adversity. Skill acquisition, along with the
positive belief about the ability to persist through challenges, will ensure progress toward the
desired outcome (Bandura, 1997; Chong & Kong, 2013). Given the skill and will, PUSD must
close these gaps to successfully achieve a broader knowledge base for these critical
competencies to improve student achievement.
For a team to exist, team members play different roles and bring varied but valued
skillsets to the table (Clark, 2005). Those different skills must be required to achieve the team
goals set out to be accomplished (Clark, 2005). A team is an “interdependent group of
individuals, each possessing a different set of skills but who collectively possess all of the skills
required to achieve team goals” (Clark, 2005, p. 13). Motivation is required to support the
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

138

persistence within a team in the face of distractions and competing priorities. According to
Clark’s (2005) Commitment and Necessary Effort (CANE) model, commitment problems
happen when people resist assigning adequate priority to an important job task. Commitment will
increase when the team has the ability to accomplish the goal and the team will be permitted to
accomplish it (Bandura, 1997). If there is doubt in the organization’s willingness to let the team
use their skill, commitment will decrease (Clark, 2005).
One possible solution to instill confidence is to increase the staffs’ collective efficacy.
According to Bandura (1997), collective efficacy refers to the self-efficacy of a group, team or
larger social entity or system. It includes the perceived capabilities of the individual members as
well as the group members’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the links between tasks, skills,
and roles (Schunk et al., 2008). Collective efficacy can affect the purpose of an organization, its
commitment to seek the desired outcomes and how well team members work together to
collectively produce the results set by the organization (Bandura, 1997). Motivation can also
effect a teams ability to maneuver through difficult situations, further derailing efforts to meet
specified goals. People are more likely to be motivated to engage, persist and apply the necessary
mental effort needed in certain tasks when they believe their team will be successful (Bandura,
1997). In contrast, people are also less likely to respond to the organization when uncertainty
about a specific course of action and degree of intrinsic reinforcement are present (Bandura,
1997). Effective solutions to increase collective efficacy may include incorporating effective
feedback regarding competence, developing productive goals for learning the task, focusing on
the development of competence, expertise and skill, and providing a mental rehearsal prior to
practice. Efficacy increases when organizational structures encourage personal and social

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

139

responsibility and provide a safe, comfortable and predictable environment. Another effective
strategy is to allow for opportunities to attain both social and professional goals through the use
of cooperative and collaborative groups (Bandura, 1997).
Organizational issues can be at the root of performance problems and can lead to
additional motivational and learning gaps (Rueda, 2011). As validated in this project, most of the
school site administrators interviewed either possessed or identified the collective capabilities in
knowledge and skill to carry out the task required of them but viewed the lack of time and
resources, unclear or changing expectations and goals, and negative and critical feedback as
deterrents to their work (Clark & Estes, 2008). These barriers are linked to organizational issues,
which impact staff motivation. Organizational barrier will be addressed in the next section.
Organizational Factors
The survey and the interview results validate the assumed motivation gaps at the school
site administrator level. Four significant gaps were revealed. Survey results indicated the need
for three types of resources. First, site administrators reported that they do not have adequate
time (a) to learn and grow professionally or (b) to develop clarity about the essential learning
outcomes and (c) the need for accompanying resources to support professional development.
Defining essential learning outcomes and building professional capacity are integral processes of
collaboration around student achievement. Hence, this finding demands attention.
Survey and interview data also validated that school site administrators perceive a need
for intentional communication from the central office regarding clear, non-negotiable goals for
learning and instruction. Lack of communication in this regard creates ambiguity with respect to
goals and expectations and undermines the basis for holding people accountable.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

140

The Gap Analysis Process Model (Clark & Estes, 2008) was used as a guide and
framework to help Pasadena Unified School District’s reach its goal to institutionalize
collaboration around student achievement. Following the gap analysis process, the PUSD
identified the goal, the gap between the desired outcome and current performance. Scanning
interviews and observations helped identify potential causes of the gap, and along with previous
research, literature guided the construction of a survey and a set of questions to test potential
causes of the gap. The gaps were identified through staff surveys, and school site administrator
interviews. The potential school site administrator solutions that PUSD may adopt along with
supporting rationale are presented below.
The survey results, considered in conjunction with the interview results, validated the
assumed organizational gaps at the school site administrator level. Four significant gaps were
revealed and will be addressed in this section. These organizational gaps are intertwined with all
three levels: central office administration, school site administration, and teacher level results,
within the organizational dimension.
Time to learn and grow. Results indicated that all three levels, central office
administrators (Llamas, 2013), school site administrators, and teachers (Carruthers, 2013), are in
need of time to engage in professional development. The National Staff Development Council
(2007) recommends, “effective professional development that improves the learning of all
students organizes adults into learning communities whose goals are aligned with those of the
school and district.” Given that all three levels have a validated knowledge and skill gap in the
development of high quality assessments, there is tri-level alignment supporting professional
development around the development of high quality assessments. School site administrators
need to analyze and evaluate the existing use of time to determine if there is adequate time
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

141

available to support professional development.
Time to clarify outcomes for students. Additional structured time beyond that which is
allocated for professional development is needed for developing clarity around essential learning
outcomes for all students. This gap exists at all three levels. When opportunities to collaborate
are not provided, then teams are not benefiting their team or building the internal capacity to
create high quality assessments, measures and practices in the best interest of students they
educate (DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Eaker & Keating, 2012). School site administrators must
also analyze and evaluate the existing use of time to determine as it pertains to collaboration to
clarify essential learning outcomes for students.
Resources to learn and grow. Closely related to time is the need to provide
accompanying resources that support professional learning. Once again, all three levels converge
around this third organizational gap. According to DuFour and Marzano (2005), school teams
must be provided with adequate resources, processes and structured time to collaborate around
data, expectations surrounding essential learning outcomes, and high quality assessments that are
in alignment with learning outcomes. School site administrators need to analyze and evaluate
present allocation of resources to determine if they align with school and district goals.
Intentional communication. The organizational gap shared with teachers was the need
for intentional communication between their levels and central office. Although intentional
communication is not listed as one of the top gaps for central office (Llamas, 2013), it is evident
that teachers (Carruthers, 2013) and site administrator levels strongly believe that intentional
communication, in relation to student learning outcomes and the clear non-negotiable goals for
learning and instruction, is not occurring between the central office and school levels. Therefore,
the need to build greater internal, intentional communication will need to be addressed as a tri-
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

142

level gap in order for PUSD to ensure successful collaboration around student achievement.
School site administrators can strengthen intentional communication by communicating
constantly and candidly to those involved (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Though Gap Analysis Framework (Clark and Estes, 2008) does make clear distinctions
between knowledge and skills solutions, motivation solutions and organizational solutions, this
should not be construed as an endorsement for practitioners to treat these solutions as
independent. Instead, Clark and Estes (2008) recommend “waiting to design or implement
knowledge and skill solutions until these programs can be fully integrated with motivational and
organizational process and material changes” (p. 75). Citing Fuller and Farrington, Clark and
Estes (2008) suggest that fully integrated solutions provide advantages over piecemeal solutions
in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and ease of evaluation. Moreover, systems thinking, one of
the key attributes of learning organizations (Senge, 1990) involves looking beyond the individual
components of systems, and into the complex web of relationships among these components in
order to solve complex organizational problems. For these reasons, the causes outlined in the
previous paragraphs will be treated from an integrated, systems thinking perspective, so that an
integrated comprehensive solution plan can be developed.
One solution to increase intentional communication between the central office
administrators and school sites is to reorganize the district according to collaborative learning
teams. As fractals of the larger PUSD organization, principals would also be organized into
district-level principal teams and, likewise, schools would then organize into school-level team
leader teams and collaborative teacher teams (Eaker & Keating, 2012). The team responsibilities
of district-level principal teams and school-level team leader teams are compared in Table 8. Just
as it is important to organize the district structure through collaborative teams, so will school site
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

143

teams be organized. In PUSD, however, there is no district-level principal collaborative learning
team to which school site administrators belong. In absence of a district-level collaborative
learning community, the outcome is isolation and lack of communication.
In their meta-analysis, Marzano, et al., (2005) identified 21 leadership responsibilities
and 66 corresponding practices of school site administrators that correlate with student
achievement (see Appendix F for a list of the 21 leadership responsibilities). Only the school
principal can bring all the elements of schooling together and embed them in to daily activities of
school life (Eaker & Keating, 2012). As the instructional leader, school site administrators must
model the learning focus and mirror the expectation they have for their teacher teams. To that
end, all their work must be connected to student learning (Eaker & Keating, 2012). A knowledge
gap from either perspective would indicate that school site principals would benefit from gaining
knowledge and skill required to ensure student learning.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

144

Table 8
Comparison of District-Level Principal Leader and School-Level Team Leader Teams
District-Level Principal Teams School-Level Team Leader Teams
• Composed of principals from
throughout the district
• Develop role definitions and shared
commitments
• Develop and adhere to team norms
• Focus on learning
• Hold regular meetings, with agendas,
for decision making
• Anticipate issues and questions
• Practice and rehearse the work
• Share learning data
• Seek best practice, share, and plan
• Monitor results; seek continuous
improvement
• Model behavior expected of others

• Composed of principal, assistant
principals, and team leaders
• Develop role definitions and shared
commitments
• Develop and adhere to team norms
• Focus on learning
• Hold regular meetings, with agendas,
for decision making
• Anticipate issues and questions
• Practice and rehearse the work
• Share learning data
• Analyze student learning, seek best
practice, share, practice and plan
• Monitor results; seek continuous
improvement and
• Model behavior expected of others

Source. Eaker & Keating (2012).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

145

Qualitative data revealed that principals responded to interview questions from the school
level perspective. Therefore, school site administrators perceive their primary team to be the
teams they lead as principals at the school site, not the team they belong to as a site
administrator. This is an important distinction, validated by the interviews. Since school site
teams are directly accountable for student learning, then school site administrators perceive that
school site level team members lack the knowledge and skill to achieve the outcome of student
learning.
The purpose of this literature was to present solutions of effective, educational practices
to address the PUSD school site administrator’s gap in collaboration around student
achievement. Current literature focused on empirically based educational strategies that may
assist the PUSD in reaching its global goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around
student achievement. Additionally, this literature presented pertinent information that school site
administration should consider in order to understand how to effectively implement, monitor and
sustain collaboration around student achievement on school sites while creating a relevant
district-level collaborative team.
Table 9 provides an overview of the knowledge solutions that are being proposed to
address the challenges relevant to PUSD school site administrators. These solutions are designed
to aid PUSD in reaching its organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around
student achievement.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

146

Table 9
Summary of Knowledge and Skill Causes, Solutions, and Implementations
Causes Solutions Implementations
1. School site administrators
(SSA) lack of procedural
knowledge

2. SSA lack procedural
knowledge to create high
quality assessment to
measure essential learning
outcomes of students

3. SSA lack the specific
knowledge and skills
required for our team to
achieve the outcomes for
which we they accountable

1. Increase SSAs procedural
knowledge of how to
create high quality
assessments by subject
areas and grade levels
(Clark and Estes, 2008;
Mayer, 2011; Merrill,
2002; Yates and Clark,
2008)
2. Provide training to SSA
and teachers on how to
create high quality
assessments using
Merrill’s principles of
instruction (Childress et
al., 2007; Thessin and
Starr, 2011)
3. Increase SSAs procedural
knowledge of how to
engage in collaborative
analysis of student work
through lesson study
(Clark and Estes, 2008;
Merrill, 2002; Yates and
Clark, 2008)
4. Provide training to school
team leaders on how to
engage in collaborative
analysis of student work
through lesson study.
(Chong & Kong, 2012;
Cosner, 2011; Eaker &
Keating, 2012; Langer,
Colton & Goff, 2003)

1. Find subject area/grade
level experts in the area of
the development of high
quality subject area and
grade level assessment and
conduct a Cognitive Task
Analysis (CTA) with a
subject matter expert
(SME)
2. Create a CTA Job Aid for
SSA and teachers with the
information provided by
expert
3. Incorporate a checklist that
helps with planning,
monitoring and evaluating
students for meeting the
essential learning
outcomes
4. Find subject area/grade
level experts in the area of
the development of high
quality subject area and
grade level assessment and
conduct a Cognitive Task
Analysis (CTA) with a
SME
5. Create a CTA Job Aid for
SSA and teachers with the
information provided by
expert
6. Incorporate a checklist that
leads teams through the
steps of a collaborative
lesson analysis/lesson
study

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

147

Table 10 provides an overview of the motivation solutions that are being proposed to address the
challenges relevant to PUSD school site administrators. These solutions are designed to aid
PUSD in reaching its organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around
student achievement.
Table 10
Summary of Motivation Causes, Solutions, and Implementations
Causes Solutions Implementations
1. School site administrators
(SSA) do not perceive
their team as respectfully
addressing group tension
when working
collaboratively to gather,
analyze and transfer best
practices across all team
members
2. SSA do not feel that their
team can identify specific
knowledge and skill
deficits that inhibit them
from achieving the
outcomes for which they
are accountable

1. Promote collective
efficacy of the team by
providing mastery
experiences (Bandura,
1997; Hoy and Tschannen-
Moran, 2000)
2. Promote team commitment
by providing defined
autonomy, mastery, and
purpose around instruction
(Clark, 1998)
3. Provide support to school
site leadership and
teachers with the
necessary resources they
need to complete tasks
(Clark and Estes, 2008)
1. Provide clear non
negotiable goals for
teachers
2. Offer mastery experience
opportunities in the area of
assessment development
3. Offer mastery experience
opportunities in the area of
collaborative analysis of
student work

Table 11 provides an overview of the organization solutions that are being proposed to
address the challenges relevant to PUSD school site administrators. These solutions are designed
to aid PUSD in reaching its organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around
student achievement.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

148

Table 11
Summary of Organization Causes, Solutions, and Implementation
Causes Solutions Implementation
1. School site administrator
(SSA) is not provided the
necessary time to learn and
grow professionally.
2. Intentional communication
does not occur between
central office administrators
(COA) and school sites
regarding clear, non-
negotiable goals for
learning and instruction.
3. School site administrators
are not provided the time to
develop clarity about the
essential learning outcomes
that all students are
expected to achieve.

4. School site administrators
are not provided the
necessary resources to learn
and grow professionally.

1. Focus on academic
instructional goals to guide
site level decisions including
fiscal considerations
(Childress et al., 2006; Clark
and Estes, 2008; DuFour and
Marzano, 2011; Foord and
Haar, 2012).
2. Increase communication with
COA and teachers to improve
confidence and accuracy of
information that is being
distributed throughout the
district related to CLC
implementation (Eaker &
Keating, 2012; Hoy and
Tschannen-Moran, 2000;
NSFR, 2012; Waters and
Cameron, 2007)

3. Build individual and team
capacity among SSA and
teachers by providing
necessary staff development
(Childress et al., 2007;
Crafton and Kaiser, 2011)

1. Organize school by
collaborative learning teams
2. Create district-level principal
team
3. Provide time to discuss CLC
successes and challenges
4. Provide information on CLCs
by writing/featuring articles
on CLCs in staff newsletters
and contributing to online
learning forum/bulletin board
5. Conduct another survey to
isolate the types of support
and delivery method staff
need.
6. Provide resources and
literature such as Five
Dysfunctions of a Team
(Lencioni, 2002)
7. Provide differentiated training
for SSAs and CLC team
leaders
8. Develop or utilize existing
Site ILT to develop aligned
outcomes and expectations of
CLCs

9. Principal to monitor CLC
implementation monitor type
of discussions that are
occurring and issues that arise
Centralize meeting
opportunities and planning
time for CLCs to meet

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

149

Table 12
Summary of Organizational Goal, Short-Term Goals, Cascading Goals, and Performance Goals
Organizational Goal: To institutionalize effective collaboration around student achievement
Goal 1
All PUSD school site
administrators will participate as
members of a district-level
collaborative learning team that
will meet twice monthly as a
model of professional
development, and vehicle for
intentional communication.
Goal 2
All PUSD school site
administrators will lead school
level collaborative leadership
teams who will meet twice
monthly as a model for
professional development and
vehicle for intentional
communication.
Goal 3
All PUSD school site
administrators will become
experts at measuring essential
learning outcomes and
identifying specific knowledge
and skills required to achieve
outcomes.
Cascading Goal 1
A PUSD tri-level steering
committee will be created to
guide and support the
implementation of collaborative
learning communities and publish
essential resources for increasing
collaboration literacy by June
2013.
Cascading Goal 2
School site administrators will be
able to develop and communicate
essential learning outcomes to
teachers by August 2013.

Cascading Goal 3
All school site administrators will
attend training on assessment
development by September 2013.
1. Performance Goal
District-level Principal
collaborative learning team
will be trained in
collaboration around student
achievement by August 2013.
4. Performance Goal
School site administrator will
allocate time and resources
for teacher team professional
development and teacher
team collaboration meetings
by August 2013 ongoing.
7. Performance Goal
All school site administrators
will create at least one high
quality assessment for
student and staff learning by
October 2013.
2. Performance Goal
School site administrators
will be trained in
responsibilities of school
leaders related to best
practices around
collaborative learning teams
beginning August 2013.
5. Performance Goal
School site administrator
with School Leadership
Team will create a Theory of
Action for Teacher Teams,
including clear expectations
by September 2013.
8. Performance Goal
All school site administrators
will attend training on
collaborative analysis of
student work through lesson
study by January 2013.
3. Performance Goal
School site administrators
will develop single school
plans that support and CASA
by October 2013.
6. Performance Goal
School site administrator
with School Team Leader
Team will plan professional
development on the cycle of
continuous improvement by
September 2013.
9. Performance Goal
All School site administrator
and Team leader teams will
participate in monthly
professional development
with curriculum re-write
facilitators.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

150

Table 13
Summary of Performance Goals, Timeline, and Measurement of Performance Goals
Stakeholder Performance Goal Goal Measure
1. District-level Principal collaborative
learning team will be trained in
collaboration around student achievement
(CASA) 6 hours monthly for 8 months.
• Implement by August 2013.
• Evaluate progress by October 2013.
Progress will be monitored by school site
administrators, school site curriculum re-write
facilitators by asking questions related to
CASA competencies
• Feedback will be provided to the Tri-
Level Steering Committee.

2. School site administrators will be trained in
responsibilities of school leaders related to
best practices around collaborative learning
community.
• Implement by August, 2013.
• Evaluate progress by November 2013.
School site administrators and curriculum will
monitor progress and instruction directors by
asking questions related to components of
collaborative learning communities.
• Feedback will be provided to the Tri-
Level Steering Committee.

3. School site administrators will develop
single school plans that support and promote
collaboration around student achievement.
• Implement by October 2013.
• Evaluate progress by November 2013.

Progress will be measured by central office
Director of Categorical Funding with feedback
from Academic department and administrative
colleagues.
• Feedback will be provided to the Tri-
Level Steering Committee.

4. School site administrators will allocate time
for teacher team professional development
and teacher team collaboration meetings.
• Implement by October 2013.
• Evaluate progress by November 2013.
Progress will be monitored through
collaboration meeting summaries that will be
submitted to school site administrators at the
end of trainings or meetings
• Feedback will be provided to the Tri-
Level Steering Committee.

5. School site administrator with School
Leadership Team will create a Theory of
Action for Teacher Teams including clear
expectations.
• Implement by September 2013.
• Evaluate progress by January 2014.

Progress will be measured by the goals set
within the Theory of Action.
• Feedback will be provided to the Tri-
Level Steering Committee.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

151

Table 13 (continued)
Summary of Performance Goals, Timeline, and Measurement of Performance Goals

Stakeholder Performance Goal Goal Measure
6. School site administrator with School Team
Leader Team will plan professional
development on the cycle of continuous
improvement.
• Implement by September, 2013.
• Evaluate progress by November, 2014
Gather feedback after each professional
development training. Progress will be
measured by the professional development
calendar and by teachers’ surveys after
professional development trainings.
• Feedback will be provided to the Tri-
Level Steering Committee.

7. All school site administrators will create at
least one high quality assessment for student
and staff learning using job aides created
through cognitive task analysis.
• Implement by October, 2013.
• Evaluate progress by November 2013.

Curriculum and instruction department will
monitor progress by providing feedback and
through collaborative analysis of the
assessment.
• Feedback will be provided to the Tri-
Level Steering Committee.
8. All school site administrators will attend
training on collaborative analysis of student
work through lesson study.
• Implement by January, 2014.
• Evaluate progress by February 2014.
Curriculum and instruction department will
monitor progress by asking questions related
to collaborative analysis of student work
through lesson study.
• Feedback will be provided to the Tri-
Level Steering Committee.

9. School site administrator with School Team
Leader Team will participate in monthly
professional development with curriculum
facilitators.
• Implement by October, 2013.
• Evaluate progress by November 2013.
Curriculum coaches will monitor progress.
School site administrator with School Team
Leader Team will participate in monthly
professional development with curriculum
facilitators.
• Feedback will be provided to the Tri-
Level Steering Committee.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

152

Chapter Six: Discussion
Author: Esther Salinas
The purpose of the project was to identify ways to improve school site administrator
performance at the Pasadena Unified School District in order to support the district’s goal to
institutionalize effective collaboration around student achievement. The project required an
intensive study of various topics related to collaboration around student achievement and
organizational change
The inquiry questions driving this project were the following:
1. What are the challenges for PUSD school site administrators in knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational dimension that may impede the
achievement of PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize effective
collaboration around student achievement?
2. What solutions would address PUSD school site administrator challenges to
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational issues that may affect the
successful achievement of PUSD’s organizational goal to implement
collaborative learning communities at the school site administrator level?
The project was steered by the gap analysis model, in which gaps of knowledge,
motivation, and organization were revealed (Clark & Estes, 2008). Research based solutions
were offered to help close the identified gaps. In this chapter, Kirkpatrick’s (2006) Four Levels
of Evaluation framework will guide the Pasadena Unified School District to determine if the
suggested solutions are indeed successful in increasing collaboration around student
achievement.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

153

Synthesis of the Results
The results of this project were obtained from 281 surveys from teachers, school site and
central office administrators, and 4 school site administrator interviews. This specific project,
utilized a subset of data from school site administrators (n=34).
Organizational Support
Both the survey and interviews validated the assumed organizational causes and revealed
significant gaps in the following areas:
1. Resource of time to support their professional growth and development
2. Resources of time to develop clarity about the essential learning outcomes that all
students are expected to achieve.
3. Resources to learn and grow professionally
4. Intentional communication between central office and school sites regarding clear non-
negotiable goals for learning and instruction
In order for effective collaboration around student achievement to take root as an
institutionalized aspect of PUSD operations, organizational supports need to be in place. First
and foremost teams must be provided the resource of time to collaborate. Of knowledge,
motivation and organizational dimensions, the organizational dimension appeared to be the root
causes of several motivational and knowledge and skills gaps. Additionally, organization had the
lowest grand mean of the three dimensions. These gaps were validated by quantitative and
qualitative measures. For the purposes of this project, there was a focus on three organizational
gaps, which were intertwined with central office administration and teachers’ gaps in the
knowledge and skill, motivation and organizational dimension. There is a clear understanding
among all three levels, central office administration, site administration and teachers need the
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

154

Knowledge Capacity for Instruction, Learning, and Assessment
Both the survey and interview results validated the assumed knowledge and skills gaps at
the school site administrator level and revealed significant gaps in the following areas:
1. Procedural knowledge in the creation of high quality assessments
2. Team’s ability to identify specific knowledge and skills required for their team to achieve
the outcomes for which they are accountable.
If staff within the PUSD do not know how to identify the knowledge and skill required to
achieve their desired goals and if they do not have the procedural knowledge to create the quality
assessments needed to measure essential student learning outcomes, then student achievement
within the PUSD will not improve. PUSD must close these gaps in knowledge to successfully
achieve a broader knowledge base for these critical competencies to improve student
achievement.
Motivation
Both the survey and interviews results validated the assumed motivation gaps at the
school site administrator level and revealed significant gaps in the following areas:
1. Addressing group tensions that arise while working collaboratively.
2. Belief in their collective ability to identify specific knowledge and skill deficits that
inhibit their teams from achieving the student learning outcomes.
Overall, all three levels are motivated to assist students, but motivation is threatened
when staff is not acknowledged, and resources or guidelines for working as collective and
collaborative teams are not provided. When this occurs, the motivation threshold is threatened by
distrust, vague focus and poor communication among all three levels needed to ensure effective
collaboration around student achievement. In all four school site level administrator interviews, it
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

155

is evident that building-level colleagues are valued, however, perceptions drastically changed
with the interview shifted to central office administrators. In addition, the PUSD must close these
gaps in motivation to successfully improve student achievement.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
Strengths
The gap analysis framework takes into consideration that each organization is distinct and
each cause unique to each respective level within the organization. The gap analysis framework
creates a custom blueprint for success specific to the organization and quantifies the gap that
needs to be closed. This in which provides clear goals and measurable outcomes.
Innovative gap analysis (Smith & Ragan, 2005) provides an effective and useful approach to
problem solving when an institution undergoes transformative change, as in the case of the
Pasadena Unified School District. It provides a proactive, rather than reactive, approach to
problem solving. By using surveys and interviews, it was possible to identify the self-perceptions
of PUSD’s school site administrators’ perceptions of the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational gaps that may exist as potential barriers to implementation of collaborative
learning communities throughout the district. While this project applied the gap analysis process
specifically to PUSD’s global goal for their district, other districts, school sites and school
departments could adapt the process to analyze and implement solutions to help staff meet their
own organizational goals.
A cost-benefit analysis of using the gap analysis framework for problem solving (Clark &
Estes, 2008) must include both the time and resources available to conduct gap analysis and the
value of the tangible and intangible benefits. For the PUSD, the tangible benefits of this project
may include positive WASC reports, reduction of complaints filed with the Office of Civil
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

156

Rights, alignment of resources, effective teacher instruction that contributes to student
achievement and the goals of increased collaboration around student achievement. The intangible
benefits may include the reputation of the Pasadena Unified School District and the satisfaction
that the organization attains by helping its students meet the challenges of Common Core and
succeeding in a global society.
Various forms of triangulation added to the methodological strength of the project. For
example, having qualitative data to clarify and add depth to the quantitative findings was
extremely valuable. Having access to three stakeholder perspectives added another form of
triangulation and made for very interesting comparisons.
Weaknesses
The gap analysis framework requires a significant time commitment. School districts can
prove to be a hotbed of pressure to provide immediate results but haste makes waste out of the
scarce resources that exist if decisions are not made with thought and care to validate causes. The
gap analysis requires time, commitment and the patience to find and align the right solution with
the right problem (Rueda, 2011).
Solutions that close one gap may cause other gaps to occur (Clark & Estes, 2008). That is
the risk of looking at isolated causes without thoroughly examining the organization for gaps is
knowledge, motivation and organization. If goals of the organization are not met, then the gap
analysis process needs to repeat until the right solution is implemented and the gap closed.
Causes of gaps in goal achievement must be identified and validated, before solutions based on
the literature and research in learning, motivation, and organization theory can be recommended
and evaluated.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

157

Recommendation and Implications
It is important to consider the school site administrator level as only one part of this tri-
level project. Concurrent projects examine the central office administrator level (Llamas, 2013)
and the teacher level (Carruthers, 2013). Kofman and Senge (1993) describe how organizations
are fractals of society, each part a representation of the whole. Thus, altering how one part of an
organization operates must be addressed in conjunction with the larger culture. As such, altering
how one level of PUSD operates cannot be considered in isolation of the other levels or the
district as a whole. Therefore the proposed solutions of the school site administrator level are
only partial solutions if viewed in isolation, but are interconnected when viewing the larger
context. Without consideration of the whole, partial implementation could prove ineffective.
Kofman and Senge (1993) warn against the fragmentation that occurs when complex situations
are broken into smaller components and treated in isolation with separate solutions. Instead, the
proposed solutions should be viewed within the context of the larger system. Implementing only
one level of the solutions would contribute to a pattern of fragmentation and reactiveness
(Kofman & Senge, 1993). To fully appreciate this complexity, PUSD executive leadership will
need to consider the interconnectedness of each level's gaps and solutions, and how each
individual level is connected with the larger organization. “The behavior of the system doesn’t
depend on what each part is doing, but on how each part is interacting with the rest (Kofman &
Senge, 1993, p. 14).
Implementing the proposed solutions will help to close the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational gaps. It is recommended that the solutions begin May 2013. This will give time
for tri-level collaboration to occur, time for central office administration to prepare at the district
level, and time for the steering committee to plan for a fall roll-out. The next wave will allow
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

158

time for school site administrators to collaborate and vet school level plans, time for school site
administrators to meet and collaborate with their team-leader teams; and time to prepare the tools
to carry the solutions forward. Gathering the toolsets may be easy in comparison to changing
mindsets. School sites have operated in similar ways for many years. In order to become an
innovative organization, the mindset of individuals will need to change to one which fosters the
collective goal of educating all students – not just the students in ‘my’ class or ‘my’ school, but
all students in PUSD. Therefore, focus on student achievement must be at the focal point for all
levels of leadership: district, school site, subject matter department, grade level team and
classroom. Site administrators may be initially resistant, believing they are relinquishing control
or diminishing their resources. But the proposed solutions will aid staff in effectively
collaborating around student achievement. The most challenging aspect to change will be the
habits of administrators who will cling to the old culture of isolation, a culture that says, “wait
long enough and this too shall pass.” Implementing the plan in the spring of 2013 may seem
zealous but is an apt strategy that can take advantage of summer planning time. This will give
opportunity for central office administrators and the steering committee to initiate
implementation that will rollout for school site administrators and teachers in fall 2013. With
both skill and will, the district can be reorganized around a collaborative learning community
model.
Evaluation
The Pasadena Unified School District will utilize Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four-level program
model to evaluate the action plan of the district. The first level will evaluate the reactions of the
school site administrators to the implementation of the action plan. The second level, impact of
the program, targets the impact of all programs while being implemented (Clark & Estes, 2008).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

159

The gap of knowledge will be examined in level one to ensure that learning is taking place. Level
three focuses on the continued effectiveness of the program. Level four will evaluate if the action
plan has contributed to the achievement of reaching goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Level 1: School Site Administration Reactions During Implementation
This evaluation level measures motivational influences such as interest, value, efficacy,
and mood during the implementation of the recommendations to answer questions such as: Do
the staff like the activities associated with the recommendations. Are they interested? Do they
value the activities? Do they feel confident that they can apply what they are learning?
Methods. Post workshop feedback forms and ongoing quarterly staff feedback using both
open-ended and 4 point Likert scale items. Successful implementation of the recommendations
will be indicated by positive feedback by staff at the teacher, site and central office
administration level.
Level 2: Change, Learning, and Motivation During Implementation
This level measures the impact of the program while the solutions are being implemented. This
level investigates that learning is taking place. Staff will be asked to identify what they have
learned.
Methods. Observation and survey method will measure program impact during
implementation. Staff will fill out a survey that asks about the goals of the district, the essential
learning outcomes, and expectations for students, and how they are planning, monitoring and
evaluating their students learning. If the solutions offered are being effective, the survey results
will be shown by observing staff in their collaborative learning communities, effectively
engaging in collaboration around student achievement, focused on a set agenda, analyzing data
and reviewing student work and by the responses of the survey.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

160

Level 3: Transfer of Learning and Motivation to Learning Experiences
This evaluation level measures the application of new learning to novel workplace situations and
answers questions such as: Do school site administrators continue to incorporate the components
of collaborative learning communities in their interactions with staff and with one another? Are
collaborative practices being implemented in the decisions that are being made at the School
Site? As they being transferred to interactions with classified staff members?
Methods. During site visits and site administration meetings, school site staff will
analyze the level of implementation at respective sites based on open-ended questions related to
collaboration around student achievement. Staff will be asked on a monthly basis to report if
school site is meeting the needs of the site to ensure that communication and resources are being
funneled appropriately and timely to school sites. If the solutions offered were being effective,
teachers’ and site administrators’ comments and observations would verify it. In addition, the
effectiveness will be verified by student’s academic performance.
Level 4: Impact of Collaboration Around Student Achievement
This level investigates if the organization has made progress towards their organizational goal.
This is when the organization will determine if the solutions offered helped close the gap.
Methods. If there were no results found in level 2 and 3, there will not be a need to move
to level 4. Level 1 and 2 is when modifications to the program would have been made. If the
solutions offered were effective, the organization should have gotten closer to its goal of
districtwide implementation of collaborative learning communities at the central office, site
administration level and teacher level. In addition, if levels 1, 2 and 3 were successful, it should
have helped close the gap of motivation, knowledge, and organization and improve the academic
achievement of the PUSD students served.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

161

Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four-level framework is a tool that will help the PUSD evaluate the
effectiveness of the solutions implemented. This evaluation process is based on formative and
summative evaluation (Patton, 2002). Many times organizations skip the evaluations or use basic
level one evaluation without investigating if the solutions are helping to close the gap. The
detailed framework helps implement the evaluation process. Based upon the recommended
research based solutions to close the gaps in knowledge, motivation and organizational support,
and revealed through the validated causes, specific recommendations for implementation in the
Pasadena Unified School District are made.
Limitations
There are several limitations of this project. First, the survey was administered on the last
day of school of the 2011-2012 school year and remained open until the first day of instruction in
August, 2012. Therefore, results of the survey may only include staff that happened to be there
during the distribution of the survey that were motivated to complete a 25-minute survey online.
In addition, staff may not have had the means during the summer to access the online survey
through Qualtrics. Furthermore, staff may not have been as forthcoming on the survey given it
was sent by the Superintendent of Schools. In addition, some of the staff that began the survey
may not necessarily be employed during the 2012-2013 school year due to budget cuts, which
may have curtailed their access to the survey.
Self-report surveys can have its drawbacks. Some of the responses obtained from the
survey could have been censored in order to look favorable or fear of lost anonymity. Thus,
according to Patton (2002), there are few valid and reliable instruments to measure particular
phenomena or outcomes, such as perceptions. Multiple measures, including qualitative measures
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

162

such as interviews with school site administrators (see Appendix C) would strengthen the
validity and reliability.
In addition, one survey competency was eliminated due to the school district not utilizing
the all knowledge, motivation and organization questions related to Clear Actionable Steps. This
competency was related to Collective Efficacy. However, given there were other questions
provided as part of the survey and interviews, measures of this competency could still be
validated through these means.
Future Research
Empirical literature about collaborative learning communities for school site
administrators is limited. It would be beneficial to learn how school districts create learning
communities with principals and what impact that might have on student achievement.
Further Tri-level studies should be conducted with other school districts so that
generalizations can be made which would validate causes and the Gap Analysis Framework.
Case studies of successful collaborative learning communities of school site leaders
within K-12 districts, using the positive deviance approach (Lapping et al., 2002; Spreitzer &
Sonehshein, 2004), would be valuable. These teams could be used as exemplars and the
information gained through the case studies could be used to inform the district’s efforts to build
collaboration capacity throughout PUSD.
Research on the role of the board of education in the institutionalization of collaboration
around student achievement would be beneficial. Since the responsibility for the education of
PUSD students rests with the board of education, it would be important to ensure that the board
not only has a full understanding of the concepts and characteristics of collaborative learning
communities, but that the board, both as individual members and the collective whole, sees the
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

163

moral purpose to embrace, support, and practice collaboration around student achievement
(Eaker & Keating, 2012).
Conclusion
A team of PUSD constituents comprised of the superintendent, the chief academic
officer, a central office administrator, a school site administrator, and a teacher collaboratively
conceived this project. This project utilized the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 1998) to
identify gaps and propose solutions to address root causes that presently impede the PUSD from
reaching its goal to institutionalize effective tri-level collaboration around student achievement.
The gap analysis framework is a useful tool in the process of continuous improvement for
investigating unique gaps in particular school settings. It is the hope of the project team that this
document may be used as a resource to plan and strategize for collaborative learning
communities, allowing for the flexibility to customize accordingly. For PUSD, it provided the
means for staff to examine their perceptions as to their ability to implement all twelve
competencies for collaboration around student achievement, as well as a process for assessing
needs of staff at all three levels before implementing collaboration around student achievement.
Perhaps, the most significant outcome of this project is the possibility it holds. If every
team became a collaborative learning community and the focus of collaboration at every level of
leadership was student learning, then a dynamic shift in culture would occur. Leaders would
bravely abandon their islands for a community of collaboration where the environment is
conducive to student and staff learning, and whose goal is ever and always, student achievement.
Is evident that building-level colleagues are valued, however, perceptions drastically changed
with the interview shifted to central office administrators. In addition, the PUSD must close these
gaps in motivation to successfully improve student achievement.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

164

References
Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. The
Teachers College Record, 104(3), 421-455.
Ainsworth, L. (2007). Common Formative Assessments: The centerpiece of an integrated
standards-based assessment system. In D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of
assessment to transform teaching and learning (pp. 79-101). Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree Press.
Anderson, L. W. Krathwohl (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Auman, M. (2003). Step Up To Writing. Longmont, CO: Cambium Learning.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bernhardt, V. L. (2011). Measuring School Processes. Retrieved from
http://eff.csuchico.edu/downloads/MeasuringProcesses.pdf
Berryhill, J., Linney, J. A., & Fromewick, J. (2009). The effects of education accountability on
teachers: Are policies too stress provoking for their own good?. International Journal of
Education Policy & Leadership, 4(5), 1–14.
Black, P. , & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education,
5(1), 7-74.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

165

Borman, K. M., Carter, K., Aladjem, D. K., & Carlson LeFloch, K. (2004). Challenges for the
future of comprehensive school reform. In Putting the pieces together: Lessons from
comprehensive school reform research (3). Retrieved from
http://elschools.org/sites/default/files/PTPTLessonsfromCSRResearch.pdf
Boyd, V., & Hord, S. M. (1994). Principals and the new paradigm: Schools as learning
communities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Brooks, J. S., Hughes, R. M., & Brooks, M. C. (2008). Fear and Trembling in the American High
School: Educational Reform and Teacher Alienation. Educational Policy, 22(1), 45–62.
doi:10.1177/0895904807311296
Bruce, M. (2011). Bruce Mau Design. Retrieved from http://www.brucemaudesign.com
Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross
state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305-331.
Carruthers, A. S. (2013). An Examination of Tri-level Collaboration Around Student
Achievement: Teacher Factors (Unpublished dissertation). UNIVERSITY of
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Los Angeles, CA.
Center on Education Policy. (2007). Answering the question that matters most: Has student
achievement increased since No Child Left Behind ?. Washington, DC: Author.
Childress, S., Elmore, R., Grossman, A., & King, C. (2007). Note on the PELP coherence
framework. Public Education Leadership Project, January 2007, 1-14.
Childress, S., & Marietta, G. (2008). A problem-solving approach to designing and implementing
a strategy to improve performance. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

166

Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school districts.
Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 55.
Chipman, S. F., Schraagen, J. M., & Shalin, V. L. (2000). Introduction to cognitive task
analysis. In J. M. Schraagen, S. F. Chipman & V. L. Shalin (Eds.), Cognitive task
analysis (pp. 3-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chong, W. H., & Kong, C. A. (2012). Teacher collaborative learning and teacher self-efficacy:
The case of lesson study. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80(3), 263-283.
doi:10.1080/0022973.2011.596854
Cosner, S. (2011). Teacher learning, instructional considerations and principal communication:
Lessons from a longitudinal study of collaborative data use by teachers. Educational
management administration & leadership, 39, 568-589. doi:10.1177/1741143211408453
Clark, R. E. (1998). Motivating performance: Part 1—Diagnosing and solving motivation
problems. Performance Improvement, 37(8), 39-47.
Clark, R. E. (1999). The CANE model of motivation to learn and work: A two-stage process of
goal commitment and effort. In J. Lowyck (Ed.), Trends in Corporate Training. Leuven,
Belgium: University of Leuven Press.
Clark, R.E. (2005). Research-Tested Team Motivation Strategies. Performance Improvement,
44(1), 13-16.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (1996). Cognitive task analysis. International Journal of Educational
Research, 25, 403-417.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

167

Clark, R. E., Feldon, D. F., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Yates, K., & Early, S. (2008). Cognitive
task analysis. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. Van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll
(Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (3rd
ed.). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
Clark, R. E., Yates, K., Early, S., & Moulton, K. (2010). An analysis of the failure of electronic
media and discovery-based learning: Evidence for the performance benefits of guided
training methods. In K. H. Silber & W. R. Foshay (Eds.), Handbook of improving
performance in the work-place (pp. 263–297). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership,
51, 49-49.
Crafton, L., & Kaiser, E. (2011). The language of collaboration: Dialogue and identity in teacher
professional development. Improving Schools, 14(2), 104–116.
doi:10.1177/1365480211410437
Cranston, J. (2009). Holding the reins of the professional learning community: Eight themes
from research on principal’s perceptions of professional learning communities. Canadian
Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 90(2), 1-22.
Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing
school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Center on
Educational Governance, USC Rossier School of Education, Los Angeles, CA.
Datnow, A., Park, V., & Kennedy, B. (2008). Acting on data: How urban high schools use data
to improve instruction. Center on Educational Governance, USC Rossier School of
Education, Los Angeles, CA.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

168

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024-1037.
Dee, T., & Jacob, B. (2013). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement
(NBER Working Paper 15531). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic
Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w15531
Deering, A., Dilts, R., & Russell, J. (2003). Leadership cults and culture. Leader to Leader,
28(2), 31-38.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Donahoe, T. (1993). Finding the way: Structure, time, and culture in school improvement. Phi
Delta Kappan, 75(4), 298-305.
Dooner, A. M., Mandzuk, D., & Clifton, R. A. (2008). Stages of collaboration and the realities of
professional learning communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 564-574.
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a "Professional Learning Community?" Educational Leadership,
61(8), 6-11.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2010). Raising the bar and closing the gap:
Whatever it takes. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for
professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work; Best practices for
enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
DuFour, R., Eaker, R. E., & DuFour, R. B. (2005). On common ground: The power of
professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

169

DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. (2009). High-leverage strategies for principal leadership.
Educational Leadership, 66(5), 62–68.
DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. J. (2011). Leaders of Learning: How district, school, classsroom
leaders improve student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Eaker, R., & Gonzalez, D. (2006-2007). Leading in professional learning communities. National
Forum of education administration and supervision journal, 24(1), 6-13.
Eaker, R., & Keating, J. (2012). Every school, every team, every classroom. Bloomington, ID:
Solution Tree Press.
Easton, L. B. (2008). Powerful designs for professional learning. National Staff Development
Council. Oxford, Ohio.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for
professional development in education. Albert Shanker Institute. Washington, D.C.
Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Fallon, G., & Barnett, J. (2009). Impacts of school organizational restructuring into a
collaborative setting on the nature of emerging forms of collegiality. International
Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 4(9).
Flinders, D. J. (1988). Teacher isolation and the new reform. Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision, 4(1), 17-29.
Foord, K. A., & Haar, J. M. (2012). Gauging Effectiveness: how to know whether your district's
PLCs are contributing to better student outcomes. School Administrator, 69(1), 33-36.
Fullan, M. G. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational leadership, 50(6),
12-17.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

170

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Fullan, M. (2004). Systems Thinkers in Action: Moving Beyond the Standards Plateau: Teachers
Transforming Teaching. London, England: Department for Education and Skills.
Fullan, M. (2009). Large-scale reform comes of age. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2), 101
113.
Fullan, M. (2010). All systems go: The change imperative for whole system reform. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gajda, R., & Koliba, C. J. (2007). Evaluating the imperative of intraorganizational collaboration:
A school improvement perspective. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(1), 26-44.
Gajda, R., & Koliba, C. J. (2008). Evaluating and improving the quality of teacher collaboration:
A field-tested framework for secondary school leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 92(2), 133-153.
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, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical
developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3-
13. doi:10.3102/0013189X033003003.
Goddard, R. D. & Skrla, L. (2006). The influence of school composition on teachers’ collective
efficacy beliefs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 216-235.
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.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

171

Goodlad, J. I. (1983). A study of schooling: Some implications for school improvement. Phi
Delta Kappan, 64(8), 552–558.
Goldberg, M. F., & Sizer, T. (1996). An interview with Ted Sizer: Here for the long haul. The
Phi Delta Kappan, 77(10), 685-687.
Graham, P. (2007). Improving teacher effectiveness through structured collaboration: A case
study of a professional learning community. Research in Middle Level Education, 31(1),
1-17.
Graham, P., & Ferriter, W. (2010). Building a professional learning community at work: A guide
to the first year. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Gratch, A. (2000). Becoming teacher: student teaching as identity construction. Teaching
education, 11(1), 119-126.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough?: An experiment
with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). Analyzing lists of the characteristics of effective professional development
to promote visionary leadership. NASSP Bulletin, 87(637), 4-20.
Hall, J. N. (2010). Investigating internal accountability and collective capacity: Taking a closer
look at mathematics instruction. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 4(2), 9.
Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1979). Implementing innovations in schools: A concerns-based
approach. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education,
University of Texas.
Hall, G. E., Loucks, S. F., Rutherford, W. L., & Newlove, B. W. (1975). Levels of use of the
innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher
Education, 26(1), 52-56.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

172

Handley, K., Sturdy, A., Fincham, R., & Clark, T. (2006). Within and beyond communities of
practice: Making sense of learning through participation, identity, and practice. Journal
of Management Studies, 43(3), 641-653.
Hargreaves, A., & Dawe, R. (1990). Paths of professional development: Contrived collegiality,
collaborative culture, and the case of peer coaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 6(3),
227–241.
Hargreaves, A., & Macmilan, R. (1992). Balkanized secondary schools and the malaise of
modernity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA.
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2010). Professional learning communities and system improvement.
Improving Schools, 13(2), 172–181.
Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75,
124-134.
Hipp, K. K., Huffman, J. B., Pankake, A. M., & Olivier, D. F. (2008). Sustaining professional
learning communities: Case studies. Journal of Educational Change, 9(2), 173-195.
Hord, S . M. (1986). A synthesis of research on organizational collaboration. Educational
Leadership, 43(5), 22–26.
Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: What are they and why are they
important? Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Hord, S., & Rutherford, W. (1998). Creating a professional learning community: Cottonwood
Creek School. Issues About Change, 6(2), 1-8.
Horn, I. S. (2005). Learning on the job: A situated account of teacher learning in high school
mathematics departments. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 207-236.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

173

Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational
health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 355-372.
Hughes, T. A., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2007). Professional learning communities and the positive
effects on student achievement: A national agenda for school improvement. The Lamar
University Electronic Journal of Student Research, Spring.
Johnson, L. B. (1964). Lyndon B. Johnson: Remarks in Providence at the 200th anniversary
convocation of Brown University. Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/
Kagan, Spencer & Kagan, Miguel. (2009). Kagan Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, CA:
Kagan Publishing.
Kerr, K. A., Marsh, J. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., & Barney, H. (2006). Strategies to
promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from
three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 496-520.
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four
levels (3
rd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Kofman, F., & Senge, P. M. (1993). Communities of commitment: The heart of learning
organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 1-33.
Langer, G. M., Colton, A. B., & Goff, L. S. (2003). Collaborative analysis of student work:
Improving teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision &
Curriculum Development.
Lapping, K., Marsh, D. R., Rosenbaum, J., Swedberg, E., Sternin, J., Sternin, M., …Schroeder,
D. G. (2002). The positive deviance approach: Challenges and opportunities for the future.
Food & Nutrition Bulletin, 23(2), 128-135.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

174

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, H. (2004). The logic of collaboration in education and the human services. Journal of
Interprofessional Care, 88(3), 225–237.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1998, April), Distributed leadership and student engagement in
school. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Diego, CA.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of
leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496-528.
doi:10.1177/0013161X08321501
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Lencioni, P. (2005). Overcoming the five dysfunctions of a team: A field guide for leaders,
managers, and facilitators. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Liebman, H., Maldonado, N., Lacey, C. H, & Thompson, S. (2005). An investigation of
leadership in a professional learning community: A case study of a large, suburban,
public middle school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Educational
Research Association, Miami.
Little, J. W., Gearhart, M., Curry, M., & Kafka, J. (2003). Looking at student work for teacher
learning, teacher community, and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(3), 184-192.
Llamas, S. (2013). An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using
the gap analysis approach: Central office leadership factors. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

175

Louis, K. S., & Kruse, S. D. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming
urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
MacMullen, M. M. (1996). Taking stock of a school reform effort: A research collection and
analysis (No. 2). Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform.
Mandinach, E. B., Honey, M., & Light, D. (2006). A theoretical framework for data-driven
decision making. In EDC Center for Children and Technology. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San
Francisco, CA.
Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of
transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly,
39(3), 370-397.
Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making
in education: Evidence from recent RAND research. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Retrieved from RAND Education website: www.rand.org
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research on
what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum
Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

176

Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning
communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement (Vol. 45).
Teachers College Press.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50(3), 43-59.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 74, 5-12.
Miller, D. L. (2003). The stages of group development: A retrospective study of dynamic team
processes. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20(2), 121-134.
Mills, G. E. (2006). Guide for the Teacher Researcher. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Mullen, C. A., & Schunk, D. H. (2010). A view of professional learning communities through
three frames: Leadership, organization, and culture. McGill Journal of Education, 45(2).
Muncey, D. E., & McQuillan, P. J. (1993). Preliminary findings from a five-year study of the
Coalition of Essential Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6) 486-489.
Murphy, J., Smylie, M., Mayrowetz, D., & Louis, K. S. (2009). The role of the principal in
fostering the development of distributed leadership. School Leadership and
Management, 29(2), 181-214.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

177

Nair, C. S., & Adams, P. (2009). Survey platform: A factor influencing online survey delivery
and response rate. Quality in Higher Education, 15(3), 291-296.
National School Reform Faculty. (2012). National School Reform Faculty. Retrieved from
http://www.nsrfharmony.org
Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the
public and educators. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Center
on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
Olsen, E. M., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2009). A pathway forward to school change: Leading together
and achieving goals. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(4), 380-410.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn
knowledge into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Prestine, N. A. (1993). Extending the Essential Schools metaphor: Principal as enabler. Journal
of School Leadership, 3(4), 356-79.
Rasberry, M. A., & Mahajan, G. (2008). From isolation to collaboration: Promoting teacher
leadership through PLCs. Center for Teaching Quality: Hillsborough, NC. Retrieved
from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED503637.pdf
Raywid, M. A. (1993). Finding Time for Collaboration. Educational Leadership, 51(1), 30-34.
Reeves, D. (2011). Elements of grading: A guide to effective practice. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree Press.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

178

Ross, R., Smith, B., & Roberts, C. (1994). The wheel of learning. In P. Senge, et al., The fifth
discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization (pp. 59-
64). New York: Doubleday.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Sahlberg, P (2010). Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational
Change, 11, 45-61. DOI 10.1007/s10833-008-9098-2
Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., & Horn, S. P. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on
student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 11(1), 57-67.
Schlicte, J., Yssel, N., & Merbler, J. (2005). Pathways to burnout: Case studies in teacher
isolation and alienation. Preventing School Failure, 50(1), 35- 40.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results Now. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor: The challenge of
leading 21st-century schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy, 22(1), 181
203. DOI: 10.1177/0895904807311291
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113-
125.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research
and applications (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York, NY: Doubleday.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

179

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization.
New York, NY: Doubleday.
Senge, P., Ross, R., Smith, B., Roberts, C., & Kleiner, A. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook:
Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building community in schools (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2005). The virtues of leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 112-123.
Servage, L. (2008). Critical and transformative practices in professional learning communities.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 63–77.
Shih, T. H., & Fan, X. (2009). Comparing response rates in e-mail and paper surveys: A meta
analysis. Educational Research Review, 4(1), 26-40.
Sizer, T. R. (1986). Rebuilding: First steps by the coalition of essential schools. Phi Delta
Kappan, 68(1), 38-42.
Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (2005). Instructional Design (2nd Ed.). Danvers: MA: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. (2004). Toward the construct definition of positive deviance.
American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 828-847.
Stephenson, L. E., & Bauer, S. (2010). The role of isolation in predicting new principals'
burnout. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 5(9), 1-17.
Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta
Kappan, 83(10), 758-765.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

180

Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional
design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296 Tan, H. H., & Lim, A. K.
(2009). Trust in coworkers and trust in organizations. The Journal of Psychology, 143(1),
45-66.
Tan, H. H., & Tan, C. S. F. (2000). Towards the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in
organization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126(2), 241–260.
Taylor, B. M., Pressley, M., & Pearson, D. (2000). Effective teachers and schools: Trends across
recent studies. Ann Arbor, MI: CIERA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
450 353).
Thessin, R. A., & Starr, J. P. (2011). Supporting the growth of effective professional learning
communities districtwide. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 48-54.
Thompson, S. C., Gregg, L., & Niska, J. (2004). Professional learning communities, leadership,
and student learning. Research in Middle Level Education, 28(1), 1-15.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to
improve instruction and achievement in all schools: A leadership brief. Learning First
Alliance.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A.W., & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning
and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature,
meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547-593.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A.W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

181

Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group
& Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427.
Tye, K. A., & Tye, B. B. (1984). Teacher isolation and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 65(5),
319–322.
Van Merriënboer, J. J., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner's
mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5-13.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of
professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.
Wagner, T. (2003). Making the grade: Reinventing America's schools. New York, NY:
Routledge Falmer.
Waite, D. (2010). On the shortcomings of our organizational forms: with implications for
educational change and school improvement. School Leadership and Management, 30(3),
225–248.
Waters, T., & Cameron, M. A. (2007). The balanced leadership framework: Connecting vision
with action. Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved
from
http://www.mcrel.org/~/media/Files/McREL/Homepage/Products/01_99/prod54_BL_Fra
mework.ashx
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Retrieved from
http://www.sai-iowa.org/storage/BalancedLeadership.pdf
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

182

Watts, G. D., & Castle, S. (1993). The time dilemma in school restructuring. Phi Delta Kappan
75(4), 306-10.
Wayman, J. C. (2005). Involving teachers in data-driven decision making: Using computer data
systems to support teacher inquiry and reflection. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 10(3), 295-308.
Wayman, J. C., Midgley, S., & Stringfield, S. (2006). Leadership for data-based decision-
making: Collaborative data teams. In A. Danzig, K. Borman, B. Jones, & B. Wright
(Eds.), New models of professional development for learner centered leadership (pp. 189-
206). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Welch, M. (1998). Collaboration: Staying on the bandwagon. Journal of Teacher Education,
49(1), 26–37.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 9(5),
2-3.
Wenger, E. (2009). Communities of practice. Communities, 22, 57. Retrieved from
www.ewenger.com/theory/
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A
guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). The organizational frontier. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Business Review.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2011). Understanding by design guide to creating high quality
units. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

183

Williams, R., Brien, K., Sprague, C., & Sullivan, G. (2008). Professional learning communities:
Developing a school-level readiness instrument. Canadian Journal of Educational
administration and Policy, 74(6), 1–17.
Wood, D. (2007). Teachers' learning communities: Catalyst for change or a new infrastructure
for the status quo?. The Teachers College Record, 109(3), 699-739.
Yates, K., Sullivan, M., & Clark, R. (2012). Integrated studies on the use of cognitive task
analysis to capture surgical expertise for central venous catheter placement and open
cricothyrotomy. The American Journal of Surgery, 203(1), 76-80.
Zboralski, K. (2009). Antecedents of knowledge sharing in communities of practice. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 13(3), 90-101.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

184

Appendix A
Definition of Key Terms
The following terms will be used throughout the study. For the purposes of consistency and
clarity, they are defined as follows:
Action Research. Any systematic inquiry conducted by teacher researchers, principals, school
counselors, or other stakeholders in the teaching/learning environment to gather information
about how their particular schools operate, how they teach, and how well their students learn.
This information is gathered with the goals of gaining insight, developing reflective practice,
effecting positive changes in the school environment, and improving student outcomes and the
lives of those involved. Action research is research done by teachers for themselves; someone
else does not impose it on them. Action research engages teachers in a four-step process: (a)
identify a focus area, (b) collect data, (c) Analyze and interpret data, and (d) develop an action
plan (Mills, 2006, p. 5).
Collaborative Analysis of Student Learning (CASL). A teacher development system that
helps educators develop a culture for collaborative inquiry and gain a deeper understanding of
the link between their instruction and their students' learning around a standards-based target
learning area" (p. 3). "CASL has four components: a guiding conceptual framework, a culture for
collaborative inquiry, shared inquiry into students' learning, and supportive facilitation and
leadership" (p. 24).
Collective Efficacy. The teachers’ shared beliefs that the staff as a whole has the ability to
perform in such a way as to ensure a positive effect on students (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004).
Cycle of Continuous Improvement. Alternately called the Deming Cycle, it is a continuous
quality-improvement model developed by W. Edwards Deming in which a sequence of the four
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

185

repetitive steps (plan, do, check, and act) comprise a feedback loop that allows for identification
and correction of deficiencies. (http://business.yourdictionary.com/deming-cycle)
Defined Autonomy. Ability to set clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction, yet
providing school leadership teams with the responsibility and authority for determining how to
meet those goals.
Institutionalization. Process, which translates an organization's code of conduct, mission,
policies, vision, and strategic plans into action guidelines applicable to the daily activities of its
officers and other employees. It aims at integrating fundamental values and objectives into the
organization's culture and structure
(http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/institutionalization.html).
Learning Organization. Organizations in which participants continually expand their capacities
to create and achieve, where novel patterns of thinking are encouraged where collective
aspirations are nurtured, where participants learn how to learn together, and where the
organization expands its capacity for innovation and problem solving (Senge, 1990, p. 5).
Professional Learning Communities. Educators committed to working collaboratively in
ongoing processes of collective inquiry and action research in order to achieve better student
results (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2006; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2010).
Self-Efficacy. The “…beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute a course of action
required to produce a given attainment” (Bandura, 1997, p. 2).
Shared Leadership: Contains Capacity building, defined autonomy and resource allocation
(Hord, 1997).
Shared Vision: Answers the question “what do we want to create?” and “creates a sense of
commonality that permeates the organization and gives coherence to diverse activities…where
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

186

each individual has a similar picture and are committed to one another having it (Senge, 1990, p.
206).
SMART Goals: Strategic, specific, measurable, attainable, results-based and time-bound
(SMART) goals that are agreed upon and supported by the school community are
critical for supporting student achievement (O’Neill, Conzemius, Commodore, & Pulsfus, 2006).
Teacher Efficacy: The extent to which the teacher believes he or she has the capacity to affect
student performance (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004).

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

187

Appendix B
Concepts and Characteristics of Model Communities of Collaboration in
Educational Settings
Model Concepts and Characteristics
Coalition of
Essential Schools
Sizer (1986)
Instructional improvement through inquiry and collaboration
Ten principles for school-wide reform:
• Intellectual focus that helps students use their minds well
• Goals that value depth and mastery over breadth of content covered
• Universal goals that apply to all students
• Personalization of teaching and learning
• Student-as-worker and teacher as coach to teach students how to
learn, then teach themselves
• Student exhibitions of mastery
• Tone of decency, high expectations, trust, values of fairness,
generosity and tolerance
• Staff are first generalists, then specialists
• Resources dedicated to teaching and learning
• Democracy and equity
Critical Friends
Costa & Kallick
(1993)
A critical friend is “a trusted person who asks provocative questions,
provides data to be examined through another lens, and offers critiques of
a person’s work as a friend.”
• Promotes meaningful interaction, learning and problem solving
• Reflection, public practice, meaningful questions and substantive
feedback that challenges assumptions, habits and practices
• Use of processes and protocols
Communities of
Commitment
Kofman & Senge
(1993)
“The learning organization vision is grounded in a culture based on values
of love, humility, wonder, empathy, and compassion; a set of practices for
generative conversation and coordinated action; and a capacity to see and
work with the flow of life as a system”
• Promotes systems thinking and team building
• Addresses dysfunction of isolation, competition, and reactiveness

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

188

Appendix B (continued)
Model Concepts and Characteristics
Professional
Learning
Communities
Hord
(1997, 1998)
“A school in which the professionals (administrators and teachers)
continuously seek and share learning to increase their effectiveness for
students and act on what they learn.”
• Shared values and mission
• Collective learning and application of that learning
• Shared personal practice
• Supportive conditions
• Share and supportive leadership
Professional
Learning
Communities
DuFour & Eaker
(1998)
• Three Big Ideas: (1) The purpose of school is to ensure that all
students learn. (2) Ensuring that all students learn requires a culture of
collaboration. (3) Ensuring that all students learn requires a focus on
results. PLCs are characterized by:
• Collaboratively developed and shared mission, vision values and goals
• Collective inquiry into best practices and current reality
• Action orientation and experimentation
• Collaborative teams that work interdependently to achieve common
goals
• Results orientation: focus on results as evidenced by a commitment to
continuous improvement

Communities of
Practice
Wenger & Snyder
(2000)
“Groups of people informally bound together by shared expertise and
passion for a joint enterprise”
• Interdisciplinary membership
• Use of processes and a diverse menu of protocol choices
• Decentralized structure
Purposeful
Community Waters,
McNulty & Marzano
(2005)
“A purposeful community is one with the collective efficacy and
capability to develop and use assets to accomplish goals that matter to all
community members through agreed upon processes”
• Accomplish a purpose and produce outcomes that matter to all
• Use of all available assets, tangible and intangible
• Agreed-upon processes
• Collective efficacy

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

189

Appendix C
Common Characteristics of Collaboration Around Student Achievement
Regardless of the collaborative model or setting in which it operates there are inherent
dynamics and best practices related to collaboration around student achievement. Five common
characteristics of collaboration around student achievement were identified from relevant
literature. These characteristics include (a) supportive and shared leadership, (b) learning as a
fundamental purpose, (c) culture of collaboration, (d) focus on results and (e) collective efficacy.
These and their associated competencies are further explored in the following sections.
Supportive and Shared Leadership
Supportive and shared leadership is an essential characteristic of collaboration around
student achievement (NAESP, 2008). From relevant literature emerge three competencies that
define supportive and shared leadership. These competencies include (a) capacity building, (b)
defined autonomy, and (c) resource allocation.
Capacity building. An important function within collaborative learning communities is
to build capacity of teams and team members (Costa & Kallick, 1993). Capacity building
requires the ability to (a) identify the specific knowledge and skill deficits that inhibit teachers
and administrators from achieving the outcomes for which they are accountable and (b) engaging
them in knowledge- and skill-building activities that raise their capacity to achieve these
outcomes (Hord, 1997). In this process it is important that team members believe their
contributions are vital and valued (Sizer, 1986). Collectively, the team must be committed to
developing their knowledge and skills so they can achieve the outcomes for which they are
accountable (Waters & Cameron, 2007). It is also important that teams be provided the necessary
time and resources for professional growth (DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Marzano & Waters,
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

190

Appendix C (continued)
2009). When these conditions have been met, leadership can systematically release the
responsibility and authority for determining how to meet district goals to the teams that are
accountable for meeting them (DuFour & Marzano, 2011).
Defined autonomy. Collaborative learning communities define autonomy. Defined
autonomy provides independence within parameters (Marzano & Waters, 2009). It is the task of
central office to set clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction while providing
school leadership teams with the responsibility and authority to determine how to meet those
goals (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). Central office must set goals and expectations for site
performance (Eaker & Keating, 2012). Intentional communication between the central office and
school sites regarding these clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction must occur
(Marzano & Waters, 2009). Under these conditions, teams are entrusted to take on increasing
responsibility and authority for determining how to meet district goals (NAESP, 2008).
Resource allocation. The success of collaborative learning communities relies on
effective resource allocation. Resource allocation is the ability to make the decisions that provide
the greatest benefit to student achievement outcomes (Hord, 1997). Criteria for resource
allocation must be set by central office then consistently applied and managed at the both the
central office and school site levels (Marzano & Waters, 2008; DuFour & Marzano, 2011). It
requires central office and school sites to prioritize available resources then make decisions
about how to spend allocated resources in order to provide the greatest benefit to student
achievement. Effective resource allocation also relies on intentional communication between the
central office and school sites surrounding student achievement goals (Eaker & Keating, 2012).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

191

Appendix C (continued)
Learning as the Fundamental Purpose
The fundamental purpose of schools is to ensure that all students learn at high levels
(DuFour et al., 2010). Students who have learned at high levels can transfer what they have
learned to new situations appropriately (Wiggins & McTighe, 2011). Teaching for transfer
involves schema building (Sweller, Merrienboer & Paas, 1998) and strategies for managing
cognitive load (Van Merriënboer, Kirschner & Kester, 2003). Therefore, instruction must be
intentionally designed with transfer outcomes in mind (Wiggins & McTighe, 2011). It is
important, then, for teachers and administrators to develop clarity about what it is that all
students must learn (DuFour et. al., 2010).
Learning as the fundamental purpose is an essential characteristic of collaboration around
student achievement (DuFour et.al., 2010). From relevant literature emerge four competencies
that operationalize Learning as a fundamental purpose. These competencies include (a) building
collective knowledge regarding essential learning outcomes, (b) developing and deploying an
assessment and monitoring system, (c) developing timely, directive, systematic interventions for
remediation and enrichment, and finally, (d) evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in
producing the essential learning outcomes.
Building collective knowledge regarding essential learning outcomes. Collaborative
learning communities build collective knowledge about essential learning outcomes (DuFour et.
al., 2010; Hord, 1997). Teams develop clarity about essential outcomes by considering content
and process standards as well as dispositions and habits of mind that students are expected to

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

192

Appendix C (continued)
acquire by the end of a particular learning progression (Marzano & Waters, 2009). In order for
teams to develop clarity about the essential learning outcomes, they must be provided with
processes, resources, and adequate time (Eaker & Keating, 2012).
Developing and deploying an assessment and monitoring system. Collaborative
learning communities develop and deploy assessment and monitoring systems (DuFour & Eaker,
1998). Assessment and monitoring systems communicate to all team members the extent to
which students are achieving essential learning outcomes (Eaker & Keating, 2012). This requires
that teams know how to develop high quality assessments that produce useful data about whether
students have met essential learning outcomes (DuFour et. al, 2010). Additionally, it requires an
accessible data management system that can store data and communicate to all stakeholders the
extent to which students are achieving essential learning outcomes. Student learning is at the
center of an effective assessment and monitoring system (DuFour et. al, 2010). Supporting
factors include collaboration, data systems, knowledge and skills, and structural supports
(Datnow et al., 2007).
Assessment and monitoring systems make it possible to engage in Data-Driven Decision
Making. Marsh, Pane, and Hamilton (2006) define data-driven decision making (DDDM) as
“teachers, principals, and administrators systematically collecting and analyzing various types of
data, including input, process, outcome and satisfaction data, to guide a range of decisions to
help improve the success of students and schools” (p. 1). As Datnow et al. (2007) writes, the
ability to gather and make use of data is an integral part of a culture and system of continuous
improvement that is geared toward improving student learning outcomes.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

193

Appendix C (continued)
Factors can support or hinder effective data-driven decision-making (Datnow et al., 2007;
Mandinach et al., 2006; Marsh, 2006). Synthesizing data from four large-scale RAND studies,
Marsh (2006) presented findings on the ways in which data are used in education and the factors
that influence the extent to which educators use data to make decisions. Among the most salient
factors she noted were (a) accessibility, quality and timeliness of data, (b) staff motivation and
skills to use data, and (c) organizational factors such as time, pressure to adhere to pacing
guidelines, and overall culture/leadership.
Developing timely, directive, systematic interventions for remediation and
enrichment. Collaborative learning communities develop timely, directive, systematic
interventions for remediation and enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need (DuFour et.
al, 2010). This mandates that students receive additional time and support or enrichment
opportunities when needed. Teams need to know how to identify struggling students who need
remediation as well as identify students who are already achieving at proficient and advanced
levels and are in need of enrichment opportunities (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). Systems,
processes and resources must be in place (Hord, 1997, 1998) to provide remediation and
enrichment. Teams must then be committed to making a concerted effort (Kofman & Senge,
1993) to connect students with the appropriate remediation and enrichment opportunities
whenever the need is demonstrated (DuFour & Marzano, 2011).
Evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in producing the essential learning
outcomes. Collaborative learning communities evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

194

Appendix C (continued)
producing the essential learning outcomes for students (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Teams collect
various data to determine how effective a particular intervention has been. Protocols, models,
and other resources are made available and are used to determine the effectiveness of
interventions.
Culture of Collaboration
Culture of collaboration is an essential characteristic of collaboration around student
achievement (NAESP, 2008). Two competencies emerged from the literature that are used here
to operationalize culture of collaboration. These competencies are (a) providing collaborative
teams with time to meet and (b) collaborative teams working interdependently to gather, analyze,
and determine best practices and transfer these best practices across all team members (Sizer,
1986; Hord, 1997, 1998).
Collaborative teams are given time to meet. Collaborative learning communities
require time to meet (NAESP, 2008). Additionally, collaborative teams are allowed to establish
the tasks and purposes for their time working together (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty 2005).
Administrators at both central office and school site levels support and facilitate collaboration
time through helpful scheduling arrangements.
Collaborative teams work interdependently to gather, analyze, and determine best
practices and transfer best practices across all team members. Continuous improvement
requires feedback. When identifying and implementing best practices, feedback offered by
trusted colleagues regarded positively (Costa & Kallick, 1993). However, collaborative teams
also understand that there are inherent tensions embedded in the collaborative process (Graham

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

195

Appendix C (continued)
& Ferriter, 2010). To persist and accomplish their goals, collaborative teams implement
strategies to overcome these interpersonal challenges (Costa & Kallick, 1993).
When group tension arises, team members respectfully address the tension. Collaborative
learning teams consistently use norms and protocols for working collaboratively to gather,
analyze, and transfer best practices across all team members (Wenger & Snyder, 2000).
Focus of Results
Focus on results is an essential characteristic of collaboration around student achievement
(NAESP, 2008). Two related competencies that emerged from the relevant literature define a
focus on results. These competencies are (a) using common assessment data to identify needs for
intervention and enrichment and (b) using assessment data to identify strengths and weaknesses
in individual and collective teaching as part of a cycle of continuous improvement (DuFour &
Eaker, 1998; Schmoker, 2011; Waters & Cameron, 2007).
Using common assessment data to identify needs for intervention and enrichment.
Collaborative learning communities use common assessment data to identify needs for
intervention and enrichment (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Common assessments are developed and
aligned with essential learning outcomes using a systematic and collaborative process (Langer et
al., 2003). Teams then use specific protocols and processes for analyzing common assessment
data (Little et al., 2003; Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Using common assessment data, collaborative
teams then refer students for interventions for remediation and enrichment (DuFour & Eaker,
1998; DuFour et al., 2010).

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

196

Appendix C (continued)
Using assessment data to identify strengths and weaknesses in individual and
collective teaching as part of a cycle of continuous improvement. Collaborative learning
communities use assessment data to drive conversations aimed at identifying practices that have
been effective and those that need to be re-evaluated (Langer et al., 2003; Schmoker, 2011).
Collective Efficacy
Collaborative learning communities share the belief that, as a team, they can organize and
execute a course of action that positively impacts achievement (Waters & Cameron, 2007). This
competency requires teams to identify clear actionable steps that lead to achievement goals.
Administrators at the central office and school site levels must provide structured time for teams
to engage in action planning. Collective efficacy is enhanced when school culture fosters the
notion that working collectively makes it possible to produce desired student achievement
outcomes (Marzano & Waters, 2009). Collective efficacy underscores the essential role that all
members play in positively impacting student achievement (NAESP, 2008).
Collective efficacy is an important motivational construct that moderates the other four
characteristics of collaboration around student achievement and their associated competencies
(Goddard & Goddard, 2001; Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004). Collective efficacy, as applied to the
12 competencies of collaboration around student achievement, indicates the extent to which team
members believe that the team, working together as a whole, can demonstrate the competencies
(Waters & Cameron, 2007). To be clear, the teams collective efficacy beliefs impact the teams
actual ability to demonstrate the competencies.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

197

Appendix D
CASA Team Characteristics and Competencies

CASA Team
Characteristics
& Competencies

Frameworks

Factual,
Conceptual,
Procedural,
Metacognitive
(Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2005)
CANE Model
(Clark, 1999)
Processes, Material
Resources,
Organizational
Culture
(Clark & Estes,
2008)
Coding
Characteristic #1
SUPPORTIVE &
SHARED
LEADERSHIP
Knowledge &
Skill
Motivation Organization Possible Artifacts
1. Capacity Building

Ability to identify the
specific knowledge and
skill deficits that inhibit
people from achieving the
outcomes for which they
are accountable.

Ability to engage teachers
and administrators in
knowledge- and skill-
building activities that raise
their capacity to achieve
the outcomes for which
they are accountable.
• My team
members know
the specific
knowledge and
skills required
for our team to
achieve the
outcomes for
which we are
accountable.
• My team knows
how to engage
in team learning
activities that
raise our
capacity to
achieve the
outcomes for
which we are
accountable.
• It is important
to my team to
make all
members feel
that their
contribution is
vital to our
success.
• My team is
committed to
developing our
professional
knowledge and
skills so that we
can achieve the
outcomes for
which we are
accountable.
• My team is
provided the
necessary time to
learn and grow
professionally
• My team is
provided the
necessary
resources to learn
and grow
professionally
• PD plan
• District PD plan
• Team activities
• Schedules
• Calendars
• Budget allocation

2. Defined Autonomy

Ability to set clear, non-
negotiable goals for
learning and instruction,
yet providing school
leadership teams with the
responsibility and authority
for determining how to
meet those goals.
• My team has
been given the
responsibility
and authority
for determining
how to meet the
goals set by
central office.
• My team values
being given the
responsibility
and authority
for determining
how to meet
district goals.
• Intentional
communication
occurs between
central office and
school sites
regarding clear,
non-negotiable
goals for learning
and instruction.
• Central office sets
clear goals and
expectations for
site performance
• Yearly goals
(individual)
• Mid-year
• Single school plan
• Mid-year updates
• Instructional
updates
• Data advance
• Staff evaluations
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

198

Appendix D (continued)

3. Resource Allocation

Ability to make resource
allocation decisions that
provide the greatest benefit
to student achievement
outcomes.
• My team knows
how to
prioritize
resources that
benefit student
achievement
outcomes.
• It is important
that my team
can make
decisions about
how to spend
allocated
resources that
provide the
greatest benefit
to student
achievement
outcomes.
• Intentional
communication
occurs between
central office and
school sites
surrounding
student
achievement goals.
• Resource
allocation criteria
are consistently
applied and
managed.
• Budgets
• Budget
prioritization
process

Characteristic #2
LEARNING AS THE
FUNDAMENTAL
PURPOSE
Knowledge &
Skill
Motivation Organization Possible Artifacts
4. Building collective
knowledge regarding
essential learning
outcomes
Develop clarity among
all team members
regarding the essential
learning outcomes that
all students are expected
to achieve.
• My team has
clarity about the
essential
learning
outcomes that
all students are
expected to
achieve.

• It is important
for my team to
develop clarity
about the
essential
learning
outcomes that
all students are
expected to
achieve.
• My team is
provided with the
time to develop
clarity about the
essential learning
outcomes that all
students are
expected to
achieve.
• My team is
provided with the
processes and
resources that
enable us to
develop clarity
about the essential
learning outcomes
that all students
are expected to
achieve.
• Lesson plan
objectives aligned
with standards
• Lesson plans
objectives aligned
with common core
standards
• Schedules
• Calendars
• Team protocols
used

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

199

Appendix D (continued)
5. Developing and
deploying an assessment
and monitoring system.
Implement an assessment
and reporting system that
communicates to all team
members the extent to
which students are
achieving essential
learning outcomes.
• My team knows
how to develop
high quality
assessments
that produce
useful data
about whether
students have
met essential
learning
outcomes.
• My team knows
how to use a
data
management
system (e.g.
Data Director)
to store and
communicate
assessment
data.

• My team values
having access
to a data
management
system that can
communicate to
all team
members the
extent to which
students are
achieving
essential
learning
outcomes.
• My team has
access to a data
management
system that
communicates to
all stakeholders the
extent to which
students are
achieving essential
learning outcomes.
• Assessments
• Reports generated
from Data Director
• Meeting minutes
from SSC, ELAC,
PTA, AAPC, etc.,
of when student
achievement
results were shared
with stakeholders
• Newsletter or
newspaper articles
describing student
achievement
6. Developing timely,
directive, systematic
interventions for
remediation and
enrichment.
Provide students with
additional time and
support whenever there is
a demonstrated need.
Provide students with
enrichment opportunities
whenever there is a
demonstrated need.
• My team knows
how to identify
struggling
students in need
of remediation.
• My team knows
how to identify
proficient and
advanced
students in need
of enrichment
opportunities.
• My team knows
how to connect
students with
interventions
for remediation
and enrichment
when there is a
demonstrated
need
• It is important
that students
are provided
with
interventions
for remediation
and enrichment
whenever there
is a
demonstrated
need.
• My team makes
a concerted
effort to
connect
students with
interventions
for remediation
and enrichment
whenever there
is a
demonstrated
need.
• My team is
provided the
systems, processes
and/or resources
necessary to
provide students
with interventions
for remediation
and enrichment
whenever there is
a demonstrated
need
• List of struggling
students
• List of possible
interventions
available
• List of enrichment
opportunities
• Lesson plans of
differentiated
instruction
• Documentation
that measures
student growth
before and after
the application of
an intervention
• Data Director
student reports
• Budget allocations
for intervention
teachers
7. Evaluating the
effectiveness of
interventions in
producing the essential
learning outcomes.

Use data to measure the
impact of interventions

• My team knows
how to collect
various data to
determine how
effective a
particular
intervention has
been.
• It is important
to use data to
determine how
effective an
intervention has
been.

• Protocols, models,
and/or other
resources for
determining the
effectiveness of
interventions, have
been made
available to my
team.
• Student data
• CST data
• Formative test data
• Data

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

200

Appendix D (continued)

Characteristic #3
CULTURE OF
COLLABORATION
Knowledge &
Skill
Motivation Organization Possible Artifacts
8. Collaborative teams
are given time to meet.
• My team knows
how to establish
the tasks and
purposes for
working
together.
• My team values
the time we
spend together
collaborating.
• Administration
supports and
facilitates
collaboration time
through helpful
scheduling
arrangements.

• Team task list
• Schedule of
meetings
9. Collaborative teams
work interdependently to
gather, analyze and
determine best practices
and transfer best
practices across all team
members.

Ability to collaborate in
order to identify and scale
up best practices
• My team works
together to
gather, analyze,
and implement
best practices.
• My team
understands that
there are
inherent tensions
embedded in the
collaborative
process but we
implement
strategies to
overcome these
interpersonal
challenges.
• My team values
feedback from
colleagues when
identifying and
implementing
best practices.
• My team
respectfully
addresses group
tension when
working
collaboratively
to gather,
analyze and
transfer best
practices across
all team
members
• My team
consistently uses
norms and
protocols for
working
collaboratively to
gather, analyze, and
transfer best
practices across all
team members.
• Team minutes
showing discussion
of best practices
• Shared strategies
used to overcome
interpersonal
challenges
• Team norms
• Protocols
Characteristic #4
FOCUS ON RESULTS

Knowledge &
Skill
Motivation Organization
Possible Artifacts
10. Using common
assessment data to
identify needs for
intervention and
enrichment
Ability to use common
assessment data to identify
needs for intervention and
enrichment
• My team knows
how to use
common
assessment data
to refer students
for interventions
for remediation
and enrichment.
• Using common
assessment data
to refer students
for interventions
for remediation
and enrichment
is important to
my team.
• My team has
specific protocols
and processes for
analyzing common
assessment data.

• My team uses a
systematic,
collaborative
process to develop
common
assessments that are
aligned with
essential learning
outcomes.

• Assessment data
used to refer
students
• Protocols used for
analyzing data
• Documented
collaborative
process to develop
common
assessments

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

201

Appendix D (continued)
11. Using assessment data
to identify strengths and
weaknesses in individual
and collective teaching as
part of a continuous
improvement cycle.

Ability to identify strengths
and weaknesses
collectively and
individually as part of
ongoing improvement.

• My team
analyzes student
achievement
data in order to
identify
instructional
strengths and
weaknesses as
part of ongoing
improvement.
• My team values
comparing
assessment
results and
sharing
instructional
strategies to
identify
strengths and
weaknesses in
individual and
collective
teaching.
• My team is
provided an
environment where
we can safely share
and examine
strengths and
weaknesses in
individual and
collective teaching.
• List of strategies
implemented as a
result of analyzing
student
achievement data
• Shared ways in
which instructional
weaknesses have
been addressed

Characteristic #5
COLLECTIVE
EFFICACY

Knowledge &
Skill
Motivation Organization Possible Artifacts
12. Shared belief that
they can organize and
execute a course of action
that positively impacts
achievement

Ability to organize and
execute a course of action
based on a shared belief
that collectively the team
could positively impact
achievement.
• Members of my
team know how
to organize and
execute a course
of action to
positively impact
student
achievement
• My team is
committed to the
belief that
collectively we
have the ability
to produce the
student
achievement
results we
desire.
• My team
believes that all
members of our
team play an
essential role in
positively
impacting
student
achievement.

• School culture
fosters the notion
that working
collectively we
have the ability to
produce the student
achievement
outcomes we truly
desire.
• My team is
provided structured
opportunities to
develop the clear
actionable steps
(i.e. action plans)
necessary to impact
student
achievement results
we truly desire.
• Team action plans
for student
achievement
• Student
achievement results
• List of clear
actionable steps
taken
• Schedules or
calendars showing
team meetings
• Meeting minutes

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

202

Appendix D (continued)
Perceived Collective Team Efficacy
The statements below describe activities that are important to collaborative teams.
For each statement, please rate how certain you are that your team, by working together as a whole, can accomplish
the following activities.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cannot Can do Can do with
do at all moderately high certainty

Supportive & Shared Leadership
1 Identify the specific knowledge and skill deficits that inhibit our team from achieving the outcomes for
which we are accountable.
2 Engage ourselves in knowledge- and skill-building activities that raise our team’s capacity to achieve the
outcomes for which we are accountable.
3 Agree to be held accountable to clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction set by site and/or
district leadership.
4 Accept and carry out the responsibility and authority for determining how to meet the clear, non-negotiable
goals set by site and/or district leadership.
Supporting Artifacts:
● List of knowledge and skill-building activities

Learning as the Fundamental Purpose
1 Make resource allocation decisions that provide the greatest benefit to student achievement outcomes.
2 Develop clarity among all team members regarding the essential learning outcomes that all students are
expected to achieve.
3 Provide students with additional time and support whenever there is a demonstrated need.
4 Provide students with enrichment opportunities whenever there is a demonstrated need.
5 Use data to measure the impact of interventions.
Supporting Artifacts:
● Budget used or allocated for student achievement
● Student intervention schedule
● Student enrichment schedule
● Single School Plan
Grade level and Department goals

Culture of Collaboration
1 Make use of available time to hold productive collaboration meetings.
2 Collaborate interdependently to gather, analyze and determine best practices and transfer best practices
across all team members.
Supporting Artifacts:
● Collaboration meeting schedule
● Student work produced as a result of implementing best practices

Focus on Results
1 Use common assessment data to identify needs for intervention and enrichment.
2 Identify strengths and weaknesses in our collective and individual practice as part of an ongoing cycle of
improvement.
Supporting Artifacts:
● Common Assessments

● Plan
to
address
weakness

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

203

Appendix E
The 21 Responsibilities of the School Leader
Responsibility The extent to which the Principal…
1. Affirmation Recognizes & celebrates accomplishments & acknowledges failures
2. Change Agent Is willing to challenge & actively challenges the status quo
3. Contingent Rewards Recognizes & rewards individual accomplishments
4. Communication Establishes strong lines of communication with & among teachers & students
5. Culture Fosters shared beliefs & a sense of community & cooperation
6. Discipline Protects teachers from issues & influences that would detract from their teaching
time or focus
7. Flexibility Adapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of the current situation & is
comfortable with dissent
8. Focus

Establishes clear goals & keeps those goals in the forefront of the school’s attention

9. Deals/Beliefs Communicates & operates from strong ideals & beliefs about schooling
10. Input Involves teachers in the design & implementation of important decisions & policies
11. Intellectual Stimulation Ensures faculty & staff are aware of the most current theories & practices & makes
the discussion of these a regular aspect of the school’s culture
12. Involvement in
Curriculum, Instruction, &
Assessment
Is directly involved in the design & implementation of curriculum, instruction, &
assessment practices
13. Knowledge of
Curriculum, Instruction, &
Assessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction, & assessment practices
14. Monitoring/ Evaluating Monitors the effectiveness of school practices & their impact on student learning
15. Optimizer Inspires & leads new & challenging innovations
16. Order Establishes a set of standard operating procedures & routines
17. Outreach Is an advocate & spokesperson for the school to all stakeholders
18. Relationships Demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of teachers & staff
19. Resources Provides teachers with materials & professional development necessary for the
successful execution of their jobs
20. Situational Awareness Is aware of the details & undercurrents in the running of the school & uses this
information to address current & potential problems
21. Visibility Has quality contact & interactions with teachers & students

Source. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005)
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

204

Appendix F
CASA Team Competency Survey Protocol
Pasadena Unified School District: Collaboration Around Student Achievement - 2
Q1.1 We are conducting a tri-level analysis (Central office, Site Leadership, and Teachers) of
how we professionally collaborate to increase student achievement throughout the
Pasadena Unified School District. Your participation is crucial to gathering meaningful
data to build greater capacity within our teams. If you belong to two or more collaborative
teams, please respond to the survey with the team in mind that most directly impacts
student achievement. The survey will require 15 to 20 minutes of your time. Once again,
thank you for taking the time to complete this survey

Q2.1 Gender.
Male (1)
Female (2)

Q2.2 Age.
21-28 (1)
29-34 (2)
35-40 (3)
41-46 (4)
47-52 (5)
53-58 (6)
59 or older (7)

Q2.3 Ethnicity.
1. Caucasian (White) (1)
2. African American (2)
3. Hispanic (3)
4. Asian (4)
5. Native American (5)
6. Multiracial (6)
7. Other: Please specify (7) ____________________

Q2.4 Highest level of education attained.
1. Bachelor’s Degree (1)
2. Some Master's Work (2)
3. Master’s Degree (3)
4. Some Doctoral Work (4)
5. Doctoral Degree (5)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

205

Appendix F (continued)
Q2.5 What is your current position?
Teacher (1)
Assistant Principal (2)
Elementary Principal (3)
Secondary Principal (4)
Coordinator (5)
Director (6)
Executive Director (7)
Chief (8)
Superintendent (9)

Q2.6 How many years have you served in your current position (e.g. teacher, coordinator or
administrator)?
1-5 years (1)
6-10 years (2)
11-15 years (3)
16-20 years (4)
21-25 years (5)
26-30 years (6)
31 years or longer (7)

Q2.7 Current work setting.
Pre K: Preschool (1)
K-5: Elementary (2)
K-8: Span School (3)
6-8: Middle School (4)
6-12: Span School (5)
9-12: High School (6)
Alternative Education School (7)
District Office (8)

Q2.8 Name of your school. (Example: Blair MS, Rose City HS, and Sierra Madre ES)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

206

Appendix F (continued)
Q2.9 How many years have you served at your current work setting?
1-5 years (1)
6-10 years (2)
11-15 years (3)
16-20 years (4)
21-25 years (5)
26-30 years (6)
31 years or longer (7)

Q2.10 Have you received training on a particular model(s) of collaboration (e.g., professional
learning communities, communities of practice, purposeful communities)?
Professional Learning Communities (1)
Communities of Practice (2)
Purposeful Communities (3)
Other (4) ____________________
No (5)

Q2.11 Do you feel that your school/department has implemented a particular model of
collaboration?
Professional Learning Communities (1)
Communities of Practice (2)
Purposeful Communities (3)
Other (4) ____________________
No (5)

Q2.12 How many collaborative teams do you belong to?
I belong to one (1) collaborative team. (1)
I belong to two (2) collaborative teams. (2)
I belong to three (3) or more collaborative teams. (3)
I do not belong to a collaborative team. (4)

Q3.1 My team members know the specific knowledge and skills required for our team to achieve
the outcomes for which we are accountable.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q3.2 My team knows how to engage in team learning activities that raise our capacity to achieve
the outcomes for which we are accountable.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

207

Appendix F (continued)
Q3.3 It is important to my team to make all members feel that their contribution is vital to our
success.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q3.4 My team is committed to developing our professional knowledge and skills so that we can
achieve the outcomes for which we are accountable.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q3.5 My team is provided the necessary time to learn and grow professionally.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q3.6 My team is provided the necessary resources to learn and grow professionally
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q4.1 My team has been given the responsibility and authority for determining how to meet the
goals set by central office.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q4.2 My team values being given the responsibility and authority for determining how to meet
district goals.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q4.3 Intentional communication occurs between central office and school sites regarding clear,
non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q4.4 Central office sets clear goals and expectations for site performance.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q5.1 My team knows how to prioritize resources that benefit student achievement outcomes.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q5.2 It is important that my team can make decisions about how to spend allocated resources
that provide the greatest benefit to student achievement outcomes.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q5.3 Resource allocation criteria are consistently applied and managed.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

208

Appendix F (continued)

Q6.1 My team has clarity about the essential learning outcomes that all students are expected to
achieve.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q6.2 It is important for my team to develop clarity about the essential learning outcomes that all
students are expected to achieve.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q6.3 My team is provided with the time to develop clarity about the essential learning outcomes
that all students are expected to achieve.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q6.4 My team is provided with processes and resources that enable us to develop clarity about
the essential learning outcomes that all students are expected to achieve.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q7.1 My team knows how to develop high quality assessments that produce useful data about
whether students have met essential learning outcomes.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q7.2 My team knows how to use a data management system (e.g. DataDirector) to store, analyze
and communicate assessment data.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q7.3 My team values having access to a data management system that can communicate to all
team members the extent to which students are achieving essential learning outcomes.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q7.4 My team has access to a data management system that communicates to all stakeholders the
extent to which students are achieving essential learning outcomes.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q8.1 My team knows how to identify struggling students in need of remediation.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q8.2 My team knows how to identify proficient and advanced students in need of enrichment
opportunities.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

209

Appendix F (continued)

Q8.3 My team knows how to connect students with interventions for remediation and enrichment
when there is a demonstrated need.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q8.4 It is important that students are provided with interventions for remediation and enrichment
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q8.5 My team makes a concerted effort to connect students with interventions for remediation
and enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q8.6 My team is provided the systems, processes and/or resources necessary to provide students
with interventions for remediation and enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q9.1 My team knows how to collect various data to determine how effective a particular
intervention has been.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q9.2 It is important to use data to determine how effective an intervention has been.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q9.3 Protocols, models, and/or other resources for determining the effectiveness of
interventions, have been made available to my team.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q10.1 My team knows how to establish the tasks and purposes for working together.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q10.2 My team values the time we spend together collaborating.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q10.3 Administration supports and facilitates collaboration time through helpful scheduling
arrangements.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

210

Appendix F (continued)

Q11.1 My team works together to gather, analyze, and implement best practices.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q11.2 My team understands that there are inherent tensions embedded in the collaborative
process but we implement strategies to overcome these interpersonal challenges.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q11.3 My team values feedback from colleagues when identifying and implementing best
practices.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q11.4 My team respectfully addresses group tension when working collaboratively to gather,
analyze and transfer best practices across all team members
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q11.5 My team consistently uses norms and protocols for working collaboratively to gather,
analyze, and transfer best practices across all team members.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q12.1 Members of my team know how to organize and execute a course of action to positively
impact student achievement.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q12.2 My team is committed to the belief that, working collectively, we have the ability to
produce the student achievement results we truly desire.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q12.3 My team believes that all members of our team play an essential role in positively
impacting student achievement.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q12.4 School culture fosters the notion that, working collectively, we have the ability to produce
the student achievement outcomes we truly desire.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q12.5 My team is provided structured opportunities to develop the clear actionable steps (i.e.,
action plans) necessary to produce the student achievement results we truly desire.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q13.1 My team knows how to use common assessment data to refer students for interventions
for remediation and enrichment.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

211

Appendix F (continued)

Q13.2 Using common assessment data to refer students for interventions for remediation and
enrichment is important to my team.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q13.3 My team has specific protocols and processes for analyzing common assessment data.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q13.4 My team uses a systematic, collaborative process to develop common assessments that are
aligned with essential learning outcomes.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q14.1 My team analyzes student achievement data in order to identify instructional strengths and
weaknesses as part of ongoing improvement.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q14.2 My team values comparing assessment results and sharing instructional strategies to
identify strengths and weaknesses in individual and collective teaching.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q14.3 My team is provided an environment where we can safely share and examine strengths
and weaknesses in individual and collective teaching.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q15.1 Supportive and Shared Leadership. How certain are you that your team, working together
as a whole, can do the following:
______ Identify the specific knowledge and skill deficits that inhibit our team from achieving the
outcomes for which we are accountable. (1)
______ Engage ourselves in knowledge- and skill-building activities that raise our team’s capacity to
achieve the outcomes for which we are accountable. (2)

______ Agree to be held accountable to clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction set by site
and/or district leadership. (3)

______ Accept and carry out the responsibility and authority for determining how to meet the clear, non-
negotiable goals set by site and/or district leadership. (4)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

212

Appendix F (continued)

Q15.2 Learning as the Fundamental Purpose. How certain are you that your team, working
together as a whole, can do the following:
______ Make resource allocation decisions that provide the greatest benefit to student achievement
outcomes. (1)

______ Develop clarity among all team members regarding the essential learning outcomes that all
students are expected to achieve. (2)

______ Provide students with additional time and support whenever there is a demonstrated need. (3)

______ Provide students with enrichment opportunities whenever there is a demonstrated need. (4)

______ Use data to measure the impact of interventions. (5)

Q15.3 Culture of Collaboration. How certain, working together as a whole, can your team:
______ Make use of available time to hold productive collaboration meetings. (1)

______ Collaborate interdependently to gather, analyze and determine best practices and transfer best
practices across all team members. (2)

Q15.4 Focus on Results. How certain, working together as a whole, can your team:
______ Use common assessment data to identify needs for intervention and enrichment. (1)

______ Identify strengths and weaknesses in our collective and individual practice as part of an ongoing
cycle of improvement. (2)

Q16.1 Thank you for your time in completing the survey. There are two final questions.

Q16.2 Would you be willing to participate in a focus group or an individual discussion on the
topic of collaboration around student achievement?
Yes (1)
No (2)

Q16.3 If you would like to be entered in a drawing for one of five $25 gift cards, please be sure
to enter you name and email address below.
Name (1)
Email Address (2)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

213

Appendix G
CASA Interview Protocol
Interviewer: Date:

Name of School/Department: Role: Years of Service:

Interviewer will introduce self and give the information sheet to the participant.
The purpose of this interview is to allow you to provide feedback on your thoughts about
collaboration around student achievement at your site. There are no right or wrong answers to
any of these questions. The purpose of the interview is to gain your perceptions and feedback,
not to evaluate anything that you say. In fact, your identity will be kept confidential as the results
are analyzed.

We find it helpful to audiotape our conversation. Taping ensures that we have an accurate record
of your responses. Are you okay with us taping our conversation? The tape recording will not
reveal your name and will only be reviewed by the interviewers and University committee
members. All tapes will be kept in a locked safe with no identifiable information. Again, we
want to stress that there is no right or wrong response. Your insight is crucial to gathering
meaningful data to build greater capacity within our teams.

We may need to seek clarification throughout the discussion to ensure that we have accurately
captured your perspective.

Do you have any questions? Are you ready to begin?

Lead statement: We are interested in learning about how your team collaborates and what work
you do together during your meetings.

1. What team do you consider to be your primary collaboration team and how long have
you been a member?

2. If I was to drop in on a routine collaborative meeting, can you describe in some detail
what I would observe?
Possible Follow-up Questions:
• What is the structure of the meeting?
• Who is part of the meeting?
• Is there a lead?
• How is student achievement data used?
• How does it guide the instruction of your department or classroom?
• Is there time to work jointly on assignments?
• Assessments?
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

214

Appendix G (continued)

• What do you feel happened in the implementation of CLCs?
• Can you provide me anything that would demonstrate this?

3. What does the team do when a student(s) is (are) performing below/above expectations?
(Or is this the responsibility of the individual teacher/department?)

4. Can you describe a time since the beginning of this year when you felt your collaborative
team worked together exceptionally well?
Possible Follow-up Questions:
• What did you do?
• How did this impact you and students?
• Why was it such a positive experience?

5. Tell me about structured ways in which your team has worked together to gain
knowledge and/or skills in areas that directly affect your work.

6. How do your team members learn from each other in structured ways?

Lead Statement: The district has been engaged with collaborative teams for several years now.

7. In what ways do you feel that your collaborative team is improving student outcomes?

8. What factors seem to be sustaining the collaborative work in your school?

9. What might be getting in the way of sustaining collaboration in your school and/or
district?

Lead Statement: Working with diverse students is a challenge.

10. What opportunities have you had to learn how to be an effective collaborative team?
Possible Follow-up Questions:
• What could the district, site leader, teacher leader do differently?
• What do you see is working?

Lead Statement: The next topic I would like to explore is leadership.

11. How is leadership distributed in your collaborative team?
Possible Follow-up Question:
• What are the assigned roles?

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

215

12. Share a time when members of your team felt empowered to implement their own
decisions.

Possible Follow-up Question:
• How was administration involved in that process?

13. In what ways does the administrator help collaborative teams to be at their best?
Possible Follow-up Question:
• Are there administrative practices that diminish the work of the team?

14. What support structures would make your collaboration time more meaningful and
productive?
Possible Follow-up Questions:
• How can leadership support this?

15. What have been the pros and cons of collaborating with your team?

16. Please describe how being on a team, rather than working on your own, has impacted
your ability to raise student achievement.

17. To what extent does administration demonstrate their trust in the collective capabilities of
your team to organize and execute a course of action that positively impacts student
achievement?

18. To what extent do you feel your team is provided opportunities to create clear actionable
steps necessary to impact student achievement?
Possible Follow-up Questions:
• To what extent do you feel your team values taking the clear actionable steps
necessary to close the achievement gap?
• To what extent were you involved in the creation of documents such as the Single
School Plan or the Strategic Plan or WASC accreditation?

19. If you had three wishes for making your collaborative team more effective, what would
they be?

20. Do you have any final comments or anything else you want to add?

Thank you for your time on this project.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

216

Appendix H

Tri-Level Data (N=281)

Table H1

Tri-Level Demographic Characteristics of Sample

Characteristic n (%)
Gender
Male 60 21.4
Female 221 78.6
Totals 281 100.0
Age
21-28 12 4.3
29-34 27 9.6
35-40 49 17.4
41-46 52 18.5
47-52 60 21.4
53-58 46 16.4
59 or older 35 12.5
Totals 281 100.0
Ethnicity
Caucasian 147 52.3
African American 37 13.2
Hispanic 52 18.5
Asian 21 7.5
Native American 1 .4
Multiracial 13 4.6
Other 10 3.6
Totals 281 100.0
Highest level of education attained
Bachelor’s degree 27 9.6
Some master’s work 32 11.4
Master’s degree 180 64.1
Some doctoral work 22 7.8
Doctoral degree 20 7.1
Totals 281 100.0
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

217

Appendix H (continued)
Table H2

Tri-Level Demographics of Current Work Setting

Characteristic n (%)
Current position
Teacher 224 79.7
Assistant principal 10 3.6
Elementary principal 15 5.3
Secondary principal 9 3.2
Coordinator 17 6.0
Director 1 .4
Executive director 1 .4
Chief 4 1.4
Superintendent 0 0
Totals 281 100.0
Years served in current position
1-5 67 23.8
6-10 72 25.6
11-15 65 23.1
16-20 43 15.3
21-25 20 7.1
26-30 9 3.2
31 or longer 5 1.8
Totals 281 100.0

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

218

Appendix H (continued)
Table H2 (continued)

Tri-Level Demographics of Current Work Setting

Characteristic n (%)
Current work setting
Preschool 7 2.5
K-5 elementary 103 36.7
K-8 span school 20 7.1
6-8 middle school 51 18.1
6-12 span school 25 8.9
9-12 high school 44 15.7
Alternative school 8 2.8
District office 23 8.2
Totals 281 100.0
Years served at current work setting
1-5 138 49.1
6-10 70 24.9
11-15 40 14.2
16-20 25 8.9
21-25 5 1.8
26-30 1 .4
31 or longer 2 .7
Totals 281 100.0
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

219

Appendix H (continued)
Table H3

Tri-Level Models of Collaboration

Characteristic n (%)
Training on particular models of collaboration
Professional learning communities 110 39.1
Communities of practice 12 4.3
Purposeful communities 2 .7
Other 34 12.1
No 123 43.8
Totals 281 100.0
Implementation of a particular model of collaboration
Professional learning communities 89 31.7
Communities of practice 17 6.0
Purposeful communities 11 3.9
Other 33 11.7
No 131 46.6
Totals 281 100.0
Number of collaborative teams
One team 80 28.5
Two teams 71 25.3
Three teams 76 27.0
Do not belong to team 54 19.2
Totals 281 100.0

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

220

Appendix H (continued)
Table H4

Tri-Level Competency Questions, Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=281)

Mean Std. Deviation
Competency #1 M SD
My team members know the specific knowledge
and skills required for our team to achieve the
outcomes for which we are accountable.
67.37 25.49
My team knows how to engage in team learning
activities that raise our capacity to achieve the
outcomes for which we are accountable.
64.13 26.28
It is important to my team to make all members feel
that their contribution is vital to our success.
72.81 29.04
My team is committed to developing our
professional knowledge and skills so that we can
achieve the outcomes for which we are
accountable.
70.64 26.50
My team is provided the necessary time to learn
and grow professionally.
50.32 30.44
My team is provided the necessary resources to
learn and grow professionally.
51.32 28.72
Competency #2 M SD
My team has been given the responsibility and
authority for determining how to meet the goals set
by central office.
57.58 29.41
My team values being given the responsibility and
authority for determining how to meet district
goals.
69.22 28.02
Intentional communication occurs between central
office and school sites regarding clear, non-
negotiable goals for learning and instruction.
50.39 29.69
Central office sets clear goals and expectations for
site performance.
52.53 28.62
Competency #3 M SD
My team knows how to prioritize resources that
benefit student achievement outcomes.
66.90 26.26

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

221

Appendix H (continued)

Table H4 (continued)

Tri-Level Competency Questions, Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=281)

It is important that my team can make decisions
about how to spend allocated resources that provide
the greatest benefit to student achievement
outcomes.
81.00 24.46
Intentional communication occurs between central
office and school sites regarding clear, non-
negotiable learning and instruction.
52.70 29.05
Resource allocation criteria are consistently applied
and managed.
49.89 27.55
Competency #4 M SD
My team has clarity about the essential learning
outcomes that all students are expected to achieve.
71.42 26.38
It is important for my team to develop clarity about
the essential learning outcomes that all students are
expected to achieve.
82.74 23.38
My team is provided with the time to develop
clarity about the essential learning outcomes that all
students are expected to achieve.
50.71 29.80
My team is provided with processes and resources
that enable us to develop clarity about the essential
learning outcomes that all students are expected to
achieve.
53.02 28.08
Competency #5 M SD
My team knows how to develop high quality
assessments that produce useful data about whether
students have met essential learning outcomes.
62.85 27.58
My team knows how to use a data management
system (e.g. DataDirector) to store, analyze and
communicate assessment data.
70.07 25.55
My team values having access to a data
management system that can communicate to all
team members the extent to which students are
achieving essential learning outcomes.
72.67 26.76

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

222

Appendix H (continued)

Table H4 (continued)

Tri-Level Competency Questions, Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=281)

My team has access to a data management system
that communicates to all stakeholders the extent to
which students are achieving essential learning
outcomes.
68.36 27.83
Competency #6 M SD
My team knows how to identify struggling students
in need of remediation.
78.97 23.25
My team knows how to identify proficient and
advanced students in need of enrichment
opportunities.
78.58 23.68
My team knows how to connect students with
interventions for remediation and enrichment when
there is a demonstrated need.
67.40 26.79
It is important that students are provided with
interventions for remediation and enrichment
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
91.32 17.24
My team makes a concerted effort to connect
students with interventions for remediation and
enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need.
74.59 26.20
My team is provided the systems, processes and/or
resources necessary to provide students with
interventions for remediation and enrichment
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
55.02 28.70
Competency #7 M SD
My team knows how to collect various data to
determine how effective a particular intervention
has been.
64.59 27.61
It is important to use data to determine how
effective an intervention has been.
85.59 19.62
Protocols, models, and/or other resources for
determining the effectiveness of interventions, have
been made available to my team.
56.37 29.73

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

223

Appendix H (continued)

Table H4 (continued)

Tri-Level Competency Questions, Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=281)

Competency #8 M SD
My team knows how to establish the tasks and
purposes for working together.
71.74 25.86
My team values the time we spend together
collaborating.
77.12 26.42
Administration supports and / facilitates collaboration
time through helpful scheduling arrangements.
62.17 30.54
Competency #9 M SD
My team works together to gather, analyze, and
implement best practices.
69.86 26.78
My team understands that there are inherent tensions
embedded in the collaborative process but we
implement strategies to overcome these interpersonal
challenges.
69.36 26.25
My team values feedback from colleagues when
identifying and implementing best practices.
73.70 25.13
My team respectfully addresses group tension when
working collaboratively to gather, analyze and transfer
best practices across all team members.
66.83 27.63
My team consistently uses norms and protocols for
working collaboratively to gather, analyze, and
transfer best practices across all team members.
64.84 28.29
Competency #10 M SD
Members of my team know how to organize and
execute a course of action to positively impact student
achievement.
71.14 25.15
My team is committed to the belief that, working
collectively, we have the ability to produce the student
achievement results we truly desire.
75.41 25.92
My team believes that all members of our team play
an essential role in positively impacting student
achievement.
76.33 26.37

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

224

Appendix H (continued)

Table H4 (continued)

Tri-Level Competency Questions, Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=281)

School culture fosters the notion that, working
collectively, we have the ability to produce the
student achievement results we truly desire.
73.24 27.04
My team is provided structured opportunities to
develop the clear actionable steps (i.e., action plans)
necessary to produce the student achievement
results we truly desire.
61.67 28.84
Competency #11 M SD
My team knows how to use common assessment
data to refer students for interventions for
remediation and enrichment.
71.67 26.22
Using common assessment data to refer students for
interventions for remediation and enrichment is
important to my team.
74.52 25.39
My team has specific protocols and processes for
analyzing common assessment data.
64.84 28.32
My team uses a systematic, collaborative process to
develop common assessments that are aligned with
essential learning outcomes.
60.25 28.13
Competency #12 M SD
My team analyzes student achievement data in
order to identify instructional strengths and
weaknesses as part of ongoing improvement.
69.79 27.95
My team values comparing assessment results and
sharing instructional strategies to identify strengths
and weaknesses in individual and collective
teaching.
69.50 27.01
My team is provided an environment where we can
safely share and examine strengths and weaknesses
in individual and collective teaching.
63.63 30.20
Collective Team Efficacy
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole, can do the
following:

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

225

Appendix H (continued)

Table H4 (continued)

Tri-Level Competency Questions, Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=281)

Supportive and Shared Leadership M SD
Identify the specific knowledge and skill deficits
that inhibit our team from achieving the outcomes
for which we are accountable.
70.07 23.92
Engage ourselves in knowledge- and skill-building
activities that raise our team’s capacity to achieve
the outcomes for which we are accountable.
73.45 24.46
Agree to be held accountable to clear, non-
negotiable goals for learning and instruction set by
site and/or district leadership.
71.49 26.50
Accept and carry out the responsibility and
authority for determining how to meet the clear,
non-negotiable goals set by site and/or district
leadership
73.13 26.00
Learning as the Fundamental Purpose. M SD
Make resource allocation decisions that provide the
greatest benefit to student achievement outcomes.

75.37 24.65
Develop clarity among all team members regarding
the essential learning outcomes that all students are
expected to achieve.
76.58 24.14
Provide students with additional time and support
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
70.28 25.99
Provide students with enrichment opportunities
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
70.18 26.01
Use data to measure the impact of interventions. 75.52 25.65
Culture of Collaboration. M SD
Make use of available time to hold productive
collaboration meetings.
73.77 25.43

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

226

Appendix H (continued)

Table H4 (continued)

Tri-Level Competency Questions, Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=281)

Collaborate interdependently to gather, analyze
and determine best practices and transfer best
practices across all team members.
74.16 24.56
Focus on Results. M SD
Use common assessment data to identify needs for
intervention and enrichment.
75.27 24.66
Identify strengths and weaknesses in our collective
and individual practice as part of an ongoing cycle
of improvement.
73.38 25.01
Note. Items are ranked in ascending order within each characteristic.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

227

Appendix H (continued)
Table H5
Tri-Level Competency Overall Mean and Standard Deviation (SD)
Competency Grand Mean SD
Competency #2 Defined Autonomy 57.43 28.93
Competency #3 Resource Allocation 62.62 26.83
Competency #1 Capacity Building 62.76 27.75
Competency #4 Building collective knowledge regarding essential
learning outcomes
64.48 26.91
Competency #12 Using assessment data to identify strengths and
weaknesses in individual and collective teaching as
part of a continuous improvement cycle
67.64 28.39
Competency #11 Using common assessment data to identify needs for
intervention and enrichment
67.82 27.02
Competency #5 Developing and deploying an assessment and
monitoring system
68.49 26.93
Competency #7 Evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in
producing the essential learning outcomes
68.85 25.65
Competency #9: Collaborative teams work interdependently to gather
analyze and determine best practices and transfer
best practices across all team members
68.92 26.81
Competency #8 Collaborative teams are given time to meet 70.34 27.61
Collective Efficacy Collective Team Efficacy 73.28 25.15
Competency #10 Shared belief that they can organize and execute a
course of action that positively impacts achievement
74.03 26.12
Competency #6 Developing timely, directive, systematic
interventions for remediation and enrichment
74.31 24.31
Note. The 12 competencies were ranked by ascending order of their grand mean.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

228

Appendix H (continued)
Table H6
Overall Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of Tri-Level Competency Questions Organized by
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization

Knowledge Mean SD
My team has been given the responsibility and authority for
determining how to meet the goals set by central office.
57.58 29.41
My team knows how to develop high quality assessments that
produce useful data about whether students have met essential
learning outcomes.
62.85 27.58
My team knows how to engage in team learning activities that
raise our capacity to achieve the outcomes for which we are
accountable.
64.13 26.28
My team knows how to collect various data to determine how
effective a particular intervention has been.
64.59 27.61
My team knows how to prioritize resources that benefit student
achievement outcomes.
66.90 26.26
My team members know the specific knowledge and skills
required for our team to achieve the outcomes for which we are
accountable.
67.37 25.49
My team knows how to connect students with interventions for
remediation and enrichment when there is a demonstrated
need.
67.40 26.79
My team understands that there are inherent tensions
embedded in the collaborative process but we implement
strategies to overcome these interpersonal challenges.
69.36 26.25
My team analyzes student achievement data in order to identify
instructional strengths and weaknesses as part of ongoing
improvement.
69.79 27.95
My team works together to gather, analyze, and implement
best practices.
69.86 26.78
My team knows how to use a data management system (e.g.
DataDirector) to store, analyze and communicate assessment
data.
70.07 25.55
Members of my team know how to organize and execute a
course of action to positively impact student achievement.
71.14 25.15
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

229

Appendix H (continued)
Table H6 (continued)
My team has clarity about the essential learning outcomes that all
students are expected to achieve.
71.42 26.38
My team knows how to use common assessment data to refer
students for interventions for remediation and enrichment.
71.67 26.22
My team knows how to establish the tasks and purposes for working
together.
71.74 25.86
My team knows how to identify proficient and advanced students in
need of enrichment opportunities.
78.58 23.68
My team knows how to identify struggling students in need of
remediation.
78.97 23.25
Motivation Mean SD
My team respectfully addresses group tension when working
collaboratively to gather, analyze and transfer best practices across all
team members.
66.83 27.63
My team values being given the responsibility and authority for
determining how to meet district goals.
69.22 28.02
My team values comparing assessment results and sharing
instructional strategies to identify strengths and weaknesses in
individual and collective teaching.
69.50 27.01
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole, can
do the following: Identify specific knowledge and skill deficits that
inhibit our team from achieving the outcomes for which we are
accountable.
70.07 23.92
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole can
do the following: Provide students with enrichment opportunities
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
70.18 26.01
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole can
do the following: Provide students with additional time and support
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
70.28 25.99
My team is committed to developing our professional knowledge and
skills so that we can achieve the outcomes for which we are
accountable.
70.64 26.50
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole, can
do the following: Agree to be held accountable to clear, non-
negotiable goals for learning and instruction set by site and/or district
leadership.
71.49 26.50
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

230

Appendix H (continued)
Table H6 (continued)
My team values having access to a data management system that can
communicate to all team members the extent to which students are
achieving essential learning outcomes.
72.67 26.76
It is important to my team to make all members feel that their
contribution is vital to our success.
72.81 29.04
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole, can
do the following: Accept and carry out the responsibility and authority
for determining how to meet the clear, non-negotiable goals set by site
and/or district leadership.
73.13 26.00
How certain, working together as a whole, can your team: Identify
strengths and weaknesses in our collective and individual practice as
part of an ongoing cycle of improvement.
73.38 25.01
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole, can
do the following: Engage ourselves in knowledge- and skill-building
activities that raise our team’s capacity to achieve the outcomes for
which we are accountable.
73.45 24.46
My team values feedback from colleagues when identifying and
implementing best practices.
73.70 25.13
How certain, working together as a whole, can your team: Make use of
available time to hold productive collaboration meetings.
73.77 25.43
How certain, working together as a whole, can your team: Collaborate
interdependently to gather, analyze and determine best practices and
transfer best practices across all team members.
74.16 24.56
Using common assessment data to refer students for interventions for
remediation and enrichment is important to my team.
74.52 25.39
My team makes a concerted effort to connect students with
interventions for remediation and enrichment whenever there is a
demonstrated need.
74.59 26.20
How certain, working together as a whole, can your team: Use
common assessment data to identify needs for intervention and
enrichment.
75.27 24.66
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole can
do the following: Make resource allocation decisions that provide the
greatest benefit to student achievement outcomes.
75.37 24.65
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

231

Appendix H (continued)
Table H6 (continued)
My team is committed to the belief that, working collectively, we have
the ability to produce the student achievement results we truly desire.
75.41 25.92
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole can
do the following: Use data to measure the impact of interventions.
75.52 25.65
My team believes that all members of our team play an essential role
in positively impacting student achievement.
76.33 26.37
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole can
do the following: Develop clarity among all team members regarding
the essential learning outcomes that all students are expected to
achieve.
76.58 24.14
My team values the time we spend together collaborating. 77.12 26.42
It is important that my team can make decisions about how to spend
allocated resources that provide the greatest benefit to student
achievement outcomes.
81.00 24.46
It is important for my team to develop clarity about the essential
learning outcomes that all students are expected to achieve.
82.74 23.38
It is important to use data to determine how effective an intervention
has been.
85.59 19.62
It is important that students are provided with interventions for
remediation and enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need.
91.32 17.24
Organization Mean SD
Resource allocation criteria are consistently applied and managed. 49.89 27.55
My team is provided the necessary time to learn and grow
professionally.
50.32 30.44
Intentional communication occurs between central office and school
sites regarding clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction.
50.39 29.69
My team is provided with the time to develop clarity about the
essential learning outcomes that all students are expected to achieve.

50.71 29.80
My team is provided the necessary resources to learn and grow
professionally.
51.32 28.72

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

232

Appendix H (continued)
Table H6 (continued)
Central office sets clear goals and expectations for site performance. 52.53 28.62
Intentional communication occurs between central office and school
sites regarding clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction.
52.70 29.05
My team is provided with processes and resources that enable us to
develop clarity about the essential learning outcomes that all students
are expected to achieve.
53.02 28.08
My team is provided the systems, processes and/or resources
necessary to provide students with interventions for remediation and
enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need.
55.02 28.70
Protocols, models, and/or other resources for determining the
effectiveness of interventions, have been available to my team.
56.37 29.73
My team uses a systematic, collaborative process to develop common
assessments that are aligned with essential learning outcomes.
60.25 28.13
My team is provided structured opportunities to develop the clear
actionable steps (i.e., action plans) necessary to produce the student
achievement results we truly desire.
61.67 28.84
Administration supports and facilitates collaboration time through
helpful scheduling arrangements.
62.17 30.54
My team is provided an environment where we can safely share and
examine strengths and weaknesses in individual and collective
teaching.
63.63 30.20
My team consistently uses norms and protocols for working
collaboratively to gather, analyze, and transfer best practices across all
team members.
64.84 28.29
My team has specific protocols and processes for analyzing common
assessment data.
64.84 28.32
My team has access to a data management system that communicates
to all stakeholders the extent to which students are achieving essential
learning outcomes.
68.36 27.83
School culture fosters the notion that, working collectively, we have
the ability to produce the student achievement results we truly desire.
73.24 27.04
Note. These items were ranked by ascending order.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

233

Appendix H (continued)
Table H7
Tri-Level Overall Means and Standard Deviations (SD) of Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organization
Overall Mean SD
Knowledge 69.02 21.40
Motivation 74.71 20.05
Organization 57.85 22.43

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

234

Appendix I

School Site Administrator Data (n=34)
Table I1
Site Administrator Demographic Characteristics of Sample
Characteristic n (%)
Gender
Male 11 32.4
Female 23 67.6
Totals 34 100.0
Age
29-34 1 2.9
35-40 5 14.7
41-46 9 26.5
47-52 11 32.4
53-58 5 14.7
59 or older 3 8.8
Totals 34 100.0
Ethnicity
Caucasian 15 44.1
African American 8 23.5
Hispanic 9 18.5
Multiracial 2 5.9
Totals 34 100.0
Highest level of education attained
Some master’s work 1 2.9
Master’s degree 20 58.8
Some doctoral work 7 20.6
Doctoral degree 6 17.6
Totals 34 100.0

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

235

Appendix I (continued)
Table I2
Site Administrator Demographics of Current Work Setting
Characteristic n (%)
Current position
Assistant principal 10 29.4
Elementary principal 15 44.1
Secondary principal 9 26.5
Totals 34 100.0
Years served in current position
1-5 18 52.9
6-10 9 26.5
11-15 4 11.8
16-20 2 5.9
21-25 1 2.9
Totals 34 100.0
Current work setting
Preschool 1 2.9
K-5 elementary 15 44.1
K-8 span school 3 8.8
6-8 middle school 3 8.8
6-12 span school 6 17.6
9-12 high school 5 14.7
Alternative school 1 2.9
Totals 34 100.0
Years served at current work setting
1-5 18 52.9
6-10 5 14.7
11-15 6 17.6
16-20 5 14.7
Totals 34 100.0
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

236

Appendix I (continued)
Table I3
Site Administrator Models of collaboration
Characteristic n (%)
Training on particular models of collaboration
Professional learning communities 22 64.7
Communities of practice 4 11.8
Other 2 5.9
No 6 17.6
Totals 34 100.0
Implementation of a particular model of collaboration
Professional learning communities 19 55.9
Communities of practice 1 2.9
Purposeful communities 3 8.8
Other 5 14.7
No 6 17.6
Totals 34 100.0
Number of collaborative teams
One team 5 14.7
Two teams 6 17.6
Three teams 20 58.8
Do not belong to team 3 8.8
Totals 34 100.0
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

237

Appendix I (continued)
Table I4
Site Administrator Competency Questions, Means (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=34)
Competency #1 M SD
My team members know the specific knowledge and skills
required for our team to achieve the outcomes for which we
are accountable.
67.65 15.39
My team knows how to engage in team learning activities
that raise our capacity to achieve the outcomes for which
we are accountable.
68.82 17.01
It is important to my team to make all members feel that
their contribution is vital to our success.
80.88 16.58
My team is committed to developing our professional
knowledge and skills so that we can achieve the outcomes
for which we are accountable.
78.24 16.78
My team is provided the necessary time to learn and grow
professionally.
60.00 20.60
My team is provided the necessary resources to learn and
grow professionally.
60.88 20.50
Competency #2 M SD
My team has been given the responsibility and authority for
determining how to meet the goals set by central office.
71.76 18.66
My team values being given the responsibility and authority
for determining how to meet district goals.
78.24 17.49
Intentional communication occurs between central office
and school sites regarding clear, non-negotiable goals for
learning and instruction.
60.29 26.11
Central office sets clear goals and expectations for site
performance.
66.18 22.16
Competency #3 M SD
My team knows how to prioritize resources that benefit
student achievement outcomes.
77.35 16.20
It is important that my team can make decisions about how
to spend allocated resources that provide the greatest benefit
to student achievement outcomes.
87.06 15.28

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

238

Appendix I (continued)
Intentional communication occurs between central office
and school sites regarding clear, non-negotiable learning
and instruction.
66.18 24.12
Resource allocation criteria are consistently applied and
managed.
66.47 23.60
Competency #4 M SD
My team has clarity about the essential learning outcomes
that all students are expected to achieve.
80.59 17.22
It is important for my team to develop clarity about the
essential learning outcomes that all students are expected to
achieve.
90.59 10.43
My team is provided with the time to develop clarity about
the essential learning outcomes that all students are
expected to achieve.
60.59 18.08
My team is provided with processes and resources that
enable us to develop clarity about the essential learning
outcomes that all students are expected to achieve.
66.76 17.18
Competency #5 M SD
My team knows how to develop high quality assessments
that produce useful data about whether students have met
essential learning outcomes.
67.06 22.36
My team knows how to use a data management system (e.g.
DataDirector) to store, analyze and communicate
assessment data.
76.76 15.90
My team values having access to a data management system
that can communicate to all team members the extent to
which students are achieving essential learning outcomes.
79.71 18.34
My team has access to a data management system that
communicates to all stakeholders the extent to which
students are achieving essential learning outcomes.
76.18 21.88
Competency #6 M SD
My team knows how to identify struggling students in need
of remediation.
81.47 17.26
My team knows how to identify proficient and advanced
students in need of enrichment opportunities.
82.94 14.88
My team knows how to connect students with interventions
for remediation and enrichment when there is a
demonstrated need.
70.88 21.23
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

239

Appendix I (continued)
It is important that students are provided with interventions
for remediation and enrichment whenever there is a
demonstrated need.
95.00 8.96
My team makes a concerted effort to connect students with
interventions for remediation and enrichment whenever
there is a demonstrated need.
79.12 19.60
My team is provided the systems, processes and/or
resources necessary to provide students with interventions
for remediation and enrichment whenever there is a
demonstrated need.
65.00 19.11
Competency #7 M SD
My team knows how to collect various data to determine
how effective a particular intervention has been.
70.59 18.58
It is important to use data to determine how effective an
intervention has been.
94.41 10.21
Protocols, models, and/or other resources for determining
the effectiveness of interventions, have been made available
to my team.
70.88 20.94
Competency #8 M SD
My team knows how to establish the tasks and purposes for
working together.
78.53 18.11
My team values the time we spend together collaborating. 82.65 18.31
Administration supports and facilitates collaboration time
through helpful scheduling arrangements.
77.65 19.24
Competency #9 M SD
My team works together to gather, analyze, and implement
best practices.
75.59 16.18
My team understands that there are inherent tensions
embedded in the collaborative process but we implement
strategies to overcome these interpersonal challenges.
72.65 16.75
My team values feedback from colleagues when identifying
and implementing best practices.
78.53 15.00
My team respectfully addresses group tension when
working collaboratively to gather, analyze and transfer best
practices across all team members.
70.00 17.75

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

240

Appendix I (continued)
My team consistently uses norms and protocols for working
collaboratively to gather, analyze, and transfer best practices
across all team members.
70.59 19.22
Competency #10 M SD
Members of my team know how to organize and execute a
course of action to positively impact student achievement.
74.41 18.62
My team is provided structured opportunities to develop the
clear actionable steps (i.e., action plans) necessary to
produce the student achievement results we truly desire.
75.00 14.20
My team is committed to the belief that, working
collectively, we have the ability to produce the student
achievement results we truly desire.
82.65 15.82
My team believes that all members of our team play an
essential role in positively impacting student achievement.
83.24 17.01
School culture fosters the notion that, working collectively,
we have the ability to produce the student achievement
results we truly desire.
82.35 14.78
Competency #11 M SD
My team knows how to use common assessment data to
refer students for interventions for remediation and
enrichment.
72.65 19.90
Using common assessment data to refer students for
interventions for remediation and enrichment is important to
my team.
78.82 17.19
My team has specific protocols and processes for analyzing
common assessment data.
73.82 18.43
My team uses a systematic, collaborative process to develop
common assessments that are aligned with essential learning
outcomes.
64.71 21.49
Competency #12 M SD
My team analyzes student achievement data in order to
identify instructional strengths and weaknesses as part of
ongoing improvement.
73.24 21.28
My team values comparing assessment results and sharing
instructional strategies to identify strengths and weaknesses
in individual and collective teaching.
72.94 22.23

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

241

Appendix I (continued)
My team is provided an environment where we can safely
share and examine strengths and weaknesses in individual
and collective teaching.
73.82 19.54
Note. Items were ranked by ascending order within each competency.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

242

Appendix I (continued)
Collective Team Efficacy
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole, can do the following:
Supportive and Shared Leadership. M SD
Identify the specific knowledge and skill deficits that
inhibit our team from achieving the outcomes for which
we are accountable.
70.59 17.74
Engage ourselves in knowledge- and skill-building
activities that raise our team’s capacity to achieve the
outcomes for which we are accountable.
76.76 18.21
Agree to be held accountable to clear, non-negotiable
goals for learning and instruction set by site and/or district
leadership.
78.53 17.94
Accept and carry out the responsibility and authority for
determining how to meet the clear, non-negotiable goals
set by site and/or district leadership
77.06 18.01
Learning as the Fundamental Purpose.

M SD
Make resource allocation decisions that provide the
greatest benefit to student achievement outcomes.
81.47 17.08
Develop clarity among all team members regarding the
essential learning outcomes that all students are expected
to achieve.
80.29 15.27
Provide students with additional time and support
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
76.76 18.38
Provide students with enrichment opportunities whenever
there is a demonstrated need.
77.35 15.43
Use data to measure the impact of interventions. 80.29 20.37
Culture of Collaboration. M SD
Make use of available time to hold productive
collaboration meetings.
77.35 17.29
Collaborate interdependently to gather, analyze and
determine best practices and transfer best practices across
all team members.
Focus on Results. M SD
Use common assessment data to identify needs for
intervention and enrichment.
78.24 19.30
Identify strengths and weaknesses in our collective and
individual practice as part of an ongoing cycle of
improvement.
75.00 20.49
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

243

Appendix I (continued)
Table I5
Site Administrator Competency Overall Mean
Competency Grand Mean SD
Competency #2 Defined Autonomy 69.12 21.11
Competency #1 Capacity Building 69.41 17.81
Competency #11 Using common assessment data to identify needs for
intervention & enrichment
72.50 19.25
Competency #12 Using assessment data to identify strengths &
weaknesses in individual and collective teaching as
part of a continuous cycle
73.33 21.02
Competency #9 Collaborative teams work interdependently to
gather, analyze and determine best practices and
transfer best practices across all team members
73.47 16.98
Competency #3 Resource allocation 74.26 19.80
Competency #4 Building collective knowledge regarding essential
learning outcomes
74.63 15.73
Competency #5 Developing & deploying an assessment &
monitoring system
74.93 19.62
Collective Efficacy Supportive and shared leadership, learning as the
fundamental purpose, culture of collaboration,
collective efficacy, focus on results
77.26 17.95
Competency #7 Evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in
producing the essential learning outcomes
78.63 16.58
Competency #6 Developing timely, directive, systematic
interventions for remediation and enrichment
79.07 16.84
Competency #10 Shared belief that they can organize and execute a
course of action that positively impacts achievement
79.53 16.09
Competency #8 Collaborative teams are given time to meet 79.61 18.55
Note. Items are ranked in ascending order.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

244

Appendix J
Tri-Level Competency Means: District Administrators, Site Administrators, and Teachers

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

245

Appendix K
Common Tri-Level Causes
Validated high-priority causes in knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors at the Teacher, School
Site Administrator, and Central Office Administrator levels. Shaded cells indicate causes that were validated
and deemed high-priority at more than one level.
Teachers School Site Administrators Central Office
Administrators
Knowledge
and Skills
• Team knows how to use data
management system
• Knowledge and skill to
create high quality
assessments
• Knowledge and skill to
create high quality
assessments
• Knowledge and skill to create
high quality assessments
• Responsibility and authority
to meet goals

• Identify essential learning
outcomes

Motivation
• Respectfully address
group tesnsion
• Respectfully address
group tesnsion

• Identify deficits
inhibiting essential
learning outcomes
• Identify deficits inhibiting
essential learning outcomes

• Team values responsibility
& authority to meet goals

Organizational Factors
• Time for professional
development
• Time for professional
development

• Intentional
communication
• Intentional
communication

• *Intentional Communication
• Time to clarify outcomes
for students
• Time to clarify outcomes
for students
• Time to clarify outcomes for
students
• Resource allocation criteria
consistently applied and
managed

• Provide students with
enrichment opportunities as
needed
• Necessary resources to
learn and grow
professionally

• Provided processes & reources
to develop clarity about
essential learning goals
• Uses systematic, collaborative
process to develop common
assessment
Note. * = Not in top 4, but considered an important organizational cause.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Using the Gap Analysis problem-solving framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), this project examined collaboration around student achievement at the school site leadership level in the Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD). This project is one of three concurrent studies focused on collaboration around student achievement in the PUSD that include the teacher level conducted by Carruthers (2013) and the central office administrator level conducted by Llamas (2013). The primary purpose of this project was to identify the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational challenges that contribute to PUSD's gap in accomplishing its organizational goal for collaboration around student achievement from the perspective of the school site leadership. Mixed methods were used to collect survey data from 34 participants and interview data for four participants to identify and validate the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization root causes that may contribute to the PUSD's school site administrator role in achieving the District's goal. Findings show that in general school site administrators are highly motivated and have the necessary knowledge and skills to meet the goals of the district but are impeded by issues related to resources specifically time for professional development, creation of job aids, assessments, and intentional communication to encourage collaboration across the district. Based on the findings, solutions are offered to address these challenges. This project, along with its concurrent studies, demonstrates how various stakeholders can systematically apply the Gap Analysis framework to address performance issues when implementing district-wide collaboration around student academic achievement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: central office leadership factors

PDF

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: teacher factors

PDF

Improving student achievement at a restructured high school academy of health sciences using an innovation gap analysis approach

PDF

A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English learners in literacy at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model

PDF

A capstone gap analysis project of English learners' achievement at a suburban high schol: a focus on teacher collaboration and cultural competence

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

Addressing the challenges for teachers of English learners in a California elementary school using the gap analysis approach

PDF

The impact of elementary school leadership on student achievement: a gap analysis

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on school support and school counseling resources

PDF

Increasing parent involvement at the high school level using the gap analysis framework

PDF

Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: addressing the performance gap at two high schools

PDF

A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English language learners at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model

PDF

A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of english language learners at sunshine elementary school using the gap analysis model

PDF

The use of gap analysis to increase student completion rates at Travelor Adult School

PDF

Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: making two high schools highly effective

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on college affordability and student grades

PDF

The implementation of a multi-tiered system of support in Downtown Unified School District: an analysis of site administrator needs

PDF

Increasing student performance on the Independent School Entrance Exam (ISEE) using the Gap Analysis approach

PDF

An alternative capstone project: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school

PDF

An application of Clark and Estes' (2002) gap analysis model: closing knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that prevent Glendale Unified School District students from accessing four-yea...

Asset Metadata

Creator Salinas, Esther Charlotte (author)

Core Title An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: School site leadership factors

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/23/2013

Defense Date 03/07/2013

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

Tag collaboration,collaborative learning communities,gap analysis,OAI-PMH Harvest,school site leadership

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Yates, Kenneth A. (committee chair), McDonald, Brian (committee member), Rueda, Robert (committee member)

Creator Email esalinas@usc.edu,esther.c.salinas@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-241919

Unique identifier UC11292842

Identifier etd-SalinasEst-1577.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-241919 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SalinasEst-1577.pdf

Dmrecord 241919

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Salinas, Esther Charlotte

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