University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Keeping principals at the top of the class: an innovation study of principal leadership, self-efficacy, and the pursuit of leadership development

(USC Thesis Other)

Keeping principals at the top of the class: an innovation study of principal leadership, self-efficacy, and the pursuit of leadership development

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

1

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS: AN INNOV ATION STUDY OF
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP, SELF-EFFICACY , AND THE PURSUIT OF LEADERSHIP
DEVELOPMENT

by

Mary Beth Kropp

________________________________________________________________________

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 2018

Copyright 2018 Mary Beth Kropp

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

2
DEDICATION
“Success comes from knowing that you did your best to become the
best you are capable of becoming.”
— John Wooden
I’ve waited three years to write this section and it is with great joy and personal
satisfaction that I do. I dedicate this work to my husband and two wonderful boys who were my
constant encouragers and supporters. Michael, you pushed me to do something for me because
you knew I needed something of my own. Michael Jr. and Alex, you both helped me navigate
college life again and motivated me to chase my dream.
Our family has always been focused on success and your successes motivated me to
succeed in this endeavor. I hope that you constantly believe that you are worth every ounce of
success you work towards every day. I am so proud to be your wife and your mom. Thank you
for being my role models, my source of strength, and my inspiration.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
When we began this journey, we were warned that we would miss birthday parties,
family events, and lots of date nights. This was truth. Pulling ‘all-nighters’ at this age is not
natural, yet I did it for the love of learning. I want to first acknowledge all my family and friends
who stuck through it all and even pitched in when I needed just a little extra. Your constant
encouragement and support never went unnoticed or appreciated. Thank you Kiely, Karen,
Micki, Pauline, Debbie, Zoraida, Mary, Tara, Lisa, Mom and Dad. You did more than you
needed to do, and for that, I am forever grateful.
To the Saturday Warriors — we did it. Committed to the work as a team, we finished as a
team in true #NoDoctorsDown2018! Style. Our diversity in professions was never a struggle in
our collective learning. Saturdays will never be the same. Once strangers, now family, I am so
very blessed to live the in the honor of your friendships. LisaRae Jones, Joelle Hood, Susan
Salcido, Laurence Akiyoshi, Wayne Pulgia, Regan Patrick, and Bob Nelson, through thick and
thin, we crossed the line together. It is my privilege to call you all Doctors and friends.
As it goes with acknowledgements we should never hesitate to mention those who make
learning on this level possible. I want to thank the faculty at Rossier School of Education.
While I never knew many of them well, there some exceptional professors that have guided this
journey. As a new program emerged at USC, Cohort 3 was there to test the waters. We are
benefactors of your vision on Organizational Change and Leadership.
I won the lottery with a committee chair like Dr. Monique Datta. Your guidance,
wisdom, wit, and passion for a great glass of wine has set the bar high. You truly had an interest
in helping me meet every deadline, working as smart as I could, and keep my eye on the light at
the end of the tunnel. You are a gem in the world of passionate teachers and leaders.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

4
To Dr. Lawrence Picus, as my second committee member, I appreciated you support and
mastermind in the world of inquiry.
To Dr. Jenifer Crawford, this might not have even happened if it was not for you. Your
keen sense of responsibility and compassion convinced me I was worth the fight to gain the
upper hand on my insecurities and to persevere.
To Dr. Maria Ott, if only I could have worked for a leader like you! When I struggled to
make sense of the environment I was in, your insight helped me truly understand what school
leaders need to do. I dedicate my leadership philosophy to you as you helped me find my
leadership voice.
Finally, for my local support team — Dr. Steve Winlock and Kristen Coyle. It has been
my pleasure working with you. Your vision, understanding, and commitment to the world of
school leadership is second to none. Thank you for always supporting my effort and my voice.
Dr. Winlock, special thanks to you for believing in me. It was always my privilege to work with
you. Your professional guidance has been second to none. I hope this project in some small way
contributes to your success leading the Leadership Institute.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 9
Abstract 10
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Problem of Practice 11
The Role of the Principal 12
Standards for Success 13
Organizational Context and Mission 14
Organizational Performance Status/Need 14
Related Literature 15
Importance of the Organizational Innovation 19
Organizational Performance Goal 21
Description of Stakeholder Groups 22
Stakeholder Groups' Performance Goals 23
Stakeholder Group for the Study 24
Purpose of the Project and Questions 24
Methodological Framework 25
Definitions 26
Organization of the Dissertation 27
Chapter 2: A Review of the Literature 29
History and Impact of Principalship 29
Learning for Leadership 34
Summary of General Literature 39
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences 39
Conclusion 60
Chapter 3: Methodology 61
Purpose of the Project 61
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and 62
Motivation in the Organizational Context
Methodological Framework 66
Assessment of Performance Influences 68
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection 78
Data Collection and Instrumentation 82
Data Analysis 85
Validity and Reliability 87
Credibility and Trustworthiness 87
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

6
Role of the Investigator 89
Ethics 89
Chapter 4: Results and Findings 91
Demographics of Respondents 92
Results and Findings for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Gaps 95
Summary 124
Chapter 5: Solutions, Implementation, and Evaluation Plan 126
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 126
Confirmed Influences 140
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 145
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 164
Limitations and Delimitations 165
Future Research 166
Conclusion 168
References 170
Appendices 186
Appendix A: School Leaders Support Survey 186
Appendix B: Interview Permission and Protocol 193
Appendix C: Sample Communities of Practice and Coaching Evaluation 196
Appendix D: Lead Site Leader ExCEL Program 199
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals 23
Table 2. Pedagogy and Andragogy 35
Table 3. Knowledge Influences and Assessment 47
Table 4. Motivational Influences and Assessment 53
Table 5. Organizational Cultural Models and Settings 59
Table 6. Sources of Assumed Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences 69
Table 7. Knowledge Assessment 71
Table 8. Motivation Assessment 74
Table 9. Organizational Influences Assessment 75
Table 10. Summary of KMO Influences 96
Table 11. Results of Attributions Survey Questions 105
Table 12. Principals' Sense of Efficacy Scale - Efficacy for Instructional Leadership 108
Table 13. Principal's Sense of Efficacy Scale - Efficacy for Moral Leadership 110
Table 14. Principal's Sense of Efficacy Scale - Efficacy for Management 111
Table 15. Principal's Sense of Efficacy Scale Results 112
Table 16. Summary of Adult Learning Style Opportunities Offered 119
Table 17. Summary of Influence Validation 125
Table 18. Summary of Validated Influences 127
Table 19. Summary of Knowledge Influence and Recommendation 129
Table 20. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 132
Table 21. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 136
Table 22. Summary of Confirmed Influences, Principles, Citations, and Recommended 141
Practices
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

8
Table 23. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 147
Table 24. Level 3 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Site Leaders 149
Table 25. Level 3 Required Drivers to Support Site Leaders' Critical Behaviors 150
Table 26. Components of Learning for the Program 156
Table 27. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 159
Table 28. Possible Key Performance Indicators 161

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences gap analysis 26
framework
Figure 2. The interaction of stakeholder's knowledge and motivation in the 65
organizational context
Figure 3. Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences gap analysis 66
framework
Figure 4. Explanatory sequential mixed methods design 83
Figure 5. Survey completion rate 93
Figure 6. Total years of leadership experience 93
Figure 7. Total years at current site 94
Figure 8. Interview respondents' years of leadership experience at current site 95
Figure 9. Rank order and mean of preferences for professional learning activities 120
Figure 10. Possible dashboard data point, sample 1 163
Figure 11. Possible dashboard data point, sample 2 163

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

10
ABSTRACT
School site leaders historically have experienced high levels of burnout and turnover. Principals
cite long work hours, increased responsibilities with local, state, and federal accountability,
increased stress and low pay as a few of the reasons jobs are abandoned within the first five
years. LEAD currently provides professional learning for aspiring and beginning site leaders,
but no formal process exists for veteran leaders. Using a gap analysis framework, this research
study sought to understand the relationship between professional learning opportunities aligned
to the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders and veteran principals’ sense of
efficacy. Using an explanatory sequential mixed method research, participants from LEAD’s
programs were surveyed and interviewed to determine the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational barriers that support their participation in ongoing professional learning.
Furthermore, how a principal learns was also explored through questions related to professional
learning and adult learning theory. The summary and recommendations derived will guide
LEAD in establishing an ongoing professional learning framework for veteran site leaders.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

11
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM OF PRACTICE
A growing number of research studies about effective schools confirm that quality school
leadership is the second most influential factor impacting student success in the United States
(Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson,
2010; Manna, 2015; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Simkin, Charner, & Suss, 2010). A
conflict arises when principals are often not at a school long enough to experience the benefit of
their leadership. Annually, 27% of schools change leaders and the rate is higher in schools with
a high percentage of students of poverty. The average tenure of a school principal is three to four
years (Hull, 2012). If principal leadership has a strong influence on school reform, yet almost
one-third of leaders leave each year, how can this be good for students? This study examines the
roles that leadership development and principals’ sense of efficacy play to inspire principals to
remain in a leadership position at a school site long enough to maximize their influence on
student achievement in our nation’s schools.
For the first time in 2001, the U.S. Department of Education included principal
effectiveness as a key component in reform efforts when No Child Left Behind became law (U.S.
Department of Education [USDE], 2015). Empirical data provided by Leithwood et al. (2004)
confirmed that school leadership impacted students by showing increased academic success in
schools that had stable, positive leadership. Philanthropists such as Bill Gates and educational
foundations like the Wallace Foundation (wallacefoundation.org) and the Bush Foundation
(bushcenter.org) invest thousands of hours and dollars into research to pinpoint the impact of
educational leaders and have conclusively determined that school leadership development is a
pivotal component in school reform efforts (Leana, 2011).
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

12
When President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) into law in 2015,
funds designated for training and developing site leaders were included for the first time,
positioning districts to create specific plans to support principals. ESSA established a framework
for school leadership training based on research-based practices and provided opportunities for
federal funding to improve the quality of school leadership. With the research, and now potential
funding behind it, it is evident principal leadership matters to student success.
The Role of the Principal
The principal’s role has been scrutinized, criticized, celebrated, and admired based on the
failure or success of a school (Alvoid & Black, 2014; Feuerborn, Tyre, & King, 2015; Usdan,
McCloud, & Podmostko, 2000). The quality of school leadership influences student
performance, teacher development, and employee retention both negatively and positively
(Branch, Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2009; Leithwood et al., 2004; Loeb, Kalogrides, & Béteille, 2012;
Miller, A., 2013). As important as a principal is to a school, the average tenure of a school
principal is three to four years, and even shorter at schools with high numbers of at-risk youth
(Hull, 2012). To complicate matters, research also suggests that it takes at least three years for a
principal to impact a school culture, making it difficult for principals with a short tenure to
impact the culture of a school (Béteille, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2012). These circumstances often
create a cycle of instability that further exasperates concerns centered around school leadership
(Rowland, 2017). Principals have a heavy weight on their shoulders. Many claim the job has
become too complicated and roles have shifted over the years contributing to a high level of
“burnout” and turnover. Up until the late 1980s, school leaders focused more on site
management, discipline, and public relations, but in the wake of public criticism and focus on
school success, principals feel the pressure of accountability layered into their daily tasks. Over
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

13
the past 30 years, their positions have evolved from site manager to political and instructional
leader, leaving many unprepared to assume every responsibility (Alvoid & Black, 2014).
Standards for Success
In 1996, the Council of Chief State Schools Officers (CCSSO) published their first set of
standards for leaders in reaction to research and the conditions identified to shift education to
meet the needs of the 21st century (Murphy & Shipman, 1999). The standards have been revised
several times, each time increasing in expectations and competencies for site leaders as roles are
becoming more defined. In 2015, the latest version of the standards was released and had
expanded to include clearly defined expectations for school leaders and to pinpoint the
challenges and demands of 21st-century learning. These challenges and demands include the
implementation of Common Core State Standards, college and career readiness standards, and
social-emotional learning expectations. The new standards, now called the Professional
Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL), are considered the foundation of school leadership.
The PSEL are researched-based best practices the exemplify effective leadership. These
standards have been included in ESSA’s recommendations for leadership development for all
school leaders (Herman, Gates, Chavez-Herrerias, & Harris, 2016; Murphy, 2005; Murphy, Yff,
& Shipman, 2000). The PSEL were developed, in part, to guide how new school leaders are
trained, but also to guide the work of all school leaders. Site leaders who received positions
prior to the adoption of professional standards may not have received any formal training about
them but must demonstrate competency in these skills with little or no information about them.
Site leaders must balance site needs with district needs, but site priorities are often
forestalled for district-wide initiatives. When new initiatives are implemented, leaders are often
directed to change course or steer in a new direction, while still maintaining the flow of the work
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

14
at the site focused on their individual and unique campus needs (Zepeda, Parylo, & Bengtson,
2014). To do this efficiently, principals need to build their own skills in their own way to
increase their own capacity (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008).
Organizational Context and Mission
The organization chosen for this study serves school districts in Northern California. It is
an entity of LEAD EX (pseudonym). LEAD EX manages programs that directly impact more
than 240,000 students and provides training and support to a 10-county region that makes up the
service area for LEAD. Currently, the region is home to 882 administrators serving students
from PK-12th grade (California Department of Education [CDE], 2016a). LEAD was
established in 2009 to support the growing need for training and certification of site leaders.
LEAD’s mission is to prepare and support school leaders. Their guiding principle is to support
high-quality leadership for students, teachers, schools, and districts.
Organizational Performance Status/Need
LEAD has established training and certification for school leaders that is recognized by
the State of California to satisfy credentialing requirements for preliminary and clear
administrative service credentials. LEAD’s framework uses the California Professional
Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSEL), the California version of the PSEL. LEAD
enrolled its first group of 36 new and aspiring school leaders in 2010. As a result of their
participation, leaders completed the requirements necessary to receive a preliminary
administrative services credential through California’s Commission on Teacher Credentialing
(CTC). To date, over 400 participants have completed the program. In 2012, LEAD established
its Beginning Administrators Program as an opportunity for past participants to continue the
credentialing process to meet the requirements for a clear administrative services credential. To
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

15
participate in this program, candidates must have completed the preliminary services credential
program and received an assignment that requires an administrative service credential. At the
end of the two-year program, candidates are eligible for a Clear Administrative Services
Credential as issued by the CTC. To date, 85 candidates have completed the program, and 178
are currently enrolled. LEAD is interested in developing a framework for site leaders beyond
credentialing, not only for the service it would provide for its districts, but to support the
increasing need for leadership development as outlined in ESSA. Currently, no formal program
exists, but LEAD set a target date of June 2018 to create a framework for a program. With the
success LEAD has experienced using the CPSEL as its foundation, they intend to infuse the
CPSEL into a framework for professional learning for veteran administrators.
A unique feature of LEAD is the cadre of veteran and retired principals that are used to
mentor and coach school leaders in their current programs, but training currently does not extend
past credentialing requirements. Other training and professional learning opportunities are
provided for participants in LEAD’s programs through the Professional Learning Division of
LEAD EX, but most training focuses on instructional practices and teacher development. A
limited scope of training focuses on on-going leadership development. To extend its range of
services, LEAD intended to develop and support research-based professional learning activities
for school leaders throughout their careers. Without this focus, LEAD could not fulfill its
mission to support school leaders long term.
Related Literature
According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS, 2015), more than
20,000 K-12th grade schools had new leaders in 2014. The USBLS (2015) indicated that of the
principals who left their schools in 2013, 38% retired, 30% changed their roles within education,
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

16
and 7% changed professions outside of the educational setting. Research indicates that up to
50% of all new principals leave the profession within three years, but it takes between three and
five years for a school to realize an impact of school leadership on student performance (Béteille
et al., 2012; Louis et al., 2010). School administrators play a critical role in student achievement,
yet many schools, especially those in impoverished areas, cannot maintain consistent leadership.
The statistics about principals have been widely known and reported in the education
circles for some time (Goldstein, 2001; Tracy & Weaver, 2000). In the mid-1990s, school
districts were faced with dreary statistics when the Educational Research Service (ERS)
determined that about 40% of the nation’s principals would resign, retire, or leave their positions
within ten years (Lovely, 2004). In addition, the United States’ population was on the rise and
the need for more schools was becoming a reality. Principals were aging and the pool of viable
candidates seemed to be insufficient to meet the needs and keep up with the demands. At least
two common areas of concern arose. The first notion was that the principalship had become too
overwhelming to attract new candidates. Principals report concerns for maintaining their
positions include:
• Long days and weeks often including 80-hour work weeks with night and weekend
activities that came with new initiatives and duties added without decreasing
responsibilities;
• Increasing responsibilities with government mandates, accountability measures, and
societal problems infringing on the school setting;
• Increased work-related stress associated with meeting and exceeding achievement
goals, balancing school funding issues, and encroachment of special education
responsibilities;
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

17
• Low salary and inadequate pay for the level of responsibilities placed on principals;
• Increased institutional interference with negotiated agreements, the inability to release
ineffective staff, and the bureaucratic structures that funneled down from the central
office that often left principals alone to uncover from increased initiatives,
accountability paperwork, and the inability to make decisions at the site level (Lovely,
2004).
Another theme suggested that the shortage of administrative candidates might not be a
shortage at all, but rather a disconnect in expectations between candidates and potential
employers (Roza, 2003). Most districts reported that they consistently did not have any trouble
finding candidates for administrative positions, but there was a significant gap between
candidates and expectations for those in leadership roles which may point to a problem with
principal preparation programs. Superintendents interviewed shared they consistently had
different expectations for their site leaders than their human resource departments (Roza, 2003).
In this case, the challenge in school leadership may not be as much about the candidates as it is
about the training they had before becoming a site leader and what equipped them to be
successful in their positions over the course of time.
Regardless of the theme, school officials were compelled to address this problem as
research about education reform began to target site leadership. School reform reports often
claim that the success of reform measures is often directly associated with school leadership
(Louis et al., 2010; Papa, 2007; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). A school principal’s
impact is measured in a variety of ways including student achievement; teacher hiring, support,
and retention; school climate; community relationships; and fiscal management (Papa, 2007).
When it comes to schools in areas that are difficult to staff, the quality of the leader is the
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

18
primary consideration for determining if teachers stay at a school (Béteille et al., 2012). When
effective principals are in place, teachers are more likely to stay, regardless of the working
conditions.
Researchers continue to point to the impact of school leaders as a tipping point for school
success (Doyle & Locke, 2014). Similarities surfaced that circled back to the concerns noted
from principals in the mid-1990s, as Doyle and Locke (2014) point to three aspects of principal
recruitment as roadblocks to successful schools: poor pay and grueling work, budget constraints,
and recruitment practices. The Wallace Foundation also released a report in 2012 listing five
essential aspects to consider related to school leadership:
• Careful selection and screening of potential candidates;
• Strong and consistent pre-service training that supports instructional leadership and
management;
• Increase principal training once assigned to positions;
• Influence the quality of leadership in conjunction with state government to ensure a
rigorous accreditation and principal certification process;
• Provide principals with high-quality mentoring and professional learning programs to
support ongoing needs of site leaders (Mitgang, 2012).
Two of the five aspects listed above point to pre-service training and careful selection,
but the remaining three points suggest that post-selection support and training are necessary
components in principal development and sustainability. In addition, it is critical that problems
associated with principal “burnout” be addressed to create a sustainable professional career path
for principals (Houle, 2006). Houle (2006) also points out that principals who participate in
professional development aimed at supporting district initiatives force principals to operate from
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

19
a deficit model rather than creating an environment for principals to explore their own learning
needs. The researcher argues that it is through these learning needs that professional capacity
can be examined and addressed.
Once ESSA professional learning provisions for site leaders were added to the current
legislation, school districts became more interested in providing quality of professional learning
for their principals. Funds are limited, so options should be considered carefully to provide
quality learning for their leaders. Principals do not often put their professional learning needs in
front of others. Previous funds set aside for professional learning have primarily targeted
teachers because they are in front of students, but with the distinction clear with new laws,
educational leaders have an opportunity to provide new opportunities for school leaders
(Prothero, 2015). Focusing on the learning styles of adults may help districts capitalize on the
professional support principals need that is self-directed and personalized (Zepeda et al., 2014).
Donaldson (2008) determined that school leaders learn best when their learning is focused on
what leaders feel is essential, self-directed, and reflective. Designing, supporting, and
implementing professional learning for principals based on Knowles’ theory of andragogy (adult
learning theory or ALT) should be the premise of principal development (Zepeda et al., 2014).
Importance of the Organizational Innovation
It is problematic to track the stability of the principalship across the entire region, but
many of the districts that LEAD serves have experienced tremendous turnover at the site leader
level. Four of the largest districts in LEAD’s service region report between 40% and 55%
turnover at schools since 2010, with the average tenure just over three years (Anonymous,
personal communication, September 10, 2016). Principals have retired, transferred, left the
district, left the profession, or moved to another position within the organization. These four
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

20
districts make up about 80% of LEAD’s region, impacting about 95,000 students and their
families. Every time the principal changes, students are disrupted. In 2010 researchers
determined that the impact of principal turnover was more significant than the impact of
curriculum, instruction, and school culture combined (Mascall & Leithwood, 2010).
Research shows that an effective school leader is imperative to school success so much
that educational foundations such as the Bush Institute (bushcenter.org), The Wallace Foundation
(wallacefoundation.org), and The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (gatesfoundation.org) are
focusing energy and research to determine the impact of the school leaders as an avenue to close
America’s achievement gap. For the first time in history, ESSA called out the need to train and
support school site leaders and dedicated money aimed explicitly at principal training. Current
research that indicates school leadership provides schools the stability necessary for students and
staff to feel safe. It is in these environments that students and staff alike can thrive (Herman et
al., 2016). It is essential to have a high-quality principal at every school to support the efforts of
teachers in the classroom and to ensure that every campus has a positive school climate and
culture for its students to learn.
To ensure that LEAD supported their clients by focusing on improving outcomes for
children, it became critical to expand their offerings of professional learning to include support
for school leaders well beyond the first few years of service. Supporting site leaders has become
a top priority of the educational agenda in the United States because failing to do so will
continue to put thousands of school children at risk of school failure and thousands of teachers in
search of new positions. The focus of this study was to determine how professional learning is
developed and how leaders are inspired to participate in furthering their professional growth.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

21
Organizational Performance Goal
As of January 2018, there are no long-term, formal programs to support school leaders
based on a leader’s personal and professional needs. Also, there is limited connection to any
support based on the principles of the CPSEL. Based on the literature and the need expressed by
districts within LEAD’s service area, LEAD has established an organizational goal to support
veteran school leaders: by January 2019, LEAD will implement a new professional learning
framework, guided by the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders, that will be
accessible to 100% of site leaders. LEAD will develop a framework that will target the
professional learning needs of school leaders within their service area. By addressing this
problem from an andragogical perspective, LEAD intends to inspire current leaders to participate
in self-directed, relevant leadership development aimed at strengthening their efficacy as a
school leader.
LEAD established this goal through discussions with members of its leadership team to
address a gap specific to the needs of veteran administrators. To attract and retain quality
leaders, LEAD recognized specific provisions that should be available to support them. By
considering retention rates, the costs of replacement, and the consequences of school instability,
LEAD recognized that providing leadership support is an opportunity to encourage leaders to
stay in their positions longer and with more success personally and professionally. This study
used information collected from surveys and interviews to establish the knowledge and
motivation that influenced professional success and examined organizational barriers that may
impede or support site leaders’ professional learning.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

22
Description of Stakeholder Groups
LEAD has many stakeholders that directly contribute to and benefit from the
achievement of the organization’s performance goal. Based on the literature, the impact of site
leaders directly influences the performance of the organization. For this study, three stakeholder
groups were identified to support the performance goal: LEAD EX, LEAD, and site principals.
The goal established is a logical progression for the work that LEAD currently directs for site
leaders. LEAD receives support in its endeavor through LEAD EX.
LEAD EX is one of 58 organizations throughout the State of California charged with
oversight and management of statutes imposed through California Education Code including
managing and supporting staff development and training programs. It is designed to offer
systems that are more economical and efficient than individual districts can provide alone (CDE,
2016b). LEAD EX’s mission is to ensure that students are prepared for college, career, and
community; provide educational leadership; work creatively with partners; and to provide school
employees the training and tools needed for success.
LEAD was established in 2009 to focus specifically on leadership development for
LEAD EX’s service region. Services were expanded in 2013 to include teacher preparation
programs as well. The guiding principle for LEAD is “high-quality leadership is key to success
for students, teachers, schools, and districts” (LEAD website).
Site principals are defined as principals that serve schools in LEAD’s region. Also
known as site administrators or site leaders, these individuals are instructional leaders and
managers of school sites. Each leader sets their performance goals and is responsible for the
management and leadership of their site in accordance with the local educational agency’s (LEA)
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

23
Local Accountability Plan. Principals are expected to support the goals of each department as
aligned with the needs of the school.
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals
To accomplish their organizational goal, LEAD intended to develop a framework for site
leaders’ professional learning. From that point, stakeholder groups could then accomplish their
goals. Since LEAD is a service provider, it will be imperative for them to meet this goal.
During this time LEAD can offer information and education to districts and site leaders that
provide the premise of the framework. Districts and site leaders can begin to utilize the CPSEL
to develop policy, supervision, and evaluative application. LEAD’s ultimate goal is to provide
the service and network for professional learning for all site leaders. Table 1 provides a
summary of the organization mission and goals.

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of LEAD is to provide high-quality leadership development for school leaders that will
support their professional growth with the skills necessary to lead schools in the 21st century.
Organizational Performance Goal
By January 2019, LEAD will implement a new professional learning framework for 100% of veteran
principals utilizing the principles of the California Professional Standard for Educational Leaders.
Stakeholder Goals
LEAD EX
By June 2018 LEAD EX will
provide financial and
administrative support to LEAD
as it creates a framework for
professional learning for school
leaders.
LEAD
By June 2018 LEAD will design
a professional learning
framework to support the
professional learning of site
leaders with more than three
years of experience.
Principals
By August 2020, 100% of
veteran principals will
participate in professional
learning activities in the
LEAD framework.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

24
Stakeholder Group for the Study
A complete analysis of the organization’s goal would involve a comprehensive study of
each stakeholder group, but for this study, principals were the stakeholder group of focus. LEAD
intended to provide a service to site leaders that would not only inspire their participation but
provide principals with opportunities to grow their leadership skills personally and
professionally. Research has shown that principal leadership is a vital indicator of student
success, yet leaders most often neglect their own professional learning (Houle, 2006; Manna,
2015). If LEAD provides leadership and a framework aligned with the instructional and
developmental needs of site leaders, principals would have an opportunity to align professional
learning with their needs, leading to higher efficacy for their leadership.
Principals must be empowered to make their professional learning a priority. The site
leaders that have participated in LEAD’s previous programs for aspiring and beginning leaders
shared the benefit of LEAD’s alignment with professional standards and their application to
professional growth with LEAD (D. Keeler, personal communication, June 3, 2016). By
studying what and how veteran principals learn, the challenges they face, and options for
overcoming these difficulties through the lens of LEAD’s framework, it was the intent that
principals would be inspired to participate in professional learning. By not meeting this goal,
principals may continue to leave the profession or seek alternate placements; therefore, leaving
gaps in schools that contribute to a lack of student growth. Since the performance goal is new
for the organization and the stakeholder, the current performance gap is 100%.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis in the areas of leadership
development, leadership capacity, and organizational resources necessary to reach the
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

25
organizational performance goal. The analysis began by generating a list of existing professional
learning opportunities, the perceived needs of school leaders, and examined principal self-
efficacy. The study then examined these three features systems and identified actual and
validated needs. The stakeholder of focus for this analysis was the school site leader with at least
three years of leadership experience.
As such, the questions that guided this study were:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs necessary to guide
veteran principals to participate in professional learning aligned with professional
standards?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions that
would encourage principals to participate in professional learning aligned with
professional standards?
Methodological Framework
This study utilized the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework. Clark and Estes
(2008) designed a systematic problem-solving process to identify possible causes of performance
gaps and determine possible solutions for these gaps. The gap analysis process is intended to
enable organizations to pinpoint performance gaps to better address solutions. The process is
divided into six stages as shown in Figure 1.
The gap analysis framework requires in-depth study of data collected from a variety of
sources. The information needed for this study was generated from participants’ knowledge of
leadership and related literature. For this study, data were collected from surveys and interview
groups using both qualitative and quantitative methods. The mixed methods approach provided
data to address the current gaps in performance and unveiled opportunities for site leaders to
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

26
focus on their professional growth. This study used an explanatory-sequential mixed method
that involved statistical and textual analysis (Creswell, 2014a). The proposed solutions were
derived from a comprehensive review of data and literature related to professional needs of site
leaders through the lens of adult learning theory.

Figure 1. Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences gap analysis framework. Source:
Clark and Estes (2008)

Definitions
The following terms are defined for this study based on the literature reviewed.
Instructional Leader: one who leads learners (Fullan, 2014).
Site Leader/Principal/Administrator: a leader of a school, one with leadership roles and
decision-making power (Fullan, 2014).
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

27
Professional Development: activities that support leaders as they acquire or refine
practices related to the full spectrum of instructional leadership duties and expectations; offered
to fill a gap (Zepeda, 2012).
Professional Learning: activities to build a leader’s personal and professional practices
through more developmental means based on their career stage (Zepeda, 2012).
Professional Standards for Educational Leaders: the set of standards aimed to ensure
school leaders can improve student achievement and higher expectations (Council of Chief State
School Officers, 2016).
California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders: set of standards for
California school administrators (Kearney, 2015).
Adult Learning Theory (ALT): the art and science of adult learning (Knowles, 1970).
Communities of Practice (CoP): groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems,
or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by
interacting on an ongoing basis (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Each chapter is uniquely designed to
provide the reader with the necessary components to show the progression of this study. Chapter
1 provides the reader with an overview of the problem of practice and background information
provided to add clarity to the problem of practice. The problem of practice for this study is
centered around the need to inspire site leaders to engage in professional learning designed to
enhance their leadership skills. It is intended to create new learning opportunities in a format
that will encourage their participation despite their heavy workloads. Chapter 2 provides a
comprehensive review of the literature surrounding this study. The researcher also provides
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

28
necessary background information to the reader about possible causes of the current state of
school administration, possible causes for turnover, the rationale behind the creation of
professional standards, and the introduction of Adult Learning Theory as a framework for
professional learning geared towards adults. Chapter 2 also introduces the reader to the possible
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that may impede a school leader’s
development as an instructional leader. Chapter 3 explains the details of the conceptual
framework and methodology used for data collection and data analysis. This chapter also
explains the methodology in detail including sample selection, data collection, and data analysis.
Chapter 4 provides the data with a comprehensive analysis of the study findings. Finally,
Chapter 5 provides solutions based on the study findings and literature to address the existing
performance gap for LEAD. Recommendations and an implementation and evaluation plan for
the proposed solutions are provided.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

29
CHAPTER 2
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This literature review provides an overview of the factors that influence training and
support of educational leaders and will be used to examine possible gaps that exist in knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that contribute to low job satisfaction and high
turnover of school principals in California. The first section will focus on the history and impact
of a principal on a school campus. The second section will review the research on learning for
leadership and the nuances of adult learning theory for school leaders. The third section will
explore professional development and learning design, the importance of developing
professional capital, and the current roles of school leaders. Following this general literature
review, the focus will shift to applying the principles of the Clark and Estes Gap Analysis
framework to develop, apply, and measure the need to support principals through professional
learning.
History and Impact of Principalship
The principal is the link between the complexities of policy and practices determined by
lawmakers and the flavor of the culture that permeates a school community. Historically, the role
of a school principal is defined as a complex and complicated position that was classically a
middle manager, primarily meant to implement the policies of government and educational
practices of the teacher (Rousmaniere, 2013). The position, also often inconsistently defined,
evolved from the need to add definition and structure to the educational system (Bates, 2006;
Kafka, 2009; Rousmaniere, 2013). It was not until the late 1970s that the role of the principal
began to shift to a cultural component of a school. The complexities of the position became
clearer as scholars began to study the role as it moved out of merely a managerial role and into a
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

30
more holistic view of leadership for school effectiveness (Bates, 2006). Studies began to
examine the complexities of both school culture and school leadership as they interacted with
each other to produce precise results and specifically who served in the position (Kafka, 2009).
Clarity in the definition of school leadership is also relatively new. At the turn of the
century, much literature focused on the how schools need to change direction to keep up with the
demands of a 21st-century student. The Institute for Educational Leadership produced a report
in 2000 that laid out the shift from away from a typical managerial position to focus on the
behaviors of school leaders to include the political landscape that influences their work as change
agents in schools (Usdan et al., 2000). Historians report that the complexities of the
principalship have long been a part of the position, but the surge of accountability measures for
schools have exposed these complexities as schools’ role in addressing inequities in society
(Kafka, 2009; Shipps & White, 2009; Stronge, 1993). Stronge (1993) cautioned his
contemporaries not to dismiss the role of management for site leaders in place of instructional
leaders but to view the tasks as necessary parallels. A rebuilding period for school leaders has
provoked research to help identify the role in hopes of adding clarity and focus to the profession
as the age of accountability set in (Murphy, 2003).
Influences of Social Change and Legislation
While the roles have not changed much, the rise of the modern principal was accelerated
by the passage of No Child Left Behind as the level of accountability for student achievement
moved to the forefront of the political, educational scene (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Kafka, 2009;
Murphy, 2002). In the era of confusion for school leaders, it is documented that support for the
role has often been lacking (Kafka, 2009). Murphy (2002) spent years studying the profession in
hopes of understanding the historical functions of site leaders. The researcher envisioned
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

31
redefining the purposes of the school leader to add clarity and make sense of their roles as
leaders. The political landscape of the late 1900s and early 2000s thrust school leaders into the
spotlight often ill-prepared for the shift from manager to instructional leader. To address these
concerns, Murphy and others began using a “synthesizing paradigm” (Boyan, 1981) to define the
role of the principal and establish a framework that could guide the work of a school leader.
Murphy’s work suggests that a redefinition of educational administration is warranted, not only
to synthesize three different theories of learning but to reinvigorate the profession in a time of
rapid change and pressure. When thinking about school leadership, the fusion of three constructs
— democratic communities, school improvement, and social justice — will reframe the work of
school leaders (Murphy, 2002).
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001(NCLB) reinforced the way principal leadership
was viewed consistently in the modern literature. The scope of work for school leaders laid out
in the new legislation made it clear that managing a school building was only a portion of the
work. This impacted everything from preparation programs through professional development
plans for every school principal (Petersen & Young, 2004). NCLB required school leaders to
become proficient in four areas: accountability, teacher quality, resource flexibility, and parental
choice (USDE, 2015). While the four areas are significant shifts in principal preparation, for this
study, direct attention to the area of professional learning is considered as the priority. For the
first time in history, the federal law specified developing the instructional leadership qualities of
school leaders (Petersen & Young, 2004). Setting the stage for principal leadership helps frame
not only the role of the principal but the impact of the principal as well.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

32
Impact of the Principal
As NCLB played out in the country, and as researchers continued to study leadership in
schools, the link between a leader’s ability and student achievement also emerged as a theme.
Several studies indicate that student success is directly tied to the quality of the school leader
(Leithwood et al., 2004; Louis et al., 2010; Manna, 2015; Marzano et al., 2005, Simkin et al.,
2010). While one leader is not single-handedly responsible for the success of each student, the
research points to the leader’s ability to focus the school community on its goals as a primary
indicator of student success (Manna, 2015).
The impact of principals on student achievement. Effective leadership helps focus the
community on the needs of the students, therefore directing the energy of a school to a clear and
purposeful vision. Waters et al. (2003) express that “effective leadership is knowing when, how,
and why to do it” (p. 2). Most leaders do not directly impact student learning, but they do
influence the organization. In a meta-analysis of 5000 studies, Waters et al. (2003) identified 21
key leadership responsibilities for school leaders. The average correlation between leadership
and student achievement was .25, with effects ranging from .15 to .33. The researchers also
indicated that poor decisions on behalf of the leader could also negatively impact student
achievement. It is also important to note that while school leaders are the most influential, those
in positions of authority also have an impact on student learning and therefore should be
considered for ongoing development as well (Leithwood et al., 2004).
The impact of principal burnout and turnover. On average, a principal stays in a
school for 2-3 years, even less when schools are in low-income areas (National Center for
Education Statistics [NCES], 2016). A report released by the School Leaders Network in 2014,
claims that only 30% of principals remain at any school after six years (School Leaders Network,
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

33
2014). Principals report that their positions are challenging, offer little support, take a toll on
their personal health, lead to isolation, and provide limited flexibility forcing them to seek other
options, often leaving the profession (Superville, 2014). Furthermore, research also indicates
that leadership turnover leads to adverse effects on the school culture, impacting everyone
associated with the campus (Louis et al., 2010).
The financial impact of principal turnover. The financial impact placed on school
districts to replace a principal is also significant to note. Of those that left the profession, only
38% retired, leaving 62% school leaders who either left the profession or changed positions
(Goldring & Taie, 2014). The School Leaders Network estimates that U.S. schools spend about
$36 million per year just to hire school leaders. That cost does not include the cost of training
and onboarding. The same report also indicates that training and supporting principals increases
the retention rate, but can cost districts between $5000 and $150,000 depending on the training
needed and the quality of the program (School Leaders Network, 2014). In general, only about
2% of Title II budgets were spent on leaders in 2012, but with 20% of the workforce leaving
every year, many feel the money could be spent in other places (School Leaders Network, 2014).
With the revisions of ESSA, the money set aside for leadership development has increased, but
critics are not clear how best to invest the money (Klein & Ujifusa, 2016).
Knowing the history and the impact of the school leader can help develop the needs of
school leaders not only to stay in their positions but to fully embrace and understand the impact
they have on their school communities. To better impact the professional development of the
leader, it is also essential to understand how adults learn.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

34
Learning for Leadership
It is evident in the literature that principals play a significant role in student achievement,
yet the principal’s door is revolving. The debate about leadership and management duties
continues, but a smaller circle of literature revolves around how leaders learn best. Leadership
matters, but it remains unclear how to successfully prepare and maintain school leadership
development (Darling-Hammond, Meyerson, LaPointe, & Orr, 2009; Donaldson, 2008). This
literature review will shift to provide an understanding of the needs of an adult learner.
Adult Learning Theory
Zepeda et al. (2014) identified a new idea in principal professional learning by
recognizing that little research had been conducted that explored the needs of the adult learner.
Lead learners historically have participated in the same professional learning as the teaching
staff, after all, modeling learning is also a common practice for principals. By identifying the
need for specific activities to define and refine practices related to their duties as leaders, Zepeda
(2012) sought to identify best practices for adults to support their personal and professional
growth as adults. Much learning is conducted for leaders using a deficit model — that is,
training used to fill a gap in performance and is termed professional development (Houle, 2006).
Recommendations from the National Staff Development Council (2000) (now known as
Learning Forward), noted that leaders should engage in professional learning that is planned,
job-embedded and long-term; focuses on student achievement; supports reflective practice; and
provides opportunities to work, discuss, and solve problems with peers; yet current practices do
not necessarily reflect these recommendations (Houle, 2006).
The language of learning for adults. There must be a clear distinction that recognizes
professional learning from the deficit model is not the same as the practices identified by Zepeda
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

35
et al. (2014). Sound practices for adults should be grounded in andragogy, not pedagogy
(Knowles, 1970). Knowles (1978) defines pedagogy as the art and science of teaching and
andragogy as the art and science of adult learning. Table 2 illustrates the difference between the
two theories of learning as defined by Knowles, Holton, and Swanson (1998).

Table 2
Pedagogy and Andragogy
Pedagogy Andragogy
Self-concept Dependent, encouraged and
reinforced by the adult world
Sees the world as a producer, able to
make own decisions, need to have
learning needs treated with respect
Experience Something that happens to a
child; an external event that
affects the child
Seen as self-identity, accumulation of
experiences; set of fixed habits and
patterns of thought
Readiness to
Learn
Skills necessary to move from
one developmental phase to the
next
Similar to children, but divided into
phases: early adulthood, middle age, and
later maturity and by social roles
(worker, parent, mate, citizen)
Orientation to
Learning
Tends to be postponed
application of learning; learning
is a process for future use
Immediate application towards learning,
problem-centered
Motivation to
Learn
Motivated by external pressures
and competition
Internal motivators leading to self-
confidence and self-actualization

The distinction between pedagogy and andragogy is essential when determining what
works for adults. The complexities of the principalship warrant specialized and targeted training
(Knowles, 1978; Zepeda et al., 2014). Professional learning for adults should be delivered to
support their developmental needs (Drago-Severson, Blum-DeStafano, & Asghar, 2013).
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

36
Professional Learning for Leaders
When referring to learning about leadership, the KMO framework will systematically
address andragogy by identifying the behaviors of learners not just the content of knowledge. If
the intent of professional learning reflects the need of adults with purpose, the application of
knowledge shifts (Donaldson, 2008). Furthermore, professional standards outline exemplars as
leaders move through stages of their careers applying theory into practices (Kearney, 2015). In
other words, the orientation for learning and readiness for learning are not conducive to a deficit
model of professional learning (Donaldson, 2008). In a study conducted in New Zealand,
researchers tested the application of professional standards over the course of a year. By
providing training that reflected practices conducive to adult learning, participants reported
substantial gains in leadership confidence (Cardno & Youngs, 2013). Learning was embedded
within participants’ current positions, included reflective practices and continuing support from
peers.
Drago-Severson (2008) supports viewing professional learning for adults distinctly
different from typical deficit model professional learning for several reasons. Applying ALT to
the design for adult learners “increases cognitive, affective, interpersonal and intrapersonal
capacities that enable us to better manage the complex demands of teaching, learning, leadership,
and life” (p. 1). This increase propels participants to become transformational learners.
Effective professional learning does not happen independently, but when a culture of continuous
improvement is supported over time. In addition to the style appropriate for adult learners,
connecting learning to standards ensures equity, a common language, and accountability (Fullan,
Hord, & V on Frank, 2014).
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

37
Career Stages and Professional Capital
One additional consideration for the application of ALT addresses career stages of adults.
With burnout, retention, and the costs associated with replacing school leaders, addressing
principals needs through ALT can help organizations temper losses by explicitly addressing
career stages of their leaders. While in pedagogy, children’s readiness to learn moves them from
one skill to the next; adult learning happens in stages and based on a particular role and
experiences (Knowles et al., 1998). Hargreaves and Fullan (2013) address this in their work with
professional capital by recognizing that adults move through stages in their careers and to
provide continuous improvement, the needs of the learner at each stage must be met.
Professional capital is comprised of human, social, and decisional capital and requires education,
applying best practices, collaboration, and the use of rational judgment. Hargreaves and Fullan
(2013) report that by focusing on decisional capital, leaders have some autonomy in directing
their learning, a necessary opportunity to preserve longevity in the profession. Developing
professional capital is a not only an essential element in school reform but an opportunity to
increase capacity in organizations for sustainability (Fullan, 2016).
Like Hargreaves and Fullan’s definition of career stages, Christensen, Burke, Fessler, and
Hagstrom (1983) recognized the importance of aligning personalized learning to experiences
when designing quality professional learning. By meeting the learner where they are, the
opportunity to apply learning immediately is exponential. Zepeda (2012) also acknowledges that
adult learners who focus on survival never fulfill their intellectual potential often leaving them
unable to actualize their own expectations. When professional learning aligns with adult
learning theory, the likelihood of continuous growth is much higher (Zepeda, 2012).
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

38
Principal Sense of Efficacy
Fundamental values of school leadership center on the belief that all children can learn
and a moral purpose to attend to their needs. To accomplish this, school leaders need to
demonstrate the value of efficacy, not only for themselves but for the students they serve.
Leadership is critical to the success of a school. Beyond management skills, school leaders must
believe in the potential of their students and their staff. Leaders should demonstrate efficacious
behavior in their knowledge of curriculum, behavior, decision making, and support of vision and
direction (Ediger, 2014). Principal efficacy improves many facets of the school environment,
including staff and administrator turnover, academic achievement, school climate, and the
instructional climate of a school (Killion, 2015). The literature suggests a focus on leadership
development increases staff esteem, teacher leadership, and collective efficacy; therefore,
increasing the school’s capacity for students and enhances school climate. Research has also
proven a healthy relationship between leaders’ efficacy and the conditions of the district. When
district leaders work cooperatively with site leaders who all share common goals, principal
efficacy increases (Fullan & Quinn, 2016; Leithwood & Janzi, 2008). Finally, there is also a
strong connection to principal efficacy and decisions to remain in their positions. Researchers
have concluded that principals with a high sense of efficacy are less likely to experience feelings
of burnout and impetus to quit (Federici & Skaalvik, 2012).

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

39
Summary of General Literature
The role of the principal has changed significantly with the onset of higher accountability
for schools. Scholarly research suggests strategies of best practices to address increased
accountability with a workforce that lacks stability and presents new ideas and directions to fill
the gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational cultures. The role of the school leader has
been underrecognized and underdeveloped, but with research and time, there is a recognition that
practices can be different. Inherent in this study is the need to preserve professional capital in
school districts. Systems can and have improved when armed with knowledge. As this study
progresses to identify specific knowledge, motivational and organizational influences that impact
the role of the school leader, coupled with current research about ALT, organizations, including
LEAD, can benefit from changing practices to increase leadership capacity.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Fullan (2016) discusses a framework for whole system reform in education and the
importance of choosing the “right drivers” for organizations as they navigate change. When
organizations choose the wrong “drivers” (Fullan, 2016), organizations may never be able to
reach their full potential. Fullan and Quinn (2016) identify these drivers as external, punitive
accountability; individual solutions; technology; and ad hoc policies. At the site level, Fullan
(2016) discovered that drivers became the focus of change efforts, but never accomplished the
promise of reform. Clark and Estes also identified barriers that inhibit change. Like Fullan,
Clark and Estes developed a strategy to guide organizations in the change process named the
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences (KMO) framework (Clark & Estes,
2008).
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

40
Clark and Estes (2008) contend that organizations must focus on improving performance
by spending time in analysis, design, and implementation. First, organizations must have goals
that are concrete, challenging, and current. Once goals are established, an analysis of the current
state and the desired state can begin. Understanding the current state is achieved through active
listening, surveys, interviews, and observations. By comparing the desired state to the current
state, organizations can then determine their “gap.” This approach focuses on three key factors
that must be aligned to successfully achieve goals: knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences.
The KMO framework explores the interaction of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that guide organizations to their intended destinations. Knowledge is
defined as basic building blocks — the who, what, why, where, and when factors that cause
organizations to move forward (Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivation is the fuel that drives the
organization. Motivation is the psychological factor that determines the direction (Pintrich,
2003). Lastly, organizational influences examine how organizations operate, exposing barriers
derived from cultural models or cultural settings (Rueda, 2011).
For this study, the KMO framework examined how LEAD could apply the drivers of
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences to produce a framework for professional
learning for veteran administrators. The unique needs of veteran administrators present some
gaps that prevent them from learning the skills they need to use their leadership skills effectively.
Historically, most veteran site leaders have not been exposed to the CPSEL in their training or
their evaluations. By carefully examining these needs, LEAD aimed to achieve its
organizational goal by providing professional learning support for veteran leaders. The gaps
caused by stagnant growth, misaligned professional development, and lack of attention to the
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

41
unique needs of adult learners has made the position of school leader challenging to maintain.
By using this approach, LEAD can determine outcomes that are beneficial to the leaders who are
faced with the challenges of site leadership.
Knowledge and Skills
It is hard to pinpoint the most critical contributor to school success. However,
researchers believe one of the most critical contributions comes from the site leader (Anderson &
Turnbull, 2016; DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2003; Garza, Drysdale, Gurr, Jacobson, &
Merchant, 2014; Miller, W., 2013). As education evolves, so must those in educational
leadership positions. This section of the literature review concentrates on the knowledge and
skills necessary for principals to impact student outcomes. Rueda (2011) believes that
knowledge is the skill people must have to function successfully. LEAD currently provides
training and support to new and aspiring site leaders. To meet the goal of creating a framework
for professional learning for veteran site leaders based on the California Professional Standards
for Educational Leaders (CPSEL), LEAD must identify any gaps in knowledge that veteran
principals have and design a support system that will meet their needs efficiently. It is vital for
LEAD to determine the types of support school leaders need to increase their effectiveness and
stability in their positions based on principals’ beliefs and perceptions about their goal to increase
student performance.
Clark and Estes (2008) report that the key to success in the changing world is to invest in
the knowledge of the workforce and help them increase their ability to solve problems and adapt
to shifting performance expectations. LEAD uses the California Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders (CPSEL) to benchmark the effective qualities of aspiring and new leaders,
but there is little evidence that veteran stakeholders understand and can apply them in their daily
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

42
work. This section of the literature review focuses on the knowledge-related influences that are
critical for leaders to have to utilize the CPSEL efficiently.
Knowledge influences. Educators have referred to Bloom’s Taxonomy of Knowledge in
three categories: a cognitive domain, an affective domain, and psychomotor domain (Rueda,
2011). The cognitive domain is most recognized and central to the goal of education. Krathwohl
(2002) elaborated on Bloom’s Taxonomy, taking it beyond the original definition to include four
different dimensions of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Each
dimension is significant for goal attainment. Factual and conceptual knowledge, also referred to
as declarative knowledge, address what is to be learned; procedural knowledge develops how to
do something; and metacognition helps individuals regulate the outcomes of learning (Rueda,
2011).
This study will examine the dimensions of knowledge that principals need to adequately
support student achievement through the lens of professional learning using the CPSEL as a
guide. The CPSEL were designed to provide educational leaders with the knowledge and skills
necessary to meet the goal of ensuring that all students can achieve the high standards set for
schools (Kearney, 2003). Conceptual knowledge is required to identify what leaders know about
the CPSEL and how standards fit with their work. Procedural knowledge will help leaders
determine how the CPSEL can influence their job, especially when it comes time to identifying
and recognizing research-based best practices for leadership activities. Finally, metacognition is
vital for leaders to use to reflect on what they already know about leadership and evaluate their
current practices to the CPSEL.
Knowledge of leadership standards. In 2010, Barnes, Camburn, Sanders, and Sebastian
(2010) discovered that principals benefitted from an explicit breakdown in declarative
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

43
knowledge to better understand their roles. As a mechanism for improving practice, leaders
profited from breaking the elements in their practices into manageable chunks. Providing
structure, content, and connections in professional learning assisted in leaders’ ability to
understand the consequences of their actions (Barnes et al., 2010). Fullan (2015) identifies
“systemness” (p. 134) as an opportunity to help practitioners understand the bigger picture and
can create better conditions for the learner. The CPSEL are the system that connects learning for
leaders, but first, principals must understand them.
Knowledge of effective leadership standards as defined in the CPSEL to support their
leadership development. Principals need to know the content of the CPSEL to understand the
benefit of applying the standards in their work environments. In the mid-1990s, a consortium of
educational leaders created the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) to
develop standards for school leaders. Politicians, educational leaders and professional
organizations banded together to create a national common language and expectations for
educational leaders. The intent was to clarify the role of instructional leadership at school sites.
By 2005, forty-six states had adopted the ISLLC standards or standards closely aligned with
them for all educational leaders. The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing was no
exception and adopted the CPSEL in 2001 (Anderson & Turnbull, 2016; DiPaola & Tschannen-
Moran, 2003; Murphy, 2005; Murphy & Shipman, 1999). The CPSEL framework was created to
mirror the vision of the ISLLC standards (Kearney, 2003). The conceptual dimension of
knowledge of the CPSEL is essential for principals because it will guide their understanding of
the connections to leadership roles necessary for today’s leaders.
Knowledge of the relationship between site leadership and student achievement. To set
goals for leadership, principals need the conceptual knowledge necessary to understand how
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

44
their actions in leadership can support student achievement. In the late 1980s, research started to
identify the importance of the principal as a conduit for student achievement, yet a gap in
training and licensing school leaders was evident (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009). Previous
leadership development programs often focused more on management skills for school leaders
without recognizing the benefits of leadership. Studies of effective schools began to recognize
patterns and qualities of effective leadership and a shift in the skills necessary to lead school
reform efforts prompting the development of the ISLLC standards. Two decades have passed,
and the original ISLLC standards have been revised several times based on research-based
leadership practices. Research has also made a connection between principals’ knowledge about
leadership and their performance evaluations. Most often, principals fall short in instructional
leadership by failing to make a pivotal connection to student achievement (Anderson & Turnbull,
2016; Murphy & Shipman, 1999; Spanneut, Tobin, & Ayers, 2012).
Principals are presented with many options for professional growth, but without the
knowledge of how the CPSEL define leadership and the types of competencies necessary for
principals, they may not adequately and purposefully choose the right kinds of training.
Principals should be aware that their choices for professional development do have an impact on
student achievement (Lindberg, 2014). The knowledge of the CPSEL can direct principals to
make appropriate choices and increase efficacy of the standards.
Using the CPSELs to identify leadership exemplars to demonstrate competency in their
learning environments. The procedural knowledge dimension is critical because principals need
to know how to determine the exemplars in the CPSEL so they can be replicated in their setting.
The work of a site leader has changed tremendously in the past 30 years. Added pressures of
high stakes testing and accountability have left many school leaders questioning just how they
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

45
can accomplish everything. When principals become overwhelmed, many leave the profession
(Heitin, 2013; Johnson, 2005). The CPSEL were designed to provide a framework for best
practices. Without the knowledge of how to apply the CPSEL, principals miss opportunities to
improve their practice. Principals need to know how professional standards can serve as a guide
for their practice, but this only comes when presented in a way that is manageable, connected to
past practice, and validates experiences (Cardno & Fitzgerald, 2005). The ISLLC standards and
the CPSEL were designed to be aspirational, identifying the best practices that leaders of
successful schools had in common (Murphy, 2005). Through this lens, the CPSEL intended to
identify the practices that brought together current research with schools that have demonstrated
a high level of success to help school leaders, district officials, and policymakers shape training
and fill gaps in knowledge. When school leaders recognize that their actions contribute to
student success, they cannot bypass the importance of the standards as a guide to help them
navigate and prioritize their work (Heitin, 2013; Leithwood, 2005; Leithwood et al., 2004).
To meet the current demands of the principalship, principals will benefit from a
framework that guides their priorities for professional learning. To identify gaps in training,
principals should understand how their positions impact student achievement. As the role of the
principal has evolved, it is important for principals to know how expectations of their roles have
also evolved and how research-based practices have been used to support them (Heitin, 2013;
Manna, 2015). Procedural knowledge of the CPSEL can guide principals in setting goals for
professional development because the CPSEL were designed to identify the skills necessary to
be a successful principal. To demonstrate proficiency of the CPSEL, school leaders should be
able to determine best practices to use in their professional environment. The design of the
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

46
CPSEL was intended to provide principals with a set of skills that support students (Kearney,
2003).
Self-reflection and the CPSEL. The fast-paced nature of the principalship can distract
school leaders from setting aside time to reflect on their craft. Knowing the CPSEL are essential,
but applying them within the context of the role of a school leader can help principals identify
what must be done to be effective (Drago-Severson, 2012). Through this process, principals
must employ metacognition, or simply take advantage of the time to think about what they know.
Metacognition refers to what one knows and what one does with the knowledge (Baker, 2006).
Mayer (2011) speaks to the importance of metacognition as the strategy a person uses to identify
how to improve one’s learning. It develops the awareness of what needs to be learned as well as
the learner’s ability to control and monitor learning.
Researchers recognize that effective metacognitive skills are a critical component of
professional learning for principals (Boske, 2009; Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009; Leo, 2015;
Militello, Fusarelli, Alsbury, & Warren, 2013). In years past, principals received lifetime
certification to serve in the role as a school leader. However, with the evolving demands of 21st-
century education, this rationale has been overtaken by the need for continual support and
development (Militello et al., 2013). Standards for instructional leaders provide a framework for
principals to refine their practice based on their reflection. Studies that explored reasons for
principal burnout found that reflection on one’s practice based on a set of standards may help
guide some organization and prioritization of the skills needed to be an effective leader (Cardno
& Fitzgerald, 2005; Leo, 2015).
In the absence of standards, principals are left to subjective self-evaluation to determine
their efficacy in the role. When provided a more structured opportunity to reflect on the gaps
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

47
and strengths of one’s practice, principals increase their confidence, self-efficacy, and awareness
of one’s strengths and weaknesses in their roles. Engaging in self-reflection has been proven to
lead to clearer understanding of the role and capabilities of leaders by deepening their awareness
of the challenges associated with site leadership and creating a support network to address
professional needs (Drago-Severson, 2012).
Table 3 presents the organizational mission for LEAD and its organizational goal to
support the development of the site principal. The knowledge influences presented reflect the
needs of the stakeholder group chosen for this study: the principal. Combined with identified
elements of motivation, they will be used to determine the gaps in knowledge for principals.

Table 3
Knowledge Influences and Assessment
Organizational Mission
The mission of LEAD is to provide high-quality leadership development for school leaders
that will support their professional growth with the skills necessary to lead schools in the
21st century.
Organizational Global Goal
By January 2019, LEAD will implement a new professional learning framework for 100% of
veteran principals by utilizing the principles of the California Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders.
Stakeholder Goal
By August 2020, 100% of veteran principals will participate in professional learning
activities in the LEAD framework.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

48
Table 3, continued
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence Assessment
Principals need knowledge of the
California Professional Standards
for Educational Leaders.
Factual Principals will be asked to identify
the California Professional
Standards for Educational Leaders
through a survey.
Principals need knowledge of
effective leadership standards
(CPSEL) to support their
leadership development.
Conceptual Principals will complete a survey
about their knowledge of the
CPSEL.
Principals need knowledge of the
relationship between the leadership
and student achievement.
Conceptual Principals will identify how the
CPSELs have guided performance
expectations related to their site
leadership goals.
Principals need to know how to
use professional standards to
identify leadership exemplars.
Procedural Principals will identify how the
CPSEL have been used to set
personal and professional goals.
Principals need to evaluate their
own awareness of the role of
professional standards to identify
gaps in their learning.
Metacognitive Principals will identify that role
self-reflection plays in yearly
evaluation practices aligned to
professional standards.

Motivation
The purpose of this section of the literature review is to examine the potential impact of
motivational theories that may influence a leader’s behaviors. Knowledge is critical, but it
cannot be activated without motivation. Motivation is defined as the beliefs a person holds that
describe how one feels as a learner and what causes one to act in a particular manner. It is a
critical component of setting and attaining goals (Mhatre & Riggio, 2014). It is also something
that must be initiated and sustained by the learner (Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Clark and Estes
(2008) identify how motivation processes influence our daily lives in three ways: through choice,
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

49
persistence, and mental effort. To accomplish a goal, the learner must first make the active
choice to pursue a goal. Next, the learner must work through distractions and persist in
accomplishing the goal. Finally, the amount of mental effort an individual exerts on an activity
will determine how fast new knowledge is obtained or how well goals will be attained. Since
organizations rely on goals as an indicator of success or failure, motivation is a crucial indicator
of performance (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Motivation helps individuals and groups accomplish goals based on experiences and
beliefs about ourselves and our coworkers. When people are positive about their abilities to
solve problems, they are more capable than those that doubt their abilities (Bandura, 1997; Clark
& Estes, 2008; Pintrich, 2003). Recent research indicates a root motive for all humans is the
desire to be effective (Clark & Estes, 2008). Identifying any gaps that may exist with motivation
to use the CPSEL as a guide for their work will help LEAD develop programs to support the
needs of principals to help them overcome potential motivation issues. It is imperative to
examine the motivation of principals to identify any gaps that may exist between their
knowledge and motivation to use the CPSEL to guide their professional practice.
While several motivation constructs may influence active choice, persistence, and mental
effort, two theories were examined in depth. The first influence, attribution theory, looked at
how principals perceived explanations for events that occur in their environment. The second
influence, self-efficacy theory, examined principals’ beliefs about their abilities to solve
problems as related to student achievement and their roles as instructional leaders.
Attribution theory. Attribution theory assumes that people want to understand that
specific events occur in their environment based on motivation (Anderman & Anderman, 2006).
Based on the principles of Weiner’s (2010) model of attribution theory, learners are affected by
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

50
environmental and personal factors. In other words, motivation is influenced by the environment
in which it occurs, with prior knowledge, and through experiences. Three causal dimensions
determine the outcome of an event: locus of causality (is it an internal or external event), the
stability of the event (lack of ability or lack of effort), and the locus of control (lack of practice or
lack of ability). Pintrich (2003) also asserts that an individual’s ability to control a situation
impacts the outcome. From this perspective, the more control a learner has over their
environment, the more significant the impact of motivation and engagement in accomplishing a
goal.
There are also emotional responses to each of the dimensions as well that are related to
self-esteem, pride, shame, guilt, feelings of hopefulness or hopelessness. The emotional
consequences could impact future behavior depending on the perception of the learner and the
feedback received. Attribution theory supports the notion that the type of feedback one receives
will impact the future. Negative feedback results in negative attributions, and conversely, if
feedback received by the learner is positive, the outcome will be most likely positive (Anderman
& Anderman, 2006; Iannone, 1973).
Principals’ attributions. Attribution theory suggests that positive and successful leaders
use their perceptions to determine their effectiveness as leaders (Lakshman, 2008). When faced
with stressful situations, principals must understand that attributions leading to decision making
will influence the outcome (Wells & Klocko, 2015). LEAD’s motive is to guide principals to
recognize the impact of these decisions. Because the CPSEL are grounded in best practices for
educational leaders, principals have the choice to use them as a framework for identifying the
key components of a positive work environment focused on student success.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

51
Site leaders spend a good portion of their day making decisions. According to the
Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Knapp (2012), school leaders must always be looking for ways
to support student learning. Effective leaders make good use of their decision-making power.
Weiner’s model of attributions can be applied to these decisions when the search for meaning in
decisions that are made. As principals reflect on their decisions, attribution theory may guide
them. According to Weiner, three dimensions contribute to subsequent motivation: locus,
stability, and controllability (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). Since the CPSEL provide insight
into best practices, principals who employ attribution theory assume strong internal control when
they apply the CPSEL framework to their daily work (Kearney, 2003). By applying attribution
theory, effective leaders make themselves available for attaining knowledge about the CPSEL
(internal control), understand their benefits (stability) and apply them in their daily work to
create a more supportive and positive experience (causality) (Anderman & Anderman, 2006).
Leaders who frame their work positively will be more motivated to stay on the job rather
than succumb to the negativity that comes with overwhelming emotions. Studies have shown
that positive coaching, mindfulness, and constructive feedback help principals feel supported and
confident (Goff, Guthrie, Goldring, & Brickman, 2014). Furthermore, when principals volunteer
to receive feedback (internal control), they are more likely to change their behaviors (Fernet,
2010; Rueda, 2011). According to attribution theory, emotions and beliefs tend to determine
future behavior. With the high rate of turnover and stress that principals experience, it is in the
best interest of districts to examine how to help principals maintain a more positive outlook on
their positions. Given the aspirational nature of the CPSEL, focusing on applying them to daily
work may help principals maintain a positive outlook.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

52
Self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy is defined as an individual’s belief in their capacity to
complete tasks. According to self-efficacy theory, high self-efficacy will positively influence
motivation (Pajares, 2006). Bandura’s (2005) research led to patterns of behavior based on a
person’s self-efficacy towards personal and social change. Bandura (1997) discusses the notion
of human agency as the ability to act in one’s environment to shape outcomes. When the
motivation is high, the consequences of self-efficacy theory are positive. When motivation is
low, self-efficacy may produce adverse outcomes. Principals must demonstrate high self-
efficacy to stay motivated to complete their tasks.
Principal self-efficacy. Principals must feel confident in their abilities to serve as the
instructional leaders of their schools. The CPSEL provide a framework of what needs to be
accomplished, but the motivation to implement the CPSEL lies in the hands of each principal.
Self-efficacy theory influences may be the motivation required to support principal development.
When principals demonstrate self-efficacy, they have higher degrees of choice, effort, and
perseverance to attend to their work. Principals are more successful when they believe they can
positively impact student achievement (Federici & Skaalvik, 2012; McCullers & Bozeman,
2010; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004).
Self-efficacy theory creates an opportunity for principals to reflect on the goals they have
set for themselves to determine their potential. The CPSEL were designed to support school
leaders with benchmark goals to support student learning. For principals to implement the
CPSEL, they must first believe in their abilities to use them. Self-efficacy can serve as the
internal drive to reach external success. Table 4 identifies two motivational influences utilized
for this literature review and the implications explored through this study.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

53
Table 4
Motivational Influences and Assessment
Organizational Mission
The mission of LEAD is to provide high-quality leadership development for school leaders
that will support their professional growth with the skills necessary to lead schools in the 21st
century.
Organizational Global Goal
By January 2019, LEAD will implement a new professional learning framework for 100% of
veteran principals by utilizing the principles of the California Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders.
Stakeholder Goal
By August 2020, 100% of veteran principals will participate in professional learning
activities in the LEAD framework.
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Attributions — Principals attribute
success in their positions on their
perceptions about their work.
Likert scale survey measuring the degree of influence
principals have on their own learning.
Interview prompts describing how their organizational
culture motivates site leaders to participate in
professional learning.
Self-Efficacy — Principals believe
that they are capable of effectively
influencing student outcomes
based on their leadership skills.
Likert scale survey measuring the degree of influence
principals believe they have on student outcomes.
Interview prompts asking principals their level of
motivation to complete professional learning based on
their leadership needs.

Organizational Influences
The third and final component of the KMO framework is organizational influences. This
section carefully examines organizational barriers that may prevent principals from investing in
their personal and professional learning to support the organizational goals. Organizations are
complex systems steeped in culture. This culture is not always visible, but cultural practices
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

54
influence how an organization reacts to events. Cultural practices are formed over time and are
the automated, shared assumptions employees use to respond to situations (Schein, 2010). Clark
and Estes (2008) have defined organizational influences as the components that make up an
organization’s culture including work processes, material resources, and value streams and
chains. These influences can help organizations succeed or prevent them from taking full
advantage of their impact.
Organizational culture screens all aspects of change and goal attainment, so it must be
carefully examined and understood for organizations to fully understand gaps in their
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein, 2010). When knowledge and motivation are
changed, the organization must examine its culture and adjust fully to maximize the impact of
change (Clark & Estes, 2008). Principals, as school leaders, should understand how to navigate
levels of culture for their school and district including habits of thinking, group norms, mental
models, philosophy, and values as well as managing tangible resources such as funding,
equipment, and professional capital (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011; Schein, 2010; Waters et
al., 2003).
Cultural Models and Cultural Settings
Culture is a dynamic and continuously-practiced phenomenon that defines daily routines,
habits, problem-solving strategies, and operational aspects of organizations (Erez & Gati, 2004;
Rueda, 2011). In work cultures, models are created and expressed in cultural practices that occur
in specific contexts. The patterns and assumptions practiced by employees are formed as
responses to growth, survival, and adaptation to the environment and the internal integration that
allows the organization to function (Schein, 2010). Often these practices are taught to new
employees through routines, observations, and sharing norms of behavior (Rueda, 2011).
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

55
To understand barriers that prevent organizations from achieving their goals, it is
essential to analyze features that make up organizational culture (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda,
2011). To influence performance, a clear understanding of how information is perceived and
processed in the organization may provide a pathway for change. Cultural models and cultural
settings provide insight into the way the people in the organization behave, and through this lens,
organizations can impact change at the heart of a problem (Rueda, 2011).
Cultural models are the shared mental schema that exist that represent how organizations
think, perceive, and store information (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Models demonstrate
what is valued and shared in practices, policies, and acknowledgments (Rueda, 2011). Examples
of cultural models include how organizations approach problem solving, avoid conflict,
recognize accomplishments, and accountability practices. Cultural settings are the social
contexts in which models exist adding a visible component to organizational culture (Rueda,
2011). Settings include the who, what, when, where, and how routines play out. Understanding
the relationship between models and settings make up the dynamic nature of culture and its
influence on attaining the organization’s goals. For this study, cultural models of leadership
development amongst school leaders are examined. By understanding the role of leadership and
its impact on school performance, stakeholders may better understand the value and investment
of school leaders’ professional learning.
Cultural model: professional learning plans are not consistently aligned to the
CPSEL. Not all district and site leaders emphasize professional learning (Leithwood, Strauss, &
Anderson, 2008). Professional learning is quite often left to principals and is contingent upon
initiatives that frame instructional practices for teachers or as a response to a crisis (Hallinger &
Murphy, 2013). While professional standards exist and have been adopted in some form in all 50
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

56
states, not all districts have emphasized them through principal evaluation practices, yet the
nature of the professional standards was intended to do just that. Currently, little correlation
exists between professional learning plans and professional standards (V ogel & Weiler, 2014).
Thus, principals do not have a clear understanding of the correlation of best practices for leaders
and professional goals. A closer look at the correlation between exposure to professional
standards and the development of personal learning plans to support principals’ growth and
leadership capacity may provide insight into high-quality professional learning.
Cultural model: principal professional learning for veteran administrators is not a
priority in districts. Principal burnout or feelings of self-inadequacy lead to high turnover rates
in schools, yet research has indicated that increased socialization, training opportunities, and a
strong sense of self-efficacy improve the chances principals stay on the job (Tekleselassie &
Villareal, 2011). Greater emphasis in these areas may lead to increased self-efficacy and foster a
principal’s commitment to the profession. Antecedents to principal self-efficacy are rarely
studied, yet often cited as a critical indicator of success in the research. Site leaders indicate that
when there is an investment in instructional leadership, there is a stronger commitment to job
satisfaction (Louis et al., 2010). The study goes on to suggest that principals do not always
believe that district leaders take a personal interest in principal professional learning, provide
quality professional learning focused on principal’s needs, nor invest in opportunities for
principals to work collaboratively with other site leaders (Louis et al., 2010).
Considering the value placed on the effectiveness of the school leader, not all principals
have adequate access to professional learning targeted at improving their leadership skills
(Johnson, Kaufman, & Thompson, 2016). The size and geographic location of a district tend to
dictate the scope and quality of professional development and professional learning, but support
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

57
is a critical element for success amongst site leaders. It is important to examine if the lack of
commitment to professional learning is the result of district support for personalized leadership
development for veteran principals.
Cultural setting: principals are overwhelmed by the enormity of their positions and
do not make time for their own professional learning. Principals are often faced with
unrelenting demands on their time and spend a good majority of their time attending to the needs
of others. Cultural norms and expectations placed on a principal dictate how they manage their
time (Hallinger & Murphy, 2013). The call for principals to become instructional leaders has
increased tremendously in the past 30 years, yet the time for principals to learn and apply new
skills in addition to their management activities has not been clearly defined (Waters et al.,
2003). Quite often, principals overlook their needs for the benefit of perceived urgent tasks
when called to a district level meeting or faced with a project deadline. Covey (1989) researched
this concept and determined that leaders spend more time addressing urgent tasks at the risk of
not developing skills necessary to organizational success. Covey (1990) also asserts that leaders
must prioritize the value of their personal vision to meet the goals of the organization. Failure to
spend this time can result in a lack of commitment to achieve the goals of the organization
(Hallinger & Murphy, 2013).
Cultural setting: leadership development practices must align with the needs of
adult learners. When principals’ knowledge and development is meant to fill a gap in their
learning, leaders do not have the opportunity to forecast the future (Zepeda, 2012). In the age of
increased accountability, leaders have had a hard time just keeping up with new learning and the
pressures associated with it (Leonard, 2010). Despite the literature about what works in school
leadership development, little has changed in the way principals are prepared (Houle, 2006).
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

58
Professional development demands are counteracted when learning plans are aligned to include
the principles of adult learning:
[C]ontrol of their learning; immediate utility, focus on issues that concern them; test their
learning as they go; anticipate how they will use their learning; expect performance
improvement; maximize available resources; require collaborative, respectful, mutual and
informal climate; and rely on information that is appropriate and developmentally placed.
(Zepeda, 2012, p. 299)
Cultural setting: there is a lack of structure for principals to use professional
standards as a framework for professional learning. While professional learning does exist
for school leaders, learning is not often connected to leadership goals; instead, it supports
initiatives that directly relate to instruction and does not include long-range planning or
leadership development. Many administrators have participated in workshops, but fewer
participate in creating social networks that build leadership capacity (Leithwood et al., 2012). It
is not always possible for school leaders to access professional learning due to the location or
costs associated with training, especially in small or rural districts. Furthermore, principal
supervisors are often district office administrators who may not be acutely aware of innovative
instructional practices due to the complexity of their positions (Johnson et al., 2016). Before
progress can be made, it is important to identify barriers that may prevent school leaders from
accessing professional learning opportunities based on the quality indicators of success provided
in the professional standards for educational leaders. Table 5 illustrates assumed organizational
influences and assessment.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

59
Table 5
Organizational Cultural Models and Settings
Organizational Mission
The mission of LEAD is to provide high-quality leadership development for school leaders
that will support their professional growth with the skills necessary to lead schools in the
21st century.
Organizational Global Goal
By January 2019, LEAD will implement a new professional learning framework for 100% of
veteran principals utilizing the principles of the California Professional Standard for
Educational Leaders.
Stakeholder Goal
By August 2020, 100% of veteran principals will participate in professional learning
activities in the LEAD framework.
Assumed Organizational Influences Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model: Professional
Learning plans are not consistently
aligned to the CPSEL.
Survey principals about their knowledge of the
CPSEL to gain a better understanding of areas
needed for professional development and
professional learning.
Cultural Model: Principal
professional learning for veteran
administrators is not a priority in
districts.
Conduct a 1:1 interviews with principals to discuss
professional learning goals and avenues to achieve
the goals. Use the information collected to present
to LEAD to use to create opportunities for
professional learning.
Cultural Setting: Principals are
overwhelmed by the enormity of their
positions and do not make time for
their own professional learning.
Survey principals about their professional learning
goals and their overwhelmed feelings about their
positions.
Cultural Setting: Leadership
development practices must align
with the needs of adult learners.
Interview principals about ways they could see the
CPSEL used to guide their leadership and
professional learning goals.
Cultural Setting: There is a lack of
structure for principals to use
professional standards as a
framework for professional learning.
Interview question to describe how professional
learning plans are developed.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

60
Conclusion
Research has confirmed that site leaders have an impact on the success of a school
(Johnston et al., 2016). Their widespread influence affects students and staff, yet many leaders
experience burnout and report low job satisfaction after just a few years in their positions.
According to the literature, veteran principals are overwhelmed with their positions and do not
often prioritize the need to participate in their own professional learning. Chapter 2 identified
influences that may lead to more significant support for veteran site leaders. Through the
identification of gaps in necessary skills and training to manage their positions, principals may
be better equipped to access professional learning targeted at increasing their skills, leading to
higher job satisfaction and a greater sense of self-efficacy to lead their schools. Using the KMO
gap analysis may help identify barriers that may be preventing leaders from attaining their
professional goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Keeping site leaders in schools longer with more
significant support and knowledge may be the link that leads to consistently increased student
achievement. Exploring perceptions and practices about professional learning will provide
insight into possible solutions that support site leaders’ growth and development and expand
their influence on student achievement. Chapter 3 will present the methodological approach
chosen to address the research questions proposed for this study.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

61
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Project
While trying to understand how to better support veteran school leaders, two themes
emerged in the literature that provided insight to better design and delivery of professional
learning: Principals Sense of Efficacy and Leadership Development through the lens of adult
learning theory (Drago-Severson, 2013; Zepeda et al., 2014). This innovation study was
designed to determine how veteran principals could increase their leadership capacity and
develop their leadership skills by learning in a way that increases their self-efficacy, matches
their knowledge and motivational needs, and utilizes the best practices of adult learning. It is
essential to understand the role efficacy plays for leaders to address topics such as burnout,
isolation, and stress as they navigate a myriad of goals and initiatives, many that they do not
control. Professional learning must be relevant to the work they perform for leaders to make it a
priority, not for lack of will, but because of the lack of time. Principals are in complicated
positions, but through the KMO framework, LEAD can determine the right types of learning
necessary to inspire leaders to remain in their positions long enough to make an impact on
student learning. This study was created to identify a framework for professional learning
aligned to the professional standards for site leaders and the requirements outlined by new
funding available through ESSA.
The purpose of this research project was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that affect a veteran site leader’s choice
and opportunity to participate in professional learning aimed at developing and supporting their
ongoing leadership needs. The analysis began by generating possible professional learning needs
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

62
and moved to examine them to determine actual or validated needs. The stakeholder of focus in
this analysis was site leaders with three or more years of experience or who completed previous
training in either Tier 1 or Tier 2 credentialing programs through LEAD and are in a leadership
position.
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation
in the Organizational Context
A conceptual framework is intended to create a visual representation of the relationship
between the fundamental concepts and the variables associated with this study. Maxwell (2012)
identifies a conceptual framework of a study as “a system of concepts, assumptions,
expectations, beliefs, and theories that support and frame research” (p. 39). Merriam and Tisdell
(2015) use the terms conceptual framework and theoretical framework interchangeably and
capture the definition of a conceptual framework as the “underlying structure, scaffold or frame”
(p. 82) of a study.
The purpose of a conceptual framework is to construct the research design around the
questions the study explored. The framework intended to build an understanding of the problem
and the factors that influenced it, rather than solely looking for solutions that exist in the
literature (Maxwell, 2012). Through this framework, this research study sought to gain a better
understanding of the relationship between veteran principals, their professional learning
pathways, and organizational influences that contribute to their development.
To begin, from personal experience, the researcher understood first hand there was a gap
in professional learning for administrators. As a school leader for over 24 years, professional
learning was not a priority, nor intentional. In California, once a school leader obtains a clear
service credential, no further training is required by the state to continue service (Commission on
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

63
Teacher Credentialing, 2017). This researcher sought to understand if there was any correlation
between the absence of required training, attention to leadership development, and high levels of
turnover that existed amongst site leaders.
LEAD experiences great success with its professional learning framework that uses the
California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders as a guiding document. The CTC
recently granted full accreditation to LEAD and officially certified them as a service provider for
Tier 1 and Tier 2 administrative service credentials in 2015. LEAD encapsulated the CSPEL for
aspiring and new administrators by infusing the guidance and support of veteran and retired
administrators who serve as coaches, rigorous coursework, and a culminating, relevant job-
embedded project. Veteran administrators who have worked for the LEAD program have stated
that the learning they provide to their students is just as valuable to them (T. Westermann & L.
Meyerson, personal communication, December 17, 2016). LEAD and the researcher identified
the importance of this learning and sought to determine if the current model could be expanded
to grow future programs and to provide ongoing support for veteran principals. By studying this
model, this research project intended to address its organizational goal to provide a professional
learning framework that matches site leaders’ professional learning needs. By identifying this
problem of practice, this study was developed to create a framework for principals who have
already obtained a clear administrative service credential. By applying the conceptual
framework, the following questions were answered:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs necessary to guide
veteran principals to participate in professional learning aligned with professional
standards?
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

64
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions that
would encourage principals to participate in professional learning aligned with
professional standards?
This visual representation of the conceptual framework presents the interaction of all the
components (Figure 2). Knowledge and motivational influences play a role in determining how
a leader learns (Clark & Estes, 2008). By looking at the conceptual framework from the middle
outward, one can discern that site leaders have the responsibility to know and reflect on their
needs as leaders. Their knowledge in all forms, including factual, conceptual, procedural, and
self-reflective knowledge contribute to their roles within an organization. Self-efficacy theory,
the belief that one is capable of producing their own level of achievement, and attribution theory,
the understanding that one’s beliefs and behaviors influence how one views the world, can affect
the choices leaders make to improve or learn new skills (Bandura, 1997; Weiner, 2010). By
exploring the needs of principals through this lens, the study aimed to identify what the
organization could do to support leader learning and development.
Moving outward, LEAD is the service provider that seeks to determine the best
framework to support leaders’ needs. Their experience in developing programs aligned with
professional learning standards has made them a leader in the State. LEAD also serves as a
research center that provides services to districts within the service area, not only for economic
reasons but to allow the greatest opportunity for collaboration among district leaders. By
offering continuing professional learning for site leaders, LEAD’s goal was to develop the
framework to inspire participation and pave the way for future training that supports principal
growth, and ultimately, positive outcomes for students.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

65
A third element guiding this study is the practice of Adult Learning Theory (ALT).
Research supports the notion that adults have unique learning styles (Zepeda, 2012). Those
styles differ from children, yet most professional learning opportunities available for site leaders
address specific pedagogy. By nesting the needs of LEAD and site leaders within the context of
adult learning theory, the study aimed to support the organizational performance goal to
implement a new framework of professional learning for veteran principals that will motivate
and encourage them to remain in their positions and positively influence student outcomes.
While exploring ALT, this study also examined the qualities of productive adult learning as
identified by the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders and the Standards for
Professional Learning.

Figure 2. The interaction of stakeholder’s knowledge and motivation in the organizational
context

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

66
Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework was designed to help organizations make
decisions about effective practices to improve performance (Figure 3). Known as the
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational (KMO) Influences Gap Analysis framework, the
process allowed the researcher to dissect the identified gap in performance and systematically
determine root causes and strengths to determine how LEAD could meet its organizational goal.
The gap analysis framework consists of three critical factors that were examined in the analysis:
knowledge and skills of the study group, their motivation to achieve the organizational goal; and
organizational barriers that may prevent progress, including cultural settings and cultural models
(Clark & Estes, 2008). The KMO framework requires that organizations be goal driven. To
meet organizational goals, specific information related to the goals are collected and analyzed to
determine possible gaps in performance that may prevent reaching the goal.

Figure 3. Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences gap analysis framework. Source:
Clark and Estes (2008)

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

67
This study was conducted using mixed methods research using a researcher-designed
survey instrument and interviews. Mixed methods research involves elements of quantitative
and qualitative studies. Specifically, this study used an explanatory-sequential mixed method
that involved statistical and textual analysis (Creswell, 2014a). This model began with
quantitative methods to collect information from all past participants of LEAD’s current
programs. From there, results were analyzed. The results yielded patterns of responses that
could be explored better through qualitative methods. The qualitative data in this type of design
intended to bring meaning to the data collected in the quantitative section of the study (Creswell,
2014b).
This method allowed the researcher to research two phases. The first step was to
administer a survey to a broad range of current LEAD program participants in two parts. The
first part consisted of general questions related to knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences related to professional learning for school administrators. Questions solicited
information about the familiarity of the California Professional Standard for Education Leaders,
professional learning plans, the impact of professional learning, learning styles, quality of
existing professional learning, and professional development design. The second part gathered
information using the Principals’ Sense of Efficacy Scale to better understand principals’ feelings
of self-efficacy in their current positions (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2007). This scale is
widely used by school districts to study the effects of challenges leaders face while performing
their duties. The researcher intended to compare results to determine if a principal’s sense of
efficacy had any impact on their attitude or participation in professional learning. After the data
was collected and analyzed, the researcher reviewed the results for trends and determined some
survey questions could be modified or eliminated before individual interviews (Creswell, 2014a).
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

68
The researcher identified specific interview questions that were intended to discover what role a
principal’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences play when participating in
professional learning. Phase 2 allowed the researcher to conduct individual interviews with
volunteers who indicated their willingness to participate at the end of the survey. Demographic
information obtained through LEAD determined a representative sample based on years of
experience in current positions. It also provided a widespread representation of the districts
LEAD serves. The interview questions were modified after surveys were completed to explore
specific questions based on the survey responses (Creswell, 2014a).
Assessment of Performance Influences
The KMO framework allows the researcher to assess all three components in each phase
of analysis. The study was designed to include a survey and individual interviews. Data was
collected specifically for factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge
influences through both survey and interview mediums. Data measuring motivational influences
was also gathered from surveys and interviews. Organizational influences were explored
primarily through interview questions. Results from both quantitative and qualitative data
collection include statistical analysis of quantitative data, adjustments made to qualitative data
collection due to the identification of outlier or significant results to seek depth or clarity, and a
final analysis of the qualitative data to explain the quantitative data. Table 6 outlines the
assumed influences of the KMO used for this study.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

69
Table 6
Sources of Assumed Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Sources
Assumed Influences on Performance
Knowledge and Skills Motivation Organization
Learning,
Motivation, and
Organizational
Influences
(KMO
Framework)
Principals need
knowledge of the
California
Professional Standards
for Educational
Leaders.
Attributions —
Principals attribute
success in their
positions on their
perceptions about
their work.
Cultural Model
Influence: Professional
Learning Plans are not
consistently aligned to
the CPSEL.
Principals need
knowledge of effective
leadership standards
(CPSEL) to support
their leadership
development.
Self-Efficacy —
Principals believe
that they are capable
of effectively
influencing student
outcomes based on
their leadership skills.
Cultural Model
Influence: Principal
professional learning for
veteran administrators is
not a priority in districts.
Principals need
knowledge of the
relationship between
the leadership and
student achievement.
Cultural Setting
Influence: Principals are
overwhelmed by the
enormity of their
positions and do not
make time for their own
professional learning.
Principals need to
know how to use
professional standards
to identify leadership
exemplars.
Cultural Setting
Influence: Leadership
development practices
must align with the
needs of adult learners.
Principals need to
evaluate their own
awareness of the role
of professional
standards to identify
gaps in their learning.
Cultural Setting
Influence: There is a
lack of structure for
principals to use
professional standards
as a framework for
professional learning.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

70
Knowledge Assessment
Knowledge is required for job performance and goal attainment, but different tasks
require different types of knowledge (Clark & Estes, 2008). For this study, knowledge
influences were measured in two forms: survey and interview, as outlined in Table 7. The
knowledge influences identified reflect Clark and Estes’ (2008) knowledge types: factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Knowledge of the CPSEL, how they are intended to
support administrators, and their relationship to student achievement were measured. Factual
and conceptual knowledge were measured through questions directly related to the content of the
CPSEL. Procedural knowledge pertains to training and how specific information about tasks is
acquired. Questions in this area included types and frequency of training provided and its
connections to the application of the CPSEL. Metacognitive knowledge identified how
respondents reflect on their learning. These questions were meant to solicit specific responses to
principals’ personal reflections about the CPSEL and how they are related to their positions as
leaders.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

71
Table 7
Knowledge Assessment
Assumed Knowledge Knowledge Influence Assessment
Factual Knowledge:
Principals need
knowledge of the
California Professional
Standards for
Educational Leaders.
Survey:
▪ How familiar are you with the California Professional
Standards for Educational Leaders?
▪ How often is your professional learning aligned to the
CPSEL?
Interview:
▪ How much have the California Standards for Professional
Leaders influenced your leadership development?
▪ How did your training with the LEAD contribute to your
preparation to assume your current position?
Conceptual Knowledge:
Principals need
knowledge of effective
leadership standards
(CPSEL) to support their
leadership development.
Survey:
▪ How familiar are you with best practices and exemplars
identified by the California Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders?
▪ How often do you refer to the CPSEL when developing your
annual goals?
▪ How often do you apply the CPSEL to your leadership?
Interview:
▪ Do you formally set annual goals for yourself? If so, are they
aligned to the CPSEL or other district expectations?
▪ How much have the California Standards for Professional
Leaders influenced your leadership development?
Conceptual Knowledge:
Principals need
knowledge of the
relationship between
leadership and student
achievement.
Survey:
▪ How familiar are you with the correlation between student
achievement and leadership?
▪ How often do you use the California Professional Standards
for Educational Leaders to identify areas of weakness in
your student performance?
Interview:
▪ How are students impacted by your leadership?

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

72

Table 7, continued
Assumed Knowledge Knowledge Influence Assessment
Procedural Knowledge:
Principals need to know
how to use professional
standards to identify
leadership exemplars.
Survey:
▪ How often have does your supervisor refer to the CPSEL
when discussing professional expectations?
Interview:
▪ How do you define professional learning?
▪ Do you formally set annual goals for yourself? If so, are they
aligned to the CPSEL or other district expectations?
Metacognitive
Knowledge: Principals
need to evaluate their
awareness of the role of
professional standards to
identify gaps in their
learning.
Survey:
▪ How often do you self-select your professional learning
activities?
▪ How often is your professional learning rooted in current
research-based leadership activities?
Interview:
▪ How often do you reflect on your progress towards your
annual goals? Is it a formal or informal reflection?
▪ Is there any you would change about your experiences at the
LEAD?
▪ If you could share just one piece of advice with a new
administrator about their development as a school leader,
what would to tell them and why is that important to you?

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

73
Motivation Assessment
Clark and Estes (2008) believe there is always a tangible outcome for motivation even
when there is no gap between goals and current motivation. The role of the school administrator
takes mental effort. Serving as a middle manager to some, the lead learner to others, it is
sometimes difficult to understand whose goals take priority, making it harder to maintain focus
on one goal. Bandura (1997) believes that motivation is a channel to shape experiences and
events. Site leaders are critical conduits for others, setting the tone and the direction for the
school. For this study, motivation was viewed from two different perspectives. First, survey and
interview items measured principals’ confidence in their attitudes about their own leadership
skills as they are credited to attribution theory from a growth mindset perspective; and self-
efficacy theory by identifying the leader’s beliefs about their capabilities. The second measure,
The Principals’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (PSES), intended to measure the leader’s perception
related to job events including goal setting, organizing, and completing tasks (Tschannen-Moran
& Gareis, 2004). These skills are necessary for principal leadership as leaders must facilitate
goal attainment from many different perspectives. Motivation influence assessments are outlined
in Table 8.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

74
Table 8
Motivation Assessment
Assumed Motivation Motivation Influence Assessment
Attribution Theory —
Principals attribute
success in their positions
on their perceptions
about their work.
Survey:
▪ How confident do you feel about your leadership skills?
▪ How confident are you that your professional learning plan
supports your needs as a site leader?
▪ How confident are you that your leadership contributes to
the success of your students?
▪ How confident are you that you spend enough time
participating in professional learning as a leader?
Interview:
▪ How confident are you that you have enough time to be
effective in your position?
▪ Where do you see yourself in 5 years? 10 years?
Self-Efficacy Theory —
Principals believe that
they are capable of
effectively influencing
student outcomes based
on their leadership skills.
Survey:
▪ Principal Sense of Efficacy Scale
Interview
▪ How confident are you that you have enough time to be
effective in your position?
▪ How are students impacted by your leadership?

Organizational Cultural Assessment
The final potential cause of performance gaps is defined as inefficient or ineffective work
processes (Clark & Estes, 2008). School administrators must navigate cultures and subcultures
to accomplish goals. Unintended consequences of multiple organizational cultures may be
oversight of work processes, value chains, value streams, and resources necessary to support
leadership development (Clark & Estes, 2008). Survey and interview items are intended to
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

75
discern the views of principals in pursuit of their leadership development. Table 9 distinguishes
questions designed to understand leaders’ views of cultural models and settings that impede or
support their performance.

Table 9
Organizational Influences Assessment
Assumed Organizational
Influences Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural Model
Influence: Professional
learning plans are
consistently aligned to
the CPSEL.
Survey:
▪ How often do you apply the CPSEL to your leadership?
Interview:
▪ What motivates you to participate in professional learning?
Cultural Model
Influence: Principal
professional learning for
veteran administrators is
not a priority in districts.
Survey:
▪ My district allows me to choose my professional learning
activities.
▪ My district provides support (time, compensation,
registration, etc.) for my professional learning.
▪ How often do you work with other site leaders in a
professional learning setting?
▪ How often do you work with or serve as a mentor/coach with
a colleague?
Interview:
▪ What professional learning opportunities exist for you?
▪ Think about the last professional learning activity you
participated in.
o Was it your choice of someone else’s choice?
o Was it something you needed or something someone
else wanted you to learn?
o How has the PL influenced your current professional
goals?
o Did this PL impact your professional goals?

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

76
Table 9, continued
Assumed Organizational
Influences Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural Setting Influence:
Principals are
overwhelmed by the
enormity of their positions
and do not make time for
their own professional
learning.
Survey:
▪ How often do you work directly with a coach or mentor?
▪ How often have you participated in professional learning designed by a
colleague?
▪ How often do you work in a formal professional learning community?
Interview:
▪ Do you have enough support/time to adequately address all your
responsibilities as a leader?
▪ What might be some of the most difficult challenges you face in your
position as a site leader right now?
What holds you back from participating in professional learning?
Cultural Setting Influence:
Leadership development
practices must align with
the needs of adult learners.
Survey:
▪ I participate in professional learning chosen by my supervisors.
▪ I am offered follow-up coaching and support related to my professional
learning goals.
▪ I participate in and/or present activities with my colleagues related to
professional learning topics.
▪ How often have you worked with a mentor/coach?
▪ How often have you participated in professional learning designed and
presented by a colleague?
▪ How often do you work in a formal professional learning community for
school leaders?
▪ How confident are you that the time you spend working with your
colleagues contributes positively to your development as a leader?
▪ How often do you work with or serve as a mentor/coach with a colleague?
▪ How often is your professional learning considered “hands-on”?
▪ How often is your professional learning delivered by lecture with very
limited interaction?
▪ How often do you participate in online, self-paced professional learning?
▪ How often are you able to provide honest and meaningful feedback about
the quality of your professional learning?
▪ How often do you participate in professional learning that address your
wellness including stress reduction?

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

77
Table 9, continued
Assumed Organizational
Influences Organizational Influence Assessment
Interview:
▪ Describe the most beneficial professional learning opportunity you
have participated in.
▪ How did this PL impact your professional practice?
▪ Think about the last professional learning activity you participated in.
o Was it your choice of someone else’s choice?
o Was it something you needed or something someone else
wanted you to learn?
o How has the PL influenced your current professional goals?
o Did this PL impact your professional goals?
▪ Describe the ideal professional learning plan for yourself.
o What would be your focus?
o How would you assess its’ impact on your practice?
o What skills would you hope to enhance through this PL?
o How would it be funded/supported?
▪ Have you ever worked with a coach or a mentor? If so, can you please
share how that experience supported or deterred from your growth as a
leader?
▪ Do you think having a mentor or serving as a mentor is a good
practice?
▪ Have you/are you a part of a professional learning community or
community of practice for site leaders?
▪ What do you gain from being a part of a PLC or CoP?
If you had one wish for your professional development, what would that
be?
Cultural Setting
Influence: There is a
lack of structure for
principals to use
professional standards
as a framework for
professional learning.
Survey:
▪ When thinking specifically about your professional learning as a
leader, how often have you participated in events aligned to the
CPSEL?
Interview:
▪ Do you formally set annual goals for yourself? If so, are they aligned
to the CPSEL or other district expectations?

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

78
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
In research, it is critical to reflect on the research questions to determine the appropriate
sample selections (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Since the focus of this study centered on
continuous training for site leaders and sought information about successful training practices,
the stakeholder group chosen for the study consisted of administrators who completed their
credential requirements as a participant in LEAD’s preservice administrative credential and clear
credential program. This study sought to identify how the CPSEL supported or did not support
leaders’ professional learning once they assumed a position as a practicing administrator.
Participants in this study serve in administrative roles such as principals or assistant principals or
other positions such as department chairs, program specialists, teacher leaders, and in some
cases, district office administrators. To better understand the value of specific components in
LEAD’s previous training related to the content and use of the professional standards, this
sample group was appropriate since no other training program in the area uses the same
framework.
Participant Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Must have completed Tier 1 and completed or nearly completed Tier 2 of
LEAD’s credential program.
Criterion 2. Must be in possession of a preliminary or clear administrative service
credential issued by the State of California.
Survey Sampling Strategy and Rationale
The initial researcher-designed survey was sent to all administrators who participated in
LEAD’s program Tier 1 and Tier 2 program since 2011. The database contained every
participant who completed or will complete both programs within one year. This form of data
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

79
collection was a total population sampling (Fink, 2012). The purposeful sampling survey was
provided with a cover letter explaining the nature of the study and purpose of the research.
Invitations to participate and the survey link via Qualtrics were emailed to participants with a
letter of introduction from the researcher and the executive director of LEAD. Access to the
database was provided by LEAD with the sole intent to gather data for this study. The database
was used for research purposes only. As of October 2, 2018, 114 participants completed or were
nearing the end of Tier 2 programs at LEAD. The target response rate was between 30% and
50% (34-57).
The following steps occurred to recruit participants:
1. The researcher prepared a cover letter explaining the nature of the study. With the
assistance of LEAD’s technical support team, the executive director and the
researcher sent a joint communication to all participants from current and past LEAD
programs inviting and encouraging participation in the study. Participants were
informed that participation was voluntary, confidential, and participation could be
ended at any point during the survey.
2. Upon receipt of the survey letter, participants had immediate access to a survey link
via Qualtrics. The link remained open for 21 days.
3. One week after the survey link was sent out, a reminder email was sent to all
participants restating the nature of the survey and summary of the study. Participants
were asked to consider volunteering for an individual follow-up interview by
completing the contact information on the survey link.
4. Two days before the close of the survey, a final reminder was via email with a link to
the survey. Participants were reminded that their participation was voluntary,
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

80
confidential, and could end at any time during the survey. Participants were asked to
consider volunteering for an individual follow-up interview by completely the contact
information on the survey link.
5. The day following the close of the survey window, a concluding email was sent to
thank participants for their submissions.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
The second phase of research consisted of individual interviews. The personal interview
was intended to gain a better understanding of what organizational barriers inhibit or support a
leader’s choice to participate in professional learning activities. It also sought a deeper
understanding of successful professional learning practices to meet the needs of veteran
principals. Participants in LEAD’s program who were in leadership roles were considered for
interviews. The target number of interviews was 6-10. All volunteers that met the established
criteria were interviewed. While anonymity was not protected in this portion of the interview,
participants’ responses to Part I and Part II surveys were not associated with their names and
email addresses.
Criterion 1. Must have completed Tier 1 and completed or nearly completed Tier 2 of
LEAD’s preliminary credential program.
Criterion 2. Must be in possession of a preliminary or clear administrative service
credential issued by the State of California.
Criterion 3. Must have full time or part time administrative duties.
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
Participants were selected for interviews based on a response to the survey requesting
volunteers to participate in a personal interview. Merriam and Tisdell (2015) refer to this type of
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

81
sampling as purposeful sampling. The sample group was specifically chosen to participate if
they met the criteria established above. The target number of interviews was a minimum of 6
and maximum of 10. For scheduling purposes, the following steps occurred:
1. One day after the survey window closed, participants who volunteered for individual
interviews were identified.
2. Participant email addresses were sent to LEAD to determine if they met the criteria
for interviews.
3. Once verified by LEAD, participants were contacted via email to set up an interview
time. The email explained the interview process and the nature of the information
that would be solicited. Participants were informed that their identity would be
protected, but that the interview was not anonymous. Participants were also informed
that the survey was voluntary, could be ended at any time, and questions could be
skipped if so desired. The participants were informed of confidentiality and provided
assurances of accuracy of research. Participants were advised that the researcher
would seek permission to audio record the interview for transcription and coding after
the interview. The researcher offered the participants the opportunity to determine a
convenient time for the interview and informed them that the anticipated time for the
interview would be 30-45 minutes. The researcher offered choices of location
including participant’s place of employment, online via Google Chat, or a local coffee
shop convenient for the participant.
4. Interviews were scheduled by the researcher as participants responded. Confirmation
notices were sent immediately to the participant confirming the date, location, and
time of interview.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

82
5. One day before the interview, the researcher sent a confirmation reminder to the
participant of the date, location, and time of interview.
6. On the day following the interview, the researcher sent a letter thanking the
participant for his/her time.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
This research project aimed to identify how professional learning could be designed to
inspire practicing professionals to participate amid the multitude of tasks already assigned to
them, especially when there was no requirement to do so. LEAD has been very successful at
attracting and training aspiring and beginning school leaders. LEAD hopes to capitalize on
current practices to appeal to an audience of professionals that have been serving as school
leaders for at least three years. After careful analysis of the data, it is the intention of this
research project to inform further professional learning practices (Bogdan & Biklen, 2005).
Data collection is essential in research as it allows the researcher to gather evidence and
piece together the experiences of the participants to in the context of the research questions
(Polkinghorne, 2005). The methodology used in this study is mixed methods research following
the explanatory sequential model. Figure 4 represents the flow of data collection. The process
began with a three-part survey. At the conclusion of the survey, an analysis was completed to
determine any additions, deletions or adjustment that should be made in Phase Two to ensure
alignment and to determine if further exploration in the qualitative phase was warranted
(Creswell, 2014b).

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

83

Figure 4. Explanatory sequential mixed methods design

Surveys
The survey protocol was the first step in the data collection process to gain a sense of a
principal’s level of perceived support, knowledge of the CPSEL, and motivation to guide their
practice (Appendix A). The non-random survey was used to protect from bias and ensure the
highest amount of participation to warrant the greatest quality of responses (Fink, 2012). The
survey was produced using Qualtrics software. Using the database provided by LEAD, the
survey was emailed to each participant of LEAD’s Tier 1 and Tier 2. LEAD maintains the
current database and updates it regularly to ensure accuracy. The survey was developed as an
online survey for ease of completion and was intended to take between 15 and 30 minutes to
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

84
complete. The survey was divided into three parts: Part I: Current Practices in Professional
Learning for Site Leaders; Part II: Current Challenges for Site Leaders (Principal’s Sense of
Efficacy Scale); and Part III: Demographic information.
Part I consisted of 33 survey questions designed by the researcher to explore knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences to inform the research questions. The questions were
designed to gain a broad understanding of school leaders’ professional learning opportunities and
their knowledge of the CPSEL. Multiple choice and open-ended questions sought to understand
the type of qualities that the school leader values in their professional learning opportunities.
Part II is the Principal’s Sense of Efficacy Scale. This 18-item scale was developed to explore a
principal’s understanding of their self-efficacy about their behaviors as a school leader
(Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). This survey was used to inform the research surrounding a
principal’s belief in advancing their leadership skills based on current feelings of self-efficacy.
The scale was used with permission from the creator. Part III included demographic information
about the respondent’s experience and current position. After the survey, participants were asked
to volunteer for a personal interview in Phase Two that would further explore the concepts of
training and support for veteran principals. All volunteers who met the criteria for interviews
were interviewed.
Part I of the survey had limitations since it was designed by the researcher. It was
developed specifically to seek quantifiable information about a school leader’s knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences (KMO) as established in the conceptual framework
(Clark & Estes, 2008). The survey was given to a control group of consisting of 16 active site
leaders before administration as part of this research study to seek clarity in language and item
construction to establish validity. Part II is a research scale widely used by principals
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

85
internationally. Developed by researchers Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2004), the survey has
been validated for widespread use.
Interviews
After the survey results were analyzed, interview questions were reviewed and adjusted
to ensure that the information needed for this study was gathered. Survey participants were
asked to volunteer for an interview as a follow up to the survey. The target number of interviews
was 6-10 participants from a variety of districts.
All participants provided verbal permission to record their interview. Each participant
indicated voluntary participation and permission to record as the first question recorded.
Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded for analysis. Interviews were conducted in a
semi-formal environment and held at the participant’s school or through Google Chat. Average
interview time was just under 20 minutes. The interview protocol was a semi-structured open-
ended format. Due to the limited number of interviews anticipated, the semi-structured open-
ended format allowed for the highest consistency across all interviews, limiting the variation,
keeping the interview highly focused, and provided the most significant potential for
comparisons across all interviews (Patton, 1990). The questions were compiled to reflect the
study’s conceptual framework. The interview protocol is attached (Appendix B).
Data Analysis
The data analysis plan was developed to map the conceptual framework topics to survey
and interview responses (Pazzaglia, Stafford, & Rodriguez, 2016). Data analysis took place in
phases using quantitative and qualitative data. Survey data were collected using Qualtrics
software. Interview data were recorded, transcribed, and coded for analysis using Nvivo
software. An initial analysis of survey results was completed to ensure interview questions
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

86
would capitalize on the necessary information needed to inform the research questions. From
there, interview questions were adjusted to ensure enough data was gathered to assess potential
gaps in leaders’ knowledge and motivation to participate in professional learning and to assess
organizational barriers that impeded leaders’ engagement in professional learning.
The stakeholder group surveyed consisted of 114 past participants of LEAD’s programs.
LEAD sent out 114 emailed surveys with 53 surveys completed generating a 46% response rate.
The response rate falls in the anticipated range of completed surveys. Participants were not
required to complete every question, so response rates varied from question to question.
Qualtrics software generated a report that provided the frequency for every question. From
there, information was downloaded to Excel for further descriptive statistical analysis. Most of
the data were collected from responses using Likert scales. The raw data report is included in
Appendix C.
Nine survey participants volunteered to participate in a voluntary interview after
completing the survey. Eight of nine respondents completed personal interviews with the
researcher. The target number of 6-10 interviews was met. Interviews were recorded,
transcribed, and uploaded to Nvivo software for analysis. The transcripts from all eight surveys
were sorted to establish themes that aligned to the conceptual framework and research questions.
Interviews favored intentionally information about organizational influences by design since this
information was not readily captured in using survey questions. Cultural settings and cultural
models were the focus of interviews. A codebook was created using empirical and axial codes
resultant of the conceptual framework.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

87
Validity and Reliability
Thoughtful consideration must be given to the how the data collection instruments are
developed and used. Validity is a measure of the instrument’s accuracy while reliability refers to
the consistency of an instrument over time (Creswell, 2014a). This researcher used a custom-
made survey and interview protocol explicitly designed for this study along with the Sense of
Principal Efficacy survey that has been tested over time (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004).
The accuracy of the instrumentation must be tested by the researcher to ensure the questions are
interpreted accurately to establish validity and reliability (Salkind, 2016). Before the final
administration of the initial custom-made survey, it was piloted with sixteen active
administrators who were not participants in the final study. This pilot study allowed the
researcher to test the intent of the questions to ensure validity and reliability. Pilot respondents
provided comments about the intent of the questions to seek clarity.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
In addition to considerations of reliability and validity for the quantitative section of this
study, careful planning occurred for the qualitative component of this study. While the
quantitative portion sought to understand static states, qualitative data aimed to understand how
people acted in dynamic states (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Before proceeding with interviews,
the results of surveys were cross-referenced with interview questions to ensure the qualitative
phase accurately matched the research design and established themes. Once the interview
protocol was aligned, all interviews were conducted in a consistent manner. During the
interview phase, the researcher maintained credibility and trustworthiness by ensuring
confidentially. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for accuracy and assurances stated to
ensure participant safety (Creswell, 2014a; Maxwell, 2012; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). By
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

88
triangulating the data with the results of the quantitative analysis, the researcher also determined
themes that led to plausible findings and ensured consistency across different data collection
methods. It is important to note that the researcher’s background may have presented bias and a
threat to the validity of the research (Maxwell, 2012). Addressing the bias through member
checking and semi-structured interviews provided the reader with validated data (Lincoln &
Guba, 1986).
There were inherent risks associated with interviews based on the researcher’s prior
experience as a site leader (Maxwell, 2012). To overcome these risks, the researcher was aware
of potential bias and intentionally focused on possible bias throughout the interview process.
The researcher used a script during interviews and reflected on interview responses to ensure
bias was minimized. Transcripts of the interviews were reviewed immediately following the
interview to identify any possible researcher bias that could be avoided in subsequent interviews
(Creswell, 2014a).
All interview and survey data was accounted for in data analysis. The researcher referred
to interviews, surveys, and notes collected during interviews to ensure quality and inform
analysis and allow for accurate triangulation. Triangulation ensured that multiple perspectives
were considered before conclusions were drawn. Comparisons between pilot survey (member-
checking), interview questions revised after quantitative data collection, and final analysis of
surveys and interviews ensured greater trustworthiness of the data.
The sampling for this study impacts generalizability (Maxwell, 2012). The survey was
distributed to all members that met criteria for the study to maximize the generalizability for the
LEAD community. Survey participants were all offered an opportunity to participate in
interviews. Interview participants were from a broad range with no exclusion from volunteers.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

89
To this end, the study findings should offer useful information to LEAD to support the
development of professional learning opportunities that will be most beneficial to future
participants in their programs.
Role of the Investigator
This researcher is associated with LEAD as a coach working with Preliminary and Clear
credential candidates. The researcher’s current role is as a coach to clear credential candidates
with no supervisory or instructional role within LEAD. It is critical that the participants
understood that the researcher was conducting research as a student of the University of Southern
California and not as an employee of LEAD. Participants were informed that the information
gathered from this research project was confidential. In addition, all participants’ responses in
Part I and Part II gathered with Qualtrics software were anonymously collected to protect any
association with their demographic information.
This researcher served as a site leader for over 24 years. Over time, many colleagues
discussed several themes raised in this study. The generalized statements shared in the research
about burnout, stress, overwhelming job duties and relentless job demands were shared in
personal circles and explored professionally. This study aimed to provide more insight into some
of the factors that may be contributing to high turnover and burnout amongst school leaders.
Ethics
Ethical considerations and the protection of the participants were paramount in this
research study. To gain a complete understanding of the research questions, conducting research
with using human subjects was critical. Since this study was conducted using mixed methods, it
was necessary to address ethical issues associated with both qualitative and quantitative methods
of research (Creswell, 2014a). While bound by the laws governing the Institutional Review
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

90
Board (IRB) at the University of Southern California, it was also crucial that the research was
conducted with the highest ethical standards both professionally and personally (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015). According to Glesne (2015), guidelines for ethical research must include
informed consent, confidentiality, and a “do no harm” clause that will protect the rights of the
participants. The considerations for ethics were consistently applied in every phase of this
research. Before beginning any research, participants in this study were apprised of the intent of
the research and the process used to analyze the data. Informed consent forms were provided to
all participants before beginning each phase of data collection. Informed consent included full
disclosure by this researcher about the nature of the research and intended research questions,
requested permission to record conversations, subject’s right to withdraw from the study at any
time, and the assurance that confidentiality was maintained throughout the study including how
information was stored and secured. This study was submitted for review to the University of
Southern California’s IRB to ensure the safety of all participants. All guidelines and
requirements put forth by the IRB were strictly enforced.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

91
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the factors that support or prevent school site
leaders’ participation in standards-aligned professional learning opportunities. Because no
program currently exists within the LEAD organization, this study intended to explore the needs
of site leaders who had previous experience with standards-aligned professional learning to
determine the opportunity and choice to participate in ongoing professional learning after
completing all credentialing requirements. The questions that guided this study were:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs necessary to guide
veteran principals to participate in professional learning aligned with professional
standards?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions that
would encourage principals to participate in professional learning aligned with
professional standards?
The first question is answered in this chapter. This study was conducted by collecting
and analyzing qualitative and quantitative data. Quantitative data was collected through two
different surveys given to the same stakeholder group. A researcher-designed survey was
intended to collect information about participants’ knowledge, motivation, and perceived
organizational influences about professional learning. The second survey was a validated,
internationally-recognized survey intended to measure participants’ self-efficacy as a site leader.
Qualitative data was collected through individual interviews intended to explore further patterns
and trends based on the results of the surveys. The interview questions were designed to deepen
the researcher’s knowledge about perceived gaps in professional learning opportunities and the
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

92
use of professional standards. All three measures were intended to validate the assumed
knowledge, motivation, and organization influences site leaders encounter while pursuing
professional learning specific to their leadership capacity.
The results presented in this chapter are organized by assumed knowledge, motivation,
and organization influences. Quantitative data were collected first. The survey results were
summarized before interview analysis within each assumed influence type. Tables have been
added to provide visual results or category summaries of quantitative data supporting each
influence. Interview summaries are included and contain direct quotes from participants.
Demographics of Respondents
General demographic information about years of service and leadership was collected
from all participants during the qualitative phase of data collection. As documented in Chapter
3, the surveys were sent to 114 past participants of LEAD’s administrative service credential
programs. Of the 114 surveys emailed, 53 of them were completed by participants that met the
criteria indicated in Chapter 3. There was no requirement to answer every question, so responses
to questions varied. Figure 5 illustrates the survey completion rates.
Survey participants indicated the number of years in leadership service ranging between 1
and 9 years, with the average years of leadership service equaling 4.1 years, including the current
school year. Participants served an average of 3.6 years at their school sites including teaching
and leadership roles. Figure 6 illustrates the span of leadership experience from the survey
participants. Figure 7 illustrates the range of total years participants have served at their current
sites.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

93

Figure 5. Survey completion rate

Figure 6. Total years of leadership experience

Surveys Not
Completed
54%
Surveys
Completed
46%
1
2%
2
4%
3
7%
4
9%
5
11%
6
13%
7
16%
8
18%
9
20%
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

94

Figure 7. Total years at current site

Interview participants represented eight different districts within LEAD’s service area.
Each participant indicated on their survey their willingness to participate in a personal interview.
Average years of service in their current leadership position was 2.75 years. All interview
participants consented to the spirit of anonymity and understood that their responses might be
used in this study to support or dissuade assumed influences. Respondents are referred to as R
(1-8) with numbers randomly assigned, so their responses are attributed to each one as
appropriate. Figure 8 illustrates the span of leadership experience from the interview participants
and corresponding respondent number.

1
2%
2
4%
3
5%
4
7%
5
9%
6
11%
7
13%
8
15%
9
16%
10
18%
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

95

Figure 8. Interview respondents’ years of leadership experience at current site

Results and Findings for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Gaps
Real change will only occur when the proper causes that create gaps in performance are
determined through a complete analysis of knowledge, motivation and organizational influences
(Clark & Estes, 2008). To answer the research questions for this study, the assumed influences
were examined through surveys and interviews to determine the extent, if any, of a gap in
expectations and performance. The influences, listed in Table 10, combine efforts of a complete
system analysis. Knowledge and motivation drive individual work performance while
organizational systems determine environmental effectiveness (Clark & Estes, 2008). It is
essential to understand both team and individual gaps to determine the best solutions.

3 3
5
1
2
3
4
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8
Years of Leadership at
Current Site
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

96
Table 10
Summary of KMO Influences
Assumed Influences
Assessment
Instrument
Knowledge
Declarative Principals need knowledge of the California Professional
Standards for Educational Leaders.
Survey and
Interview
Declarative Principals need knowledge of effective leadership standards
(CPSEL) to support their leadership development.
Survey and
Interview
Declarative Principals need knowledge of the relationship between the
leadership and student achievement.
Survey and
Interview
Procedural Principals need to know how to use professional standards to
identify leadership exemplars.
Survey and
Interview
Metacognition Principals need to evaluate their own awareness of the role of
professional standards to identify gaps in their learning.
Survey and
Interview
Motivation
Attributions Principals attribute success in their positions on their perceptions
about their work.
Survey and
Interview
Self-Efficacy Principals believe that they are capable of effectively influencing
student outcomes based on their leadership skills.
Survey and
Interview
Organization
Cultural Model Professional Learning Plans are not consistently aligned to the
CPSEL.
Survey and
Interview
Cultural Model Principal professional learning for veteran administrators is not a
priority in districts.
Survey and
Interview
Cultural Setting Principals are overwhelmed by the enormity of their positions and
do not make time for their professional learning.
Survey and
Interview
Cultural Setting Leadership development practices must align with the needs of
adult learners.
Survey and
Interview
Cultural Setting There is no consistent structure for principals to use professional
standards as a framework for professional learning.
Survey and
Interview

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

97
Definition of Validation
Each of the influences discussed in this chapter will have gaps that were validated or not
validated based on the data presented. The validated influence gap is one where 50% or more of
the respondents agreed that the influence was necessary and/or indicated a gap in both data sets
based on what was available to them or missing in their practice. An influence gap was
determined to be partially met if one of the data sets confirmed a gap but the other one did not.
An influence gap was determined not to be validated when both data sets determined that no
adjustments needed to be made in practice.
Some influences were not validated as gaps but confirmed as strengths of the existing
training programs. To design a professional learning program that supports the ongoing
development of school leaders, influence gaps that were not validated may indicate a best
practice that should be considered necessary for LEAD’s ongoing work, as supported by the
literature. The literature and data analysis confirmed that these influences are essential
components currently embedded into the LEAD program and should be included as critical
components in future professional learning design. Since no program is currently in existence,
the confirmed knowledge and motivation influences for individual stakeholders impacted by this
study can be used to inform organizations, such as district or central office about the value of
LEAD’s current work and its impact on leaders.
Results and Findings of Knowledge Causes
Survey results and interviews informed the assumed knowledge causes to determine what
has been successful among LEAD’s participants. From there, the information was used to
analyze if a gap exists between what was learned during the credentialing process and what
exists after to further develop and support school leaders. The knowledge influences have been
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

98
analyzed to determine if school leaders understood the connection between the CPSEL and their
development as leaders and were able to apply them to their leadership practices. Once
established as a leader, this study sought to understand if the same supports provided in pre-
service were also available after participants began in leadership positions.
Knowledge influence 1: principals need knowledge of the CPSEL (declarative).
Influence gap not validated. Data indicates that participants clearly understand the CPSEL and
the role they play in new leaders’ preparation. While no gap exists, this influence should be
considered as a best practice.
Survey results. Two survey questions examined this influence. When asked about the
familiarity of the CPSEL, 89% of respondents indicated they were “very familiar” or “somewhat
familiar” with the CPSEL, 11% responded they were “familiar” with them, and zero respondents
specified lack of knowledge of the CPSEL. Eighty-six percent of the responders align their
professional learning to the CPSEL.
Interview results. Respondents were asked if their training through LEAD contributed to
their preparation to assume current positions. Six respondents confirmed that LEAD’s use of the
CPSEL framework provided them with an overview of the requirements to be an effective school
leader. R7 expressed her knowledge of the CPSEL as “the tool for my leadership.” R6 offered
“they are completely aligned to my work.” R4 recognized that the tools provided by LEAD “are
the tools and the systems the CPSEL frame for my work.” Interview respondents spoke of the
value of the CPSEL throughout the interviews. It was evident that their explicit knowledge and
understanding of the standards was an outcome of their learning.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

99
An influence gap is not validated. It is confirmed that it is vital for school leaders to have
knowledge of the CPSEL, therefore a necessary component for site leaders to develop their
leadership skills. This influence should be considered a best practice.
Knowledge influence 2: principals need knowledge of effective leadership standards
(CPSEL) to support their leadership development. Influence gap not validated. Data
indicates that respondents clearly understand the CPSEL and the role they play in new leaders’
development. While no gap exists, this influence should be considered as a best practice.
Survey results. Three questions examined this influence. When asked how familiar
leaders are with the best practices and exemplars identified in the CPSEL, 83% of respondents
indicated they were “very familiar” or “somewhat familiar” with them, while only 17% stated
they were “familiar.” Only one respondent indicated they were “not familiar” with the CPSEL.
Seventy percent of respondents expressed they referred to the CPSEL when setting annual goals,
while 4% said “never” using them. When asked how often the CPSEL are used to define their
leadership, 83% replied that CPSEL are used “a great deal” to a “moderate amount.” All three
questions conclude that respondents are aware of the importance of the CPSEL for their
leadership development.
Interview results. Of the eight interviews conducted, all communicated that the CPSEL
and their training with LEAD contributed to their development as leaders. R7 said, “I cannot
imagine a better tool to use to help me see what leadership is all about. The way the CPSEL are
organized helps me to keep my day to day events in perspective.” R5 shared “I use them to
organize myself and my evaluations of teachers. I have developed a walk-through protocol to
use when I visit classrooms. The CPSEL have helped me understand what I am looking for.”
R4 expressed, “I would be lost without them.” The theme of using the CPSEL for leadership
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

100
developed in each interview, leading the researcher to conclude the value of the CPSEL
framework for respondents.
An influence gap is not validated. The data indicate that respondents understand how the
CPSEL framework has shaped their leadership development and have confirmed the importance
of this influence. This influence should be considered a best practice since no gap exists.
Knowledge influence 3: principals need knowledge of the relationship between
leadership and student achievement (declarative). Influence gap not validated. Data suggests
that respondents undoubtedly recognize the relationship between their leadership and student
achievement. While no gap exists, this influence should be considered a best practice.
Survey results. One interview question directly determined the site leaders’ knowledge
of the relationship between leadership and student achievement. Sixty-five percent of
respondents acknowledge that they are “very familiar” with the correlation between student
achievement and leadership and 34% of respondents indicating they are “somewhat familiar” to
familiar with the correlation. No respondents indicated they were unfamiliar with the connection
between their leadership and student success.
Interview results. Respondents articulated a solid belief in the relationship between their
leadership and student achievement. When asked how student achievement was impacted by
their leadership, R1 stated that “my students’ success is directly related to my leadership. I
believe that I must model what is expected and we celebrate success along the way.” R6 said
that “my leadership impacts my staff, and in turn, our students.” Themes in responses to this
question imply a strong understanding of the importance of leadership and student achievement.
Some respondents also connected the strength of teachers to their leadership as well, indicating
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

101
the belief that their actions as a leader influence teachers’ performance in the classroom leading
to better outcomes for students.
An influence gap is not validated. The data has offered insight into leaders’
understanding of the connection between leadership and student outcomes. This influence
should be considered a best practice since no gap exists.
Knowledge influence 4: principals need to know how to use professional standards
to identify leadership exemplars (procedural). Gap validated. The data suggest that site
leaders understand the CPSEL, but are not consistently used for identifying exemplars in
leadership practices.
Survey results. Two survey questions informed this influence. When asked how CPSEL
informed professional goals, 70% of respondents indicated they used the CPSEL to set annual
goals. When asked how often supervisors refer to the CPSEL when discussing professional
expectations, 56% of respondents recognized that their supervisors referred to them “about half
the time” to “never.” This suggests that the CPSEL are not consistently used between leaders
and their supervisors.
Interview results. Two interview questions informed this influence. Three of the
respondents in interviews claimed that their supervisors used the CPSEL when discussing their
leadership skills. While respondents indicated that they used them for determining goals, only
three districts used them in formal goal setting. R5 stated, “never are the CPSEL discussed with
me formally.” R3: “while we refer to them in meetings, my goals have never been aligned to the
CPSEL as I know them.” R2 replied when asked are your goals aligned to the CPSEL, the
response was “I work in a bureaucracy that historically lives in the status quo. CPSEL are not
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

102
discussed.” Interview responses indicated no consistent pattern between how the CPSEL are
used between supervisors and respondents.
Survey and interview responses conclude that a validated gap between what respondents
believe informs their goals and their formal practices, thus a procedural gap is validated.
Knowledge influence 5: principals need to evaluate their own awareness of the role
of professional standards to identify gaps in their learning (metacognition). Influence gap
not validated.
Survey results. Two questions were intended to inform this influence, but the questions
did not adequately address the influence to indicate validity clearly. Information gleaned from
survey questions #9, “How often do you self-select your professional learning activities?”
responded that 70% of leaders could self-select their professional learning activities. Survey
question #10 asked respondents if their learning is rooted in research-based leadership
development activities and 82% stated “always” or “most of the time.” While these questions do
not clearly indicate a correlation between professional standards and professional learning, the
responses do signal self-reflection on professional learning activities. Since the CPSEL are
rooted in research-based practices, a case can be made for alignment.
Interview results. Based on initial analysis of the survey questions, three questions were
included in interviews to gather information on the role of self-reflection of their leadership
abilities and the CPSEL. Each of the eight respondents responded that they engage in regular
self-reflection, but 6 or 8 specified that they do not share their reflections with a supervisor. R2
recognized that “it is just for me. I am lucky if my supervisor even knows my goals.” When
asked to reveal one piece of advice you would share with a new leader, R6 stated “to pay
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

103
attention to the CPSEL to guide you. I did not realize how valuable they were until I became a
principal.” R5 recognized:
My biggest take away from XXXX is the enormity of the task. XXXX provided me the
tools and the structure to be a successful leader. I know what is contained in these
binders and I know what it takes to align my work with the CPSEL. I want every
administrator to know the value of what is inside of these binders [referring to the binders
used in the XXXX program].
Interview responses indicate that respondents understand the value of reflecting on their
goals, but the survey questions failed to indicate a direct correlation. Based on the data
collected, no gap exists. However, the influence is validated as a necessary component that site
leaders evaluate their awareness of the role of professional standards when determining gaps in
their learning.
Summary of Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
The findings for knowledge causes validated 1 of 5 of the influences studied as an
indicator knowledge necessary to use the CPSEL in practice. A perceived gap exists between
what is known by study participants and their supervisors that will be further examined in the
section on organizational influences. The literature review in Chapter 2 supports the knowledge
influences not validated as best practices for leadership development. Based on this analysis, the
data indicates that the non-validated influence gaps may be associated with LEAD’s extensive
use of the CPSEL in their existing program.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
Based on the literature, self-efficacy and attributions are theories of motivation that
contribute to a leader’s ability to make decisions and sustain activities (Rueda, 2011).
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

104
Motivation causes were examined in two parts, first using the same survey and interview
instruments referenced in the knowledge section for the first assumed influence. The second
influence was informed by a sub-section of the Principals’ Sense of Efficacy Survey (PSES). In
addition, survey respondents also completed the two remaining subsections of the PSES
developed by Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2004) to determine the overall sense of efficacy.
The literature suggests that without a principal’s leadership, schools cannot achieve their
fundamental goal. By examining the self-efficacy of leaders using the PSES in addition to
survey and interview questions, the study intended to determine if the LEAD programs
contribute to site leaders’ overall efficacy.
Motivation influence 1: principals attribute success in their positions to their
perceptions about their work (attributions). Influence gap not validated. Data suggests that
respondents exude high levels of confidence in their work practices. Since no gap exists, this
influence should be considered a best practice.
Survey results. Five survey questions informed this assumed influence. Respondents
were asked about their confidence as leaders in five areas: leadership skills, professional learning
plans, student outcomes, professional learning, time spent with colleagues. Based on the
literature about attribution theory, emotions and beliefs determine future outcomes (Fernet,
2010). Site leaders who are confident in their abilities are more motivated to persevere through
difficult tasks. As Table 11 indicates, nearly every respondent claimed they were “extremely
confident” or “somewhat confident” in their abilities as leaders. This indicates that relatively
new leaders feel confident in their positions as leaders. While this confidence can be attributed
to other influences, interview questions explored any association with the stated influence.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

105
Table 11
Results of Attributions Survey Questions
Question
Extremely
confident
Somewhat
confident
Slightly
confident
Not
confident
Average
value
20. How confident do you feel
about your leadership skills?
(n=49)
13 34 2

1.78
% Response 0.27 0.69 0.04 0.00

21. How confident are you
that your professional
learning plan supports your
needs as a site leader? (n=48)
17 26 5

1.75
% Response 0.35 0.54 0.10 0.00

22. How confident are you
that your leadership
contributes to the success of
your students? (n=48)
18 26 3 1 1.73
% Response 0.38 0.54 0.06 0.02

23. How confident are you
that you spend enough time
participating in your
professional learning as a
leader? (n=48)
13 25 5 5 2.04
% Response 0.27 0.52 0.10 0.10

24. How confident are you
that the time you spend
working with your colleagues
contributes positively to your
development as a leader?
(n=47)
21 17 7 2 1.79
% Response 0.45 0.36 0.15 0.04

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

106
Interview results. Based on the results of the survey, two interview questions were asked
to follow up on respondents’ confidence to be effective leaders. While all respondents responded
that they did not have enough time to complete every task assigned to them, four of them stated
that they knew what to do, but there was not enough time to do everything needing to be
accomplished for a variety of reasons. R5 said “I don’t have enough time, but I lay out my day
as if there was. Things come up that distract me, but that does not indicate I cannot do what has
been assigned.” R3 articulated that “I cannot get things done because of the demands, but I do
feel what I accomplish I do well.” R6 offered “my confidence hovers around 50% mostly
because I am hard on myself. Some days I nail it, and I know exactly what I am doing.”
The second question presented to inform this influence was respondents’ predictions
about what they would be doing in five years. Two leaders indicated they would be seeking
advancement into principal positions. Two respondents specified they were not sure and their
decision would be made based on family factors, while one respondent shared the future was
unclear because of the lack of support received from supervisors. One respondent offered that
advancement to the district level was the goal. The remaining two leaders confidently stated
they hoped to remain in site leader positions.
Survey and interview responses indicated that leaders believe in their abilities to lead.
Therefore no influence gap exists. This influence is not validated but it is confirmed that site
leaders attribute their successes based on their perceptions about their work. This influence
should be considered a best practice.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

107
Motivation influence 2: principals believe that they are capable of effectively
influencing student outcomes based on their leadership skills (self-efficacy). Influence gap
not validated. Data suggests that respondents demonstrate a high level of self-efficacy at this
stage in their careers. Since no gap exists, this influence should be considered a best practice.
Survey results. The PSES consists of 18 statements intended to capture context-specific
aspects of self-efficacy. Respondents were asked to rate their ability based on current resources
and opportunities in present positions. For analysis, the questions are organized into three
categories: Efficacy for Moral Leadership, Efficacy for Management, and Efficacy for
Instructional Leadership. The sub-section for Efficacy for Instructional Leadership was used to
validate the second assumed influence.
Results for Efficacy for Instructional Leadership is comprised of six questions as
documented in Table 12. The 9-point scale with 1 being “None at All” to 9 being “A Great
Deal.” The mean for four questions falls between 6 and 7. Questions 7 and 10 fall closer to 6.
The standard deviation for all questions was relatively close suggesting most respondents were
most likely close in their agreement with a few potential outliers.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

108
Table 12
Principals’ Sense of Efficacy Scale — Efficacy for Instructional Leadership
Question: In your current role as a leader, to what extent can you: Mean
Standard
Deviation
1) facilitate student learning in your school? 6.71 2.20
4) manage change in your school? 6.66 2.15
6) create a positive learning environment in your school? 6.77 2.14
7) raise student achievement on standardized tests? 5.74 2.16
9) motivate teachers? 6.69 1.53
10) promote the prevailing values of the community in your school? 6.11 1.84

Interview results. One interview question influenced self-efficacy directly. As discussed
in the knowledge influences section, when asked how students are impacted by their leadership,
respondents implied a robust and confident response. R4 stated that “The very nature of my
position has a trickle-down effect on teachers’ priorities . . . I have the opportunity to shape what
students are learning.” R2 responded “in my position, I am the person who contributes to the
positive environment of the school . . . happy teachers and happy kids go a long way.” R3
shared that “students look to me for modeling. I make it a point to be in classrooms teaching, so
they know I value what they are learning as well.” Respondents reflections imply that their
decisions as leaders impact successful student outcomes.
To further explore the relationship between leaders’ sense of efficacy and their training
through LEAD, respondents were asked how their training through LEAD contributed to their
preparation to assume a leadership position. R7 indicated “training through LEAD allowed me
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

109
to be guided into leadership. Breaking down the CPSEL by project really helped me understand
what it takes to really lead my school.” R5 enthusiastically replied that “having a coach break
down my role like she has is key to my success. I still call her today because having someone to
validate my decisions is key.”
Survey and interview responses conclude that leaders believe in their abilities to
influence student outcomes using their leadership skills. Therefore no influence gap exists. The
data does confirm that self-efficacy affects leadership decisions for student outcomes and should
be considered a best practice.
Principal’s Sense of Efficacy Scale. The literature presented in Chapter 2 suggested that
principal self-efficacy is a critical component in their success as leaders. In addition to the
influence listed above, this researcher opted to analyze the results of the PSES in totality to
explore the relationship between leader self-efficacy and organizational influence that may
impact site leaders’ ability to set and achieve goals. The questions in the PSES were crafted
using professional standards developed by the Interstate Schools Leaders Licensure Consortium
in 1997, so the correlation between them already existed. The CPSEL are modeled after the
revised standards used in the creation of the PSES (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004).
Along with the PSES section included above, two additional sections are presented for
analysis. It is important to note that the version respondents completed is not divided up into
three sections. Analysis of the PSES groups six questions into one of the three categories
identified above.
Results for Efficacy for Moral Leadership (Table 13) and Efficacy for Management
(Table 14) were also calculated. Each section consisted of 6 questions. The 9-point scale with 1
being “None at All” to 9 being “A Great Deal.” The results for Efficacy for Moral Leadership
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

110
displayed in Table 13 conclude the mean for five questions falls between 6 and 7. Question 8
dips under a mean of 6. The mean for four questions falls between 6 and 7. The results for
Efficacy for of Management in Table 14 offered the broadest range of responses with four
questions with a mean between 5.5 and 6.5. Questions 15 and 18 presented with a mean between
6.6 and 6.8, similar to the other subsections. The standard deviation for all questions was
relatively close suggesting most respondents were most likely close in their agreement with a
few potential outliers.

Table 13
Principal’s Sense of Efficacy Scale — Efficacy for Moral Leadership
Question: In your current role as a leader, to what extent can you: Mean
Standard
Deviation
2) generate enthusiasm for a shared vision for the school? 6.86 2.18
5) promote school spirit among a large majority of the population? 6.46 2.12
8) Promote a positive image of your school with the media? 5.91 2.31
13) handle effectively the discipline of students in your school? 6.2 2.42
14) promote acceptable behavior among students? 6.71 2.42
16) promote ethical behavior among school personnel? 6.86 1.57

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

111
Table 14
Principal’s Sense of Efficacy Scale — Efficacy for Management
Question: In your current role as a leader, to what extent can you: Mean
Standard
Deviation
3) handle the time demands of the job? 6.43 1.96
11) maintain control of your schedule? 5.71 2.11
12) shape the operational policies and procedures necessary to manage
your school?
5.69 2.22
15) handle the paperwork required for the job? 6.6 1.79
17) cope with the stress of the job? 6.23 1.93
18) prioritize among competing demands of the job? 6.83 1.85

Table 15 compares all three subsections of the PSES and an overall mean for the entire
PSES. This summarizes that the mean is 6.40 for all respondents. This reveals that respondents,
on average, believe they have “some degree” to “quite a bit” of control over the demands of their
positions. According to the authors of the scale, Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2004), the results
should be used to determine what guidance site leaders need to build a sense of resiliency that
will enable leaders to master their skills and enhance their efficacy. Bandura (1997) determined
that three approaches that develop self-efficacy come through modeling and transfer of support,
observing and working with peers using decision making and thinking skills, and enhancing self-
monitoring, self-regulation, and goal setting. Bandura’s (1997) model complements Knowles’
(1978) key features necessary for reaching adult learners. Because LEAD has trained these
leaders with these elements in mind, the results can be used to inform plans for veteran leaders as
well.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

112
Table 15
Principal’s Sense of Efficacy Scale Results
Subsection Mean
Standard
Deviation
Efficacy for Instructional Leadership 6.45 2.0
Efficacy for Moral Leadership 6.50 2.13
Efficacy for Management 6.25 1.98
Overall Principal’s Sense of Efficacy Scale 6.40 2.04

Summary of Results and Findings for Motivational Causes
The results and findings for motivational causes did not validate either of the influences
studied for site leaders. The literature review in Chapter 2 supports the motivation influences not
validated as best practices for leadership development. Based on this analysis, the data
concludes that the non-validated influence gaps may be associated with LEAD’s focus on
foundational skills and the application of the CPSEL as aspirational exemplars of leadership.
Both self-efficacy and attributions influences can be linked to the impact of the CPSEL and
support provided in training. Further exploration and study about the impact of motivation on a
leader’s decision-making process should be considered as a best practice to be included in future
professional learning programs.
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
The survey and interview instruments used to inform knowledge and motivation
influences were used to assess organizational causes and explore any potential gaps in
performance. Organizations are often deep-rooted in assumptions, values, and beliefs that
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

113
govern the way people behave. LEAD serves as a service provider for many school districts.
Culture, practices, and protocols for professional learning vary from district to district. This
information presented as organizational influences can be used to inform LEAD’s program
design to determine fair opportunities for leaders to participate in professional learning. While
some survey questions addressed organizational influences, interview responses provided the
most significant opportunity to determine organizational barriers and influences.
Respondents represented eight different organizations within LEAD’s service area
including one non-public school organization.
Organizational influence 1: cultural model influence: professional learning plans are
not consistently aligned to the CPSEL. Influence gap validated. Survey and data results
conclude that the CPSEL are not consistently aligned with professional learning plans.
Survey results. Three survey questions partially informed this influence. When asked if
CPSEL are used in developing annual goals, 70% of respondents related they were used
“always” or “most of the time.” Eighty-three percent of respondents confirmed that they use the
CPSEL in their leadership practices from “a great deal” to “a moderate amount.” Similar to the
inference captured in procedural knowledge influences, when asked how often do supervisors
refer the CPSEL when discussing professional expectations only 44% of respondents stated
supervisors use them. These results indicate that the CPSEL are inconsistently used by both
supervisors (part of the organization) and respondents when developing professional learning
goals.
Interview results. Each interview respondent was asked if annual goals are determined
by the CPSEL or other district expectations; only three respondents confirmed the consistent use
of the CPSEL by both supervisors and respondents. Two of them are using the CPSEL, a
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

114
requirement from LEAD for participants in their program. R4 said that the CPSEL “are used this
year because of LEAD’s requirement to set goals aligned to the CPSEL.” R8 claimed that “it is
a requirement for the program.” R8 expressed that “my goals are aligned to the CPSEL, but my
supervisor would not know what they were.” R1 affirmed that “our district forms do not even
mention the CPSEL.” In summary, there was no consistency in respondents’ answers. Two of
the respondents shared that they could not confirm that supervisors had any knowledge of the
CPSEL nor were they used in conversation about leadership success indicators.
This gap was validated. Survey and interview data conclude that the CPSEL are not
consistently used to set goals or align professional learning plans. Respondents expressed a
robust and widespread personal use of the CPSEL, but their supervisors do not. As a result, this
gap is validated.
Organizational influence 2: cultural model Influence: principal professional
learning for veteran administrators is not a priority in districts. Influence gap partially
validated. Survey results differ from interview results, but this gap is only partially validated
because the research does not precisely determine who chooses not to make professional learning
a priority.
Survey results. Two survey questions informed this influence. A summary of survey
responses claimed that 71% choose their professional learning activities and 62% indicate that
they receive support, including time, compensation, and conference fees, for their professional
learning. This supports that choice and support are both offered to most respondents.
Interview results. Interview questions probed this theme closer by asking respondents to
describe what professional learning activities were available to them. Five of the respondents
said that they were not provided a choice for professional learning, two indicated complete
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

115
choice, and one specified that although it was chosen for them, it was something that would have
been personally chosen. Respondents claimed that professional learning was an activity to
increase their leadership capacity, yet only two agreed they had complete control over what was
needed and what was attended. R3 stated “I attended training that was required. Besides my
regular meetings, that was that last thing I would call professional learning.” R6 confirmed that
“professional learning was something sought out or given to that supports the capacity for
leadership . . . . I was sent to a week-long summer institute and realized that this was the first
professional learning I attended since becoming an administrator.” R5 offered that:
[T]he options are minimal. Most often it is chosen for me. My district does not allow me
choices. If I had to choose, it would be on the weekend or summer because there is no
one who can cover the school if I am gone . . . the district provides topics to discuss, but I
do not feel they benefit me directly. I have a specialty school so what we are provided
does not always relate to me.
R1 articulated that:
I can attend, but I have to find a way to pay for it and ensure that my school is covered by
our site funds. It is not easy to justify going somewhere when I have teachers who need
training worse than me.
Respondents reiterated that while professional learning may be offered, it was not
consistently supported or provided based on leaders’ choice. While some had access, others
shared that supervisor or district initiatives dictated professional learning.
An organizational gap was partially validated in this influence. Survey results
determined that respondents had opportunity and support to participate in professional learning.
Interview findings suggested that while there was some choice, support was more limited for
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

116
more than 50% of the respondents. Therefore, a gap in this influence was partially validated
because it is uncertain what prevents leaders from participating in professional learning.
Organizational influence 3: cultural setting influence: orincipals are overwhelmed
by the enormity of their positions and do not make time for their professional learning.
Influence gap partially validated. Not enough data was gathered to definitively determine the
validity of this influence gap.
Survey results. Three questions informed this influence but were not conclusive in
determining if leaders are overwhelmed by their positions. All three questions sought to
understand if respondents participate in professional learning activities like those they
experienced at LEAD. The literature suggests that organizational cultural norms and expectation
placed on school leaders overshadows their personal needs as leaders (Hallinger & Murphy,
2013). Only 43% of respondents confirmed they work with a mentor/coach, but the survey
neglected to ask if that coach is a currently assigned LEAD coach. Only 32% of respondents
participated in collegially-designed professional learning but neglected to ask if this was by
choice or by design. Finally, 32% of respondents stated they are participants in a professional
learning community, but the survey neglected to ask if this was by choice or by design.
Interview questions were revised to address the perceived gap to seek clarity on these concerns.
Interview results. One interview question was amended to gain a better understanding of
leaders’ influence on choosing professional learning. Two other questions sought to understand
if respondents have enough support to adequately their roles as school leaders and the challenges
they face.
When asked what holds respondents back from participating in professional learning,
time was a common theme expressed amongst all respondents. R1 offered, “time or lack of time
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

117
is my greatest enemy.” R6 stated “time, time, and time . . . when I am at school, something else
is always taking precedence.” R2 claimed that “I am not expected to do professional learning.
Everything I do is on my own time.”
Respondents were also asked about their most significant challenges as leaders. This
question was aimed at understanding potential hurdles that may interfere with their own
development as school leaders. All eight respondents mentioned that the unpredictability of the
position and the time it takes to complete tasks is the greatest hurdle that prevents them from
furthering their learning. R4 revealed “I have so much to learn since this position is relatively
new. I find myself spending time with the person who previously held this position. Things take
a lot longer to learn than I anticipated.” R8 offered, “I feel like I am learning just to get caught
up. I choose what I want to learn, but then how I apply it to my job is harder than I thought.”
Another theme that resonated was that supervisors might define professional learning
differently than respondents. Four of the eight respondents believe that they just need to follow
along with what their departments expect and provide. Some feel their supervisors view
principals’ meetings as their form of professional learning while others feel professional learning
is embedded in other activities respondents may be invited to. R5 revealed, “I must attend
principals’ meetings every two weeks. I guess they feel they know what I need to meet the
district’s needs.” R6 shared, “we are so small, it does not make sense for us to do formal
professional learning. I just meet with my boss when I need something.”
This influence is only partially validated because not enough information was gathered to
determine if the enormity of their positions prevents them from participating in professional
learning or if the respondents were not prepared to learn. Respondents lack time to participate in
professional learning, or activities that could be defined as professional learning, but there was
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

118
not an identified influence that led to a valid conclusion that the challenges of the position led to
preventing participation in professional learning. To adequately inform this influence, more data
is necessary. This influence is partially validated.
Organizational influence 4: cultural setting influence: leadership development
practices must align with the needs of adult learners. Influence gap validated. Survey and
interview data revealed a significant gap in current practices that do not align with the needs of
adult learners.
Survey results. Nine questions informed this influence that leaders need access to
professional learning practices that meet the needs of adult learners. The questions asked about
specific strategies aligned to adult learning andragogy. The literature suggests that the way
adults learn is different from children, yet most professional learning is designed to address
pedagogical needs (Houle, 2006). Survey questions were intended to ask about the specific
styles for adult learning that include: control of learning, focus on immediate needs, presented
with on-the-job applications and connections, goal orientated, and supported in a respectful,
mutual, and informal climate that includes coaching and communities of learners (Zepeda,
2012).
Only one style that addresses adult learning strategies received a ranking of “strongly
agree” or “agree.” When asked if respondents participate in collegial professional learning, 53%
expressed they “strongly agreed” or “agree,” suggesting that some adult learning needs are met
by contact with peers, suggesting that some connections were evident. When asked who chooses
professional learning, 61% indicated supervisors choose, suggesting that respondents are not
always in control of their professional learning. Other styles such as coaching, professional
communities, and self-paced, online learning received combined “strongly agree” or “agree”
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

119
responses less than 50% of the time. Only 16% of respondents selected “strongly agree” or
“agree” that professional learning supported their wellness and stress. The results are
summarized in Table 16.

Table 16
Summary of Adult Learning Style Opportunities Offered
% of Responses
“Always” or “Most
of the Time”
13. I participate in professional learning chosen by my supervisors. 61%
15. I participate in and/or present activities with my colleagues related
to professional learning topics.
55%
17. How often do you work with a mentor/coach? 43%
18. How often have you participated in professional learning designed
and presented by a colleague?
33%
19. How often do you work in a formal professional learning
community for school leaders?
34%
% of Responses “A
Great Deal” or “A
Lot”
28. How often is your professional learning considered hands-on? 44%
30. How often do you participate in online, self-paced professional
learning?
9%
32. How often do you participate in professional learning that
addresses your wellness including stress reduction?
16%

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

120
When asked to rank eight preferences for professional learning styles, the top four
options correspond with elements of andragogy. Figure 9 presents the rank order of eight options
offered to respondents. Respondents were asked to rank their preferences for professional
learning activities that would best support their needs. Items are listed in the order of individual
preferences with a rank of 1 indicating the most favorable preference. This suggests that
respondents prefer activities aligned to the art and science of adult learning, as suggested by
Knowles (1978).

Figure 9. Rank order and mean of preferences for professional learning activities

Putting the data from both data sets together suggests that while adults understand and
desire professional learning aligned to their needs, the professional learning they receive is less
likely to be designed with the needs of adult learners in mind. In addition, when asked how often
respondents were asked if they can provide honest and meaningful feedback about the quality of
their professional learning, only 43% reflected they provided feedback “A great deal” or “a lot.”
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

121
Researchers suggest that providing feedback about professional learning is a critical feature that
leads to more ownership of learning. When leaders own their learning, they have a higher
likelihood of applying the learning to their work situations and leadership (Zepeda, 2012).
Interview results. Interview respondents were asked to describe their ideal professional
learning plan without any prompting about adult learning styles to expand on the information
gleaned from the survey questions. All eight interviews captured plans that aligned to adult
learning needs. R6 shared “requiring professional development is the first step . . . I want it to
align with my interest.” R2 revealed that “it begins with my expectations for myself. If I hold
them high, I will do ok.” R8 offered:
The way LEAD is set up right now is perfect. I am required to meet with my mentor, and
that helps have ongoing conversations about my everyday practices. My mentor supports
me by talking out my decisions with me to help me better understand my needs on the
job. It makes everything ever present because it gives me somebody who has been there,
done that, and is competent enough to bounce things off. It works well for me.
R4 related similar sentiments:
Sharing with people just like me who may be struggling in their position, helps me learn
more about myself and what I am doing. While it takes time, I rely more on my
colleagues from LEAD than anyone else . . . professional learning should be a systemic
priority for districts. Without LEAD, I will be missing my support system.
Respondents clearly had strong opinions about the types of professional learning they
would prefer. Adult learning theory suggests that adults understand the relationship between
what they learn and what they need. Adult learners, like the respondents, understand the iterative
nature of professional growth and their desire to have some control over their outcomes.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

122
This influence gap is validated. Survey and interview data provided evidence to suggest
that respondents prefer activities that meet the learning styles of adults, but current professional
learning activities may not. As a result, this gap is validated.
Organizational influence 5: cultural setting influence: there is no consistent
structure for principals to use professional standards as a framework for professional
learning. Influence gap validated. Survey data and interview responses confirm that the
structure for professional learning is inconsistently aligned to professional standards.
Survey results. Two survey questions informed this influence that leaders use
professional standards as a framework for their professional learning. Fifty-nine percent of
respondents offered that they use the CPSEL “Always” and “Most of the Time” to plan
professional goals, but only 44% of their supervisors use them to guide professional learning
plans. The literature suggests that people are more productive when they have a framework for
goals and evaluation (Murphy et al., 2000), suggesting that both respondents and their
supervisors should use a framework to establish performance goals, monitor them, and reflect on
progress towards attaining the goals. If respondents are familiar with the CPSEL, but they are
not used consistently as a framework for goal setting or professional learning, it suggests an
organizational barrier may exist that prevents widespread use of the CPSEL as a framework for
evaluation and supervision.
Interview results. One semi-directed question informed this influence. When asked the
one wish respondents had for their professional learning, five respondents specified that they
would prefer to use a format like the training provided to them from LEAD. While respondents
were asked to create their own ideal professional learning plans without any parameters, they
gravitated towards the structure provided in their preservice leadership training. This training
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

123
included working with mentors or coaches, combined discussion and coursework presented in a
variety of settings, and the ability to learn with their peers. R1 relinquished that “while it took up
my Saturdays, the time flew and I learned so much.” R4 and R8 felt the support of their coach
was the best resource possible. Both stated they are still in contact with their previous coaches.
R3 claimed that “learning from my peers, with the guidance of the course instructors, and using
the CPSEL has framed my development as a leader.”
The reliance on the CPSEL from the respondents reveals that they benefitted from the
structure provided by their previous training with LEAD. Some shared the emotional attachment
they felt from the participants and the support staff from LEAD. Relationships formed during
the previous training still influence their development as leaders. The value of relationships
created with the respondents’ previous training reveals the value of their experiences and led to
growth. The absence of that structure appears to impede their current growth as leaders.
This influence gap was validated. Survey and interview data provided evidence to
suggest that respondents feel comfortable working within the structure of the CPSEL to develop
their leadership skills, but a formal process is absent. As a result, this gap is validated.
Summary of Results and Findings for Organizational Influences
The results and findings for organizational influences validated three of the five assumed
influences and partially validated the other two. As the literature suggested, this section
examined organizational influences that may prevent stakeholders from achieving organizational
goals. The organizational influences examined focused on the needs of site leaders and the
support they need to achieve their goals since they need to understand how to navigate the
organization structure to successfully lead their schools (Waters et al., 2003).
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

124
Summary
The literature review in Chapter 2 identified 11 possible knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that would prevent or support the LEAD’s organizational goal of
providing a framework for veteran site leaders’ leadership development through the CPSEL. The
methodology presented in Chapter 3 for discovering identified gaps was designed to generate
empirical evidence through surveys and interviews. An analysis of the data collected identified
and validated gaps for four of the influences and provided evidence for partial validation of two
additional influences. Table 17 provides a summary of the influences and their status of
validation. Chapter 5 will present further discussion and recommendations for validated
influences and gaps.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

125
Table 17
Summary of Influence Validation

Assumed Influences
Validated,
Partially
Validated, or
Not Validated
Knowledge
Declarative Principals need knowledge of the California Professional
Standards for Educational Leaders.
Not Validated
Declarative Principals need knowledge of effective leadership standards
(CPSEL) to support their leadership development.
Not Validated
Declarative Principals need knowledge of the relationship between the
leadership and student achievement.
Not Validated
Procedural Principals need to know how to use professional standards to
identify leadership exemplars.
Validated
Metacognition Principals need to evaluate their own awareness of the role of
professional standards to identify gaps in their learning.
Not Validated
Motivation
Attributions Principals attribute success in their positions on their perceptions
about their work.
Not Validated
Self-Efficacy Principals believe that they are capable of effectively
influencing student outcomes based on their leadership skills.
Not Validated
Organization
Cultural Model Professional Learning Plans are not consistently aligned to the
CPSEL.
Validated
Cultural Model Principal professional learning for veteran administrators is not a
priority in districts.
Partially
Validated
Cultural Setting Principals are overwhelmed by the enormity of their positions
and do not make time for their professional learning.
Partially
Validated
Cultural Setting Leadership development practices must align with the needs of
adult learners.
Validated
Cultural Setting There is no consistent structure for principals to use professional
standards as a framework for professional learning.
Validated

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

126
CHAPTER 5
SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EV ALUATION PLAN
This study intended to call attention to the importance and value of school leadership and
the ongoing development of leaders who influence the success of the schools they serve.
Chapter 1 outlined the problem of practice of developing a framework that inspires school
leaders to engage in ongoing professional learning, not only to strengthen their skills but to keep
them motivated to remain in their positions long enough to positively influence student
outcomes. Chapter 2 provided a comprehensive literature review based on the KMO Gap
Analysis framework, the development of professional standards, and a contemporary view of
professional learning viewed in an andrological perspective. Chapter 3 presented the conceptual
framework for this study and the methodology protocol developed to analyze the study questions
aligned to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences explored in the literature
that would prevent LEAD from reaching its organizational goal. Chapter 4 provided an analysis
of survey and interview data to determine if any influence gaps were validated.
Chapter 5 addresses recommendations for closing the gaps identified in Chapter 4. A
summary of validated best practices is also provided that may support LEAD’s development of
professional learning opportunities that will inspire and encourage veteran leaders to engage in
ongoing leadership development.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Table 18 provides a summary of the validated influences as a result of the data analysis
completed in Chapter 4. Recommendations and principal citations are listed by KMO influence.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

127

Table 18
Summary of Validated Influences
Assumed Influences Validated
Knowledge
Procedural Principals need to know how to use professional standards
to identify leadership exemplars.
Validated
Motivation
No Validated Influences
Organization
Cultural Model Professional Learning Plans are not consistently aligned to
the CPSEL.
Validated
Cultural Model Principal professional learning for veteran administrators is
not a priority in districts.
Partially
Validated
Cultural Setting Principals are overwhelmed by the enormity of their
positions and do not make time for their professional
learning.
Partially
Validated
Cultural Setting Leadership development practices must align with the needs
of adult learners.
Validated
Cultural Setting There is no consistent structure for principals to use
professional standards as a framework for professional
learning.
Validated

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

128
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. One knowledge influence in Table 19 implied a widely represented
procedural knowledge influence in the literature and validated during data collection. The
knowledge influence represented in this table reflects a possible solution to the validated
influence that will support LEAD in developing appropriate professional learning practices for
veteran principals.
The California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSEL) are organized
into six major themes related to leadership. For principals to apply them, they first must
understand how they are constructed and how they are associated with outcomes for students.
The information contained in the CPSEL identify vital skills necessary for school leaders. When
fundamental knowledge is not present, the gap between the current state and the desired
outcomes may prevent principals, and ultimately the students, from obtaining benchmarks and
goals. When knowledge is absent, goal attainment may be impossible (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Researchers have identified four types of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive (Anderson et al., 2001; Rueda, 2011). Each type of knowledge plays a specific
role in learning and goal attainment. Factual knowledge is defined as the essential elements
needed to complete or solve problems. Conceptual knowledge helps learners make sense of the
interrelationship and structures of information. Procedural knowledge is knowledge of how
things go together and methodologies used to complete tasks. Metacognition is one’s awareness
of their own thinking and reflective knowledge to solve problems.
It is also important to note that Anderson et al. (2001) revised Bloom’s Taxonomy to
better define how the cognitive domain and the knowledge dimension work together to help
learners construct meaning. In this work, Anderson et al. (2001), added more definition to the
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

129
hierarchical steps of learning to represent foundational learning beginning with factual and
conceptual knowledge (declarative knowledge), followed by procedural knowledge then
metacognition. Anderson et al. (2001) believe that while the learning spans from concrete to
abstract along a continuum, the skills necessary for each domain are no less complicated at any
stage. Therefore, it is essential to apply knowledge across the continuum. Table 19 provides the
knowledge influence that was validated by the research based on the theoretical principles of
knowledge attainment.

Table 19
Summary of Knowledge Influence and Recommendation
Knowledge
Influence
Knowledge
Type Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Principals need to
know how to use
professional
standards to
identify leadership
exemplars.
Procedural Procedural knowledge allows
individuals to apply a specific
methodology required to
accomplish specific activities
(Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011).
To develop mastery,
individuals must acquire
component skills, practice
integrating them, and know
when to apply what they have
learned (McCrudden &
Schraw, 2007).
Provide organizers,
concept maps,
scaffolded guidance,
and coaching that
model how the
leadership standards
are connected to
leadership exemplars.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

130
Procedural knowledge solutions. Site leaders need to know how to use the professional
standards to identify leadership exemplars for their own practice (P). Procedural knowledge is
defined as the knowledge about how to do something and applying methods and techniques
(Rueda, 2011). It is used to recall, clarify, integrate, and design solutions to complex problems
(Anderson et al., 2001). Procedural knowledge allows principals to apply a specific
methodology to accomplish specific activities. McCrudden and Schraw (2007) assert that to
develop mastery, individuals must acquire component skills, practice integrating them and know
when to apply what they have learned. The complexity of site leadership requires the leaders be
aware of how the standards are connected to their leadership practices. It is also critical that
skills are practiced (McCrudden & Schraw, 2007). If site leaders can connect the CPSEL to their
own practices in a meaningful way, they will have a greater likelihood of constructing long-term
practices. The recommendation is to provide site leaders organizers, scaffolded guidance, and
the conceptual framework of the standards to connect existing practices to exemplary practices
through coaching and modeling.
Principal turnover rate can be attributed to the complexity of the position (Heitin, 2013).
The standards organize critical elements of the principalship into manageable chunks (Murphy,
2005). The professional standards were developed through observations of successful schools.
The schools’ best practices were broken down into manageable themes designed to organize the
job functions of a site leader logically. Research suggests that this methodology allows site
leaders to connect to their own practices, validates their experiences and serves as an aspirational
model of site leadership leading to increased student success (Cardno & Fitzgerald, 2005).
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

131
Motivation Recommendations
Both motivation influence gaps were not validated during data analysis. Therefore no
recommendations are required. The results of the data analysis suggest that leaders who have
participated in LEAD’s current programs demonstrate high motivation to perform their tasks and
are confident in their abilities, but it is critical to maintain motivation over time. Clark and Estes
(2008) define motivation as “what gets us going, keeps us moving, and tells us how much effort
to spend on tasks” (p. 80). It is the combined effort of active choice, persistence, and mental
effort. The dimension of choice implies that the intent to pursue a goal is replaced by action.
Persistence is defined as the intention to continue a goal once it has been started. Mental effort is
what people do to develop solutions in the face of distractions (Clark & Estes, 2008). Rueda
(2011) asserts that motivation must be instigated and sustained by cognitive and affective
(internal) choices while navigating social and cultural (external) factors. Researchers agree that
there is no single theory of motivation, so it is important to study different perspectives (Rueda,
2011). Rueda (2011) also believes that motivation is most likely based on cultural beliefs of
individuals, so it is important to note that that motivation is most likely dependent on the
individual interactions within the social niches.
Given the nature of the position, site leaders must move from activity to activity in a
relatively short amount of time, so internal motivation may influence their outcomes. Possible
reasons this may occur could be the range of experience of research participants. Research
indicates that principals’ efficacy is high in the first year on the job, but starts a steady decline
between years two and six (Fisher, 2011). Not to lose the significance of this research, ongoing
monitoring of leaders’ self-efficacy is recommended. For this reason, Table 20 summarizes
opportunities for LEAD to monitor leaders’ motivation to remain on the job.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

132
Table 20
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Motivation Influence
Motivation
Type Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Principals attribute
success in their
positions on their
perceptions about
their work.
Attributions Provide feedback that
stresses the process of
learning, including the
importance of effort,
strategies, and potential
self-control of learning.
(Anderman & Anderman,
2006)
Provide leaders
opportunities to
determine their own
learning goals and
appropriate
professional learning to
support those goals.
Principals believe
that they are capable
of effectively
influencing student
outcomes based on
their leadership skills.
Self-Efficacy Learning and motivation
are enhanced when
learners have positive
expectancies for success
(Pajares, 2006).
Learners must be provided
opportunities to have goal-
directed practice with
frequent, targeted, and
private feedback on
progress in learning and
performance (Pajares,
2006).
Provide scaffolded
support from a coach
that breaks downs
tasks, sets reasonable
goals, and allows for
frequent feedback on
progress directly
related to student
outcomes.

Attribution theory. Site leaders often move from decision to decision with little time to
pause. Motivation to move forward for positive outcomes is often shaped the decisions they
have made in the past (Wells & Klocko, 2015). Principals must attribute their success or failure
to their perceptions about their work. Attribution theory suggests that three causal dimensions
significantly impact outcomes: locus, stability, and controllability (Weiner, 2010). Weiner (1986)
determined that previous successes and failures influence future activities. This includes
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

133
emotions such as pride (locus), hopelessness and resignation (stability), as well as anger,
gratitude, pity, guilt and shame (controllability) (Weiner, 1986). Anderman and Anderman
(2006) determined feedback that stresses the importance of learning including effort, strategies,
and self-control in the learning environment impacts success. This would suggest that principals
will benefit from frequent feedback that stresses the need for ongoing learning. Furthermore, site
leaders need to have some choice over their learning. The recommendation for the organization
is to provide leaders with opportunities and choice in determining their professional learning
goals that are supported by feedback tied to professional goals.
Clark and Estes (2008) state that all humans express a desire to be effective. Principals
must be in control of their decisions to positively impact student outcomes. Attribution theory
assumes a constant level of locus, stability, and control (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). The
CPSEL provide insight into aspirational best practices for instructional leaders and allow leaders
to assume some level of control over tasks when applied to daily work (Kearney, 2003). Positive
feedback through coaching and mindfulness also contributes to greater feelings of stability (Goff
et al., 2014). Research also suggests that when principals have some control when soliciting
feedback, they are more likely to change their behaviors (Fernet, 2010). From a theoretical
perspective, when principals are provided opportunities to shape, practice, discuss, and reflect on
their leadership practices, they are more likely to make a positive impact on their students.
Self-efficacy theory. High self-efficacy will positively influence motivation (Pajares,
2006). Principals must believe they are capable of effectively influencing student outcomes
because of their leadership behaviors. Pajares (2006) suggests that when leaders have high
positive expectancies for success, there is a higher likelihood of success. To achieve high
positive expectancies, learners should be provided opportunities to have goal-directed practice
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

134
with frequent and targets feedback on progress (Pajares, 2006). This would suggest that school
leaders would benefit from scaffolded support from someone, perhaps a leadership coach, that
could break down tasks into reasonable goals and provide feedback about the impact of
leadership on student outcomes. The recommendation is for the organization to provide support
from a leadership coach that could support site leaders’ progress towards goal attainment.
Rueda (2011) suggests that self-efficacy is related to all three motivational indicators:
active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Competence beliefs reflect how one will do on any
given task. Principal self-efficacy is directly associated with rates of principal burnout and
turnover (Federici & Skaalvik, 2012). Lyons and Murphy (1994) suggest that principals with
higher self-efficacy are more likely to have more confidence in their decisions. Furthermore,
researchers believe that principal self-efficacy is an important indicator of stress reduction and
can lead to more control in decision-making responsibilities that impact the school community
(Dimmock & Hattie, 1996). Student outcomes are often directly related to the leader’s efforts,
and without confidence from the leader’s decisions, student achievement may not increase
(Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). From a theoretical perspective, monitoring principals’ self-
efficacy could provide insight into motivational concerns that may arise over time.
Organization Recommendations
The organizational influences identified in Table 21 represent a complete list of the
assumed influences based on validated data from surveys and interviews, supported by the
literature review and review of organizational culture theories. Rueda (2011) suggests that how
organizations behave is a significant influence on performance goals. It is critical to consider all
components of an organization, including culture, practices, structures, and policies when
determining success or failure to achieve organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda,
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

135
2011). Schein (2010) suggests that cultural practices become automated practices and
assumptions that are established over time by employees.
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) note two critical aspects of culture that must be
examined before change practices can be fully understood: cultural models and cultural settings.
Cultural models are dynamic and are continuously shaped by daily routines, problem-solving
strategies, and operational aspects of organizations (Erez & Gati, 2004). Cultural settings are the
particular aspects of the social context and include settings where problem-solving and daily
routines take place (Rueda, 2011). There is a reciprocal relationship between cultural settings
and cultural models that must be understood for LEAD to meet its performance goals. Table 21
represents three organizational influences that have been validated in data collection and will
influence LEAD’s ability to reach its performance goals and aligns the theoretical principles and
recommendations that influence performance goals.
Two influences that were partially validated were not included in this section. Further
research is needed to pinpoint the source of the gap better. Both assumed influences — a.)
Principal professional learning for veteran administrators is not a priority in districts, and b.)
Principals are overwhelmed by the enormity of their positions and do not make time for their
professional learning — have been addressed in the section of future research.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

136
Table 21
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Organization Influence
Organization
Type Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Professional Learning
Plans are consistently
aligned to the CPSEL.
Cultural
Model
Organizational goals
are achieved by a
system of interacting
process that requires
specialized knowledge,
skills, and motivation to
operate fully (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Compare the
organizational goals
with the California
Standards for
Professional Educators
(CPSEL) to determine
alignment.
Leadership
development practices
must meet the needs of
adult learners.
Cultural
Setting
Adults are motivated to
participate when they
understand the
relevance of learning to
their own
circumstances.
(Knowles, 1978).
Align professional
learning outcomes to the
best practices of adult
learning theory.
There is a lack of
structure for principals
to use professional
standards as a
framework for
professional learning.
Cultural
Setting
People are more
productive when goal
setting and
benchmarking are
essential to evaluating
progress and driving
organizational
performance in
accountability (Bogue
& Hall, 2003; Levy &
Ronco, 2012).
Principals should align
the CPSEL to goal-
setting that can be used
to set reasonable
benchmarks for
professional learning.

Cultural model: achieving organizational goals. Organizations, like schools and
school districts, are complex (Rueda, 2011). Principals must understand how professional
learning goals and the professional standards interact with their daily work and have been
designed to support their efforts within their complex organizations. In organizations, daily
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

137
routines and past practices make up the cultural models that drive behavior (Erez & Gati, 2004).
Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that organizational goals are best achieved when interacting
processes requiring knowledge, skills, and motivation all operate together. Clark and Estes
(2008) also suggests that when knowledge is automated and learned in a meaningful manner, it
has a higher likelihood of being useful to the learner. The California version of the professional
standards are relatively new in California, and not all districts statewide have implemented them.
Practicing principals may not understand the benefit of using them as a framework for leadership
(Kearney, 2005). When organizations provide the structure for leaders to use the CPSEL
consistently, it may help automate their knowledge of the scope of their work. The CPSEL will
bring coherence to the job functions of site leaders. The recommendation is for the organization
to be intentional about how professional learning is organized around the CPSEL and be explicit
about the interaction with their current job functions.
Research shows that school districts do not often make professional learning a priority for
site leaders (Leithwood et al., 2012). The development and implementation of the CPSEL have
shown promise in providing site leaders with the learning necessary to support student and
school needs (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005). Professional standards
have also been proven to impact the effectiveness of site leaders (Goldring, Porter, Murphy,
Elliott, & Cravens, 2009). From a theoretical perspective, using the CPSEL as a roadmap for site
leaders’ professional learning would benefit not only their alignment to professional standards
but also as a framework to support their needs as leaders.
Cultural setting: adult learning theory: In complex systems, change takes place by
successfully combining new and existing practices (Rueda, 2011). When delivering effective
professional learning, organizations must consider the benefits of using andragogy (the study of
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

138
adult learning) rather than pedagogy (the student of how children learn). Research on andragogy
proposes that adults are more likely to learn something new when they understand the relevance
of the learning to their own circumstances (Knowles, 1978). Rueda (2011) recognized that
instructional leadership was often overlooked because of the layering effect of new initiatives.
This would suggest that the complexity of the role of a leader may have been overshadowed as
new educational initiatives are added. The recommendation is to align professional learning
outcomes to the best practices of adult learning theory to bring the needs of the adult learner
back into focus.
Zepeda (2012) suggests that professional learning presented in a format that supports the
needs of adult learners will have a higher likelihood of being effective. Often site leaders are
presented with information that is intended to help teachers understand the needs of their
students rather than the needs of the adults teaching the students (Zepeda, 2012). Drago-
Severson (2013) suggests that when professional learning is rooted in adult learning theory, it
provides site leaders with opportunities to energize, inspire, and revitalize their practices. From
a theoretical perspective, by providing site leaders with professional learning grounded in adult
learning theory, LEAD would provide site leaders new learning that would support their
professional needs.
Meeting the needs of adult learning requires a shift in thinking for most organizations
(Drago-Severson et al., 2013). Adult learners need to have a sense of control and be able to use
their experiences to enrich their learning. They must also be able to apply new learning to their
current situations, maximize collaborative efforts, and work in mutually respectful and informal
environments to test their learning to stay motivated to learn (Knowles, 1978). Unlike
professional learning communities, developing communities of practice (CoP) allows principals
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

139
to network with like-minded colleagues with a focus on collaboration and collective intelligence
rather than data-driven problem-solving. Recent research indicates that communities of practice
yield a mutually beneficial relationship that moves participants closer to obtaining goals (Fraser,
Honeyfield, Breen, Protheroe, & Fester, 2017).
Cultural setting: setting goals and benchmarking. Change in organizations occurs
when organizational learning is aligned with organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). School
districts must consider the value they place on the learning needs of their site leaders. The
CPSEL have been aligned to successful school functioning, yet site leaders often do not
consistently focus on the correlation between their learning needs and the success of their
students (Kearney, 2005). School districts can support their site leaders by offering the CPSEL
as a framework for their learning. Researchers suggest that people in organizations are more
productive when they can set goals and benchmarks to support organizational accountability
(Bogue & Hall, 2003; Levy & Ronco, 2012). The recommendation is that school districts should
support principals in using the CPSEL to set reasonable benchmarks for their professional
learning. Since the nature of the CPSEL is aspirational at the pinnacle, they would provide
principals the opportunity to set attainable benchmark steps to address their own professional
learning needs.
Encouraging site leaders to participate in professional learning designed to meet their
needs can influence student outcomes (Zepeda, 2012). The structure of the CPSEL is intended to
break down and identify the skills necessary to lead schools successfully, therefore breaking
learning into manageable chunks (Murphy, 2005). Donaldson (2008) identified that professional
standards help school leaders break down the overwhelming tasks of school leadership and
personalize the necessary steps needs to strengthen leadership. Setting reasonable goals that can
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

140
be benchmarked against aspirational targets can help school leaders visualize their needs. Since
school leadership is a vital component of positive school outcomes for students, it is in the
organization’s best interest to support their leaders’ learning needs through manageable tasks.
From a theoretical perspective, using professional standards to allow leaders to break down their
professional needs into manageable chunks would greatly benefit the organization and the site
leaders.
Confirmed Influences
Since the stakeholder group of study for this project consisted of current and past
participants of LEAD’s training program for aspiring and beginning leaders, this section has
been included to provide insight into the success of the framework for professional learning that
LEAD has established. As stated in the organizational goals, no program currently exists for site
leaders beyond LEAD’s current program. This information may be useful to LEAD as it designs
its course of study. Survey and interview data supported the efforts of LEAD, and the results of
its existing program may provide insight as to best practices for school leaders who struggle to
be inspired in their current positions. It is notable that the interview participants had a multitude
of positive reactions and support for LEAD training. The principles cited below confirm the
rationale for continuing these practices. Table 22 includes the assumed influences, principles and
citations, and recommended actions for LEAD to include in future program design.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

141
Table 22
Summary of Confirmed Influences, Principles, Citations, and Recommended Practices
Knowledge Assumed Influences Principle and Citation Context Practice
Declarative-
Factual
Principals need
knowledge of the
California
Professional
Standards for
Educational Leaders.
Factual knowledge,
including facts, basic
information, and
terminology, is
necessary to
effectively understand
and function (Rueda,
2011).
Provide principals with a
comprehensive outline
and definition of the six
professional standards.
Declarative-
Factual
Principals need
knowledge of
effective leadership
standards (CPSEL)
to support their
leadership
development.
Increasing germane
cognitive load by
engaging the learning
in meaningful learning
and schema
construction facilitates
effective learning
(Kirschner, Paas &
Kirschner, 2009).
Present information about
the standards within the
context of site leadership
and use familiar situations
to connect new
information to their
current work within the
context of the standards.
Declarative-
Conceptual
Principals need
knowledge of the
relationship between
the leadership and
student achievement.
Conceptual,
declarative knowledge
is necessary to
understand how
principles interact in a
particular area (Rueda,
2011).
Provide evidence-based
information to principals
to explain how their
leadership impacts
student achievement.
Metacognition Principals need to
evaluate their own
awareness of the role
of professional
standards to identify
gaps in their
learning.
Metacognitive
knowledge allows
individuals to
determine what
approach or change is
necessary to make
learning more effective
(Baker, 2006; Rueda,
2011).
Provide opportunities for
principals to engage in
self-assessment and self-
monitoring of their use of
the professional standards
to guide their leadership
development.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

142
Declarative Knowledge Practices
Declarative knowledge is considered both factual (facts and meanings of terms) and
conceptual (categories and classifications) information (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Clark and
Estes (2008) states that when people learn information in a meaningful way, this knowledge is
more likely to become automated and generalizable into different situations, making it more
valuable to the learner.
To apply the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSEL), school
leaders must first know what the standards are (D). Factual knowledge includes terminology,
basic information, facts, and details that are necessary to understand and apply knowledge
(Rueda, 2011). This suggests that providing precise definitions of the CPSEL is a logical first
step to support leaders’ learning. This a current practice in LEAD’s training as identified
through the survey and interviews conducted as part of this study. The recommendation is to
continue to provide all school leaders with comprehensive definitions and examples of
exemplary practices of the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders.
Davis et al. (2005) suggest that successful school leaders clearly understand their roles.
Through the CPSEL, the role of the site leader has been defined using exemplary descriptors of
the skills and knowledge necessary to lead successfully. As leaders gain knowledge of the
standards, they have a higher likelihood of impacting student and school success (Leithwood et
al., 2004). Knowledge of the standards assists school leaders in better understanding their roles
as instructional leaders in complex systems (Waters et al., 2003). When school leaders are
provided factual knowledge about the CPSEL, they will have more clarity about their roles as
principals.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

143
Knowledge of the CPSEL benefits school leaders when they can apply them in their work
environments (D). Declarative knowledge is necessary to respond to and solve problems
(Anderson et al., 2001). The standards break down leadership responsibilities into manageable
chunks to help facilitate problem-solving. Kirschner et al. (2009) suggest knowledge can be
connected when increasing germane information engages the learner in building meaningful
schema of their roles and responsibilities. The CPSEL organize information into functional
parts. When the information is paired with a familiar leadership situation, the learning can be
connected (Mayer, 2011). This is currently a practice in LEAD’s training as identified through
the survey and interviews conducted as part of this study. The recommendation is to continue to
provide all school leaders with professional learning about the standards presented within the
context of familiar site leadership situations to facilitate stronger connections with the current
context of their positions.
Another facet of declarative knowledge for principals is that school leaders need to know
the relationship between their leadership and student achievement (D). Declarative elements
inform the knowledge of generalizations, principles, theories, models, and structures according
to Anderson et al. (2001). The interrelationship of essential elements helps the learner
understand how to recognize and classify larger structures that work together (Rueda, 2011).
Successful principals need to understand how all elements of the school work together to support
student achievement. With this integrated knowledge, leaders can better understand how to
support all students and staff to meet annual expectations. This is currently a practice in LEAD’s
training as identified through the survey and interviews conducted as part of this study. The
recommendation is to continue to provide evidence-based information to site leaders that help
them recognize and explain how their leadership impacts student achievement.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

144
Principal professional learning must help site leaders recognize the impact of their
leadership skills and behaviors that influence student achievement and school improvement
(Darling-Hammond, Orphanos, LaPointe, & Weeks, 2007). Fullan (2015) recognized that
knowledge management and coherence making are two critical conditions for sustainable
leadership. It is critical for site leaders to bring coherence to their settings and understand the
relationship between all elements of the school influence learning outcomes. School leaders
must focus on understanding what knowledge is necessary to enable them to make decisions
about teaching and learning on their campus (Knapp, Copland, & Talbert, 2003).
Metacognitive Knowledge Practices
Site leaders need to reflect on their awareness of the role of professional standards and
how they can be used to identify gaps in their leadership abilities (M). Information processing
theory suggests that the use of metacognitive strategies facilitates learning (Baker, 2006).
Metacognition also allows individuals to determine what approach or change is necessary to
make learning effective (Baker, 2006; Rueda, 2011). This would suggest that when reflection
and self-assessment are applied to their knowledge of the professional standards, site leaders are
more likely to identify gaps in their own practices. The recommendation is for school districts to
provide site leaders with the tools and time to self-reflect on how the CPSEL apply to their
positions and guide them in identifying gaps in their leadership development.
Metacognition can increase a leader’s perception of the complex nature of leadership.
Research indicates that a principal’s self-reflection deepens a site leader’s awareness of the
challenges associated with leadership (Drago-Severson, 2012). Leo (2015) suggests that self-
reflection leads to an awareness of one’s deficits and, when guided, can help prioritize the needs
of a school leader. Research also suggests that when habits of self-reflection are incorporated
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

145
into professional learning, leaders can engage in critical analysis of their skills (Davis et al.,
2005). If the standards are used as a framework for self-reflection, the details and exemplars can
be used by leaders to develop a deeper understanding of the requirements of school leaders.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The implementation and evaluation plan developed for this project is modeled after the
New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The practices align with
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis framework. This model is presented with four levels of
evaluation: reactions, learning, behaviors, and results. The focus is on results, or program
outcomes, at Level 4. Planning for evaluation is conducted in reverse order to allow the focus of
evaluation to be centered on the intended outcomes for LEAD by identifying leading indicators
of success first. The defined success factors contribute to defining on-the-job applications, and
critical behaviors site leaders will have as a result of LEAD’s ExCEL (Excellence for
Community of Educational Leaders) Project. The other levels in this plan allow LEAD to adjust
along the way to ensure quality by identifying if site leaders have acquired the knowledge and
confidence needed to strengthen their leadership skills and finally, identifying if principals are
satisfied with all aspects of the ExCEL program’s training components. Designing the
implementation plan in this fashion allows LEAD to leverage outcomes with accountability and
post-program support (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
LEAD’s goal is to provide ongoing support to site leaders who may struggle to balance
all aspects of their complex positions by infusing direction through the California Professional
Standards for Educational Leaders. By implementing the ExCEL Project, LEAD will offer site
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

146
leaders opportunities to participate in activities specifically designed for the adult learner through
the form of Communities of Practice, Coaching networks, and specially designed eLearning
modules to support individualized needs. This study examined the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences that prevent or enhance leadership development for site leaders. The
proposed solutions represent best practices reflecting adult learning theory in action. The
outcome should support veteran site leaders in pursuit of ongoing leadership development aimed
at reducing factors that may lead to burnout and turnover at the school level, and in turn, enhance
the quality of the learning environment for staff and students.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Level 4: Results as outcomes, metrics, and methods for both external and internal
outcomes for site leaders participating in LEAD’s program are shown in Table 23. When
internal outcomes are met, the external outcomes will also be realized. When site leaders are
provided the support and professional networking necessary to support their continued growth in
leadership, other stakeholders will also experience the benefits. This leads to decreasing hiring
needs for districts, increasing professional capital through the use of extended networks of
coaches and veteran leaders, and building stronger capacity for site leaders lessening the impact
on district office officials who often provide extensive guidance to struggling administrators.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

147

Table 23
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Site leaders interact with an
external coach that supports
professional learning.
The number of coaches partnered
with site leaders.
Report from LEAD with the
number of external coaches
working with site leaders.
LEAD increases its capacity
to support site leaders.
Number of Communities of
Practice, eLearning modules, and
coaching relationships
established.
Report from LEAD with
program offerings for site
leaders.
Districts support participation
in LEAD activities aligned to
CPSEL for site leaders.
Number of districts that are
providing time for leaders to
participate in PLC aligned to
CPSEL.
Survey of District PL practices
aligned to CPSEL.
Number of districts that report site
leaders participation in the LEAD
program.
Report of LEAD enrollment
numbers.
Internal Outcomes
Increased retention of site
leaders.
Number of open leadership
positions to fill.
Annual tracking of Job
Postings for leadership
positions.
Increased self-efficacy for site
leaders.
Increase of Efficacy score on
annual Principal’s Sense of
Efficacy Scale.
Annual administration of the
Principal’s Sense of Efficacy
Scale.
Increased job satisfaction for
site leaders.
Increase of job satisfaction for site
leaders.
Annual survey of job
satisfaction.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

148
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus are site leaders who participate in newly
developed professional learning communities aligned to professional standards. The first critical
behavior is that site leaders will tie professional goals directly to the CPSEL to provide a
stronger connection to the aspirational practices identified in the CPSEL. The second critical
behavior is that site leaders will participate in a Community of Practice of their choice based on
their professional leadership interests. The next critical behavior is site leaders will interact with
a leadership coach to reflect on the role of a site leader through the lens of the CPSEL directly
related to their everyday practice. The last critical behavior is for site leaders to participate in
self-paced, self-selected eLearning modules intended to inform their practice when applying the
CPSEL. The specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of these outcome behaviors appear
in Table 24.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

149
Table 24
Level 3 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Site Leaders
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Site leaders set annual goals
directly related to the CPSEL.
Documentation of
annual goals aligned to
CPSEL.
Site leaders will provide
professional goals
aligned to the CPSEL.
Annually
2. Site leaders participate with
peers in a community of practice
aligned to CPSEL.
Number of site leaders
participating in a
community of practice.
Attendance at
Community of Practice
sessions organized by
LEAD.
Monthly
3. Site leaders reflect with a
leadership coach.
Number of site leaders
assigned to a leadership
coach.
Survey site leaders about
progress with leadership
coaches.
Quarterly
4. Site leaders participate in
professional learning topics of
their choice in a self-paced
eLearning module aligned to the
CPSEL strands.
Verification of
participation.
Survey site leaders about
progress in eLearning
modules.
Quarterly

Required drivers. Site leaders require a high level of self-efficacy and support from
LEAD to apply the CPSEL to their work environments. It is essential to establish a plan for site
leaders and LEAD to monitor and encourage progress towards the organizational goal mutually.
Support provides an opportunity to reinforce, encourage, and reward (or acknowledge) critical
behaviors of site leaders. Monitoring, both through LEAD and self-monitoring, will provide
accountability from LEAD and site leaders for reaching established goals. Personal success and
self-efficacy for site leaders may be difficult to measure by LEAD quantifiably, so it is essential
for LEAD to also work with its staff to ensure their capacity to support site leaders. Table 25
shows the recommended drivers to support critical behaviors of site leaders.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

150
Table 25
Level 3 Required Drivers to Support Site Leaders’ Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcing
Job aids that provide definitions and descriptions of best
practices aligned to the CPSEL.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
Participate in a Community of Practice with established
goals aligned to the CPSEL.
Monthly 1, 2
Complete self-directed, self- selected modules through
eLearning formats.
Quarterly 1, 4
Encouraging
Site Leaders will set their own leadership goals aligned with
the CPSEL and share progress with their leadership coach.
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4
Site leaders will receive feedback and coaching from a
leadership coach.
Monthly 1, 3
Rewarding
LEAD will share public acknowledgment of site leaders’
accomplishments including student achievement, increased
positive school culture, and longevity at the school site.
Semi-
annually
1, 2, 3, 4
Site leaders will recognize the accomplishments of
members of their CoP for their contributions to activities
related to their professional learning experiences.
Annually 1, 2
Monitoring
Site Leaders will engage in self-reflection of their
professional goals.
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4
Coaches reflect with site leaders using the CPSEL as key
indicators.
Annually 1, 2, 3, 4
Site leaders will review CPSEL to connect standards to
student achievement indicators.
Annually 1, 2, 3, 4

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

151
Organizational support. To support the needs of site leaders, LEAD must take the lead
in developing the professional learning opportunities needed to support veteran site leaders.
Principals will look to LEAD to provide them with the framework for their professional learning.
Since LEAD has provided the necessary framework for aspiring and beginning administrators
with success in the past, they are most suited to continue the experience for veteran leaders. This
will include providing a framework for coaching and mentoring, providing a variety of job aids
to support the CPSEL, and creating a network of Communities of Practice aligned to meet the
needs of adult learners. LEAD must also provide the leadership necessary draw attention to the
need for site leaders to collaborate and learn together and for supervisors to be aware of the
unique needs of principals as adult learners. LEAD’s position in the county provides them with
an audience of district leaders who can lend support to their efforts. This organizational support
is critical to meet the needs of site leaders and to assist them in achieving improved outcomes for
students and staff.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Level 2 evaluates if site leaders gain the skills, knowledge, attitude,
confidence, and commitment necessary to meet their goals of participating in professional
learning aligned to the CPSEL. Following completion of the recommendation solutions the
stakeholders will be able to:
1. Summarize the CPSEL (Declarative)
2. Recognize how the CPSEL apply to site leadership activities (Declarative)
3. Understand the connection that their leadership has to student outcomes (Declarative)
4. Evaluate steps of how their leadership connects to exemplars identified in the CPSEL
(Procedural)
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

152
5. Reflect on their leadership abilities and determine gaps in their practices
(Metacognitive)
6. Attribute one’s leadership exemplars to their ability to lead others (Attribution
Theory)
7. Apply the principles of leadership to their personal strengths as site leaders (Self-
Efficacy)
8. Believe that they are capable of influencing student outcomes through their leadership
abilities (Self-Efficacy)
Recommended program. The learning goals listed above will be supported through
LEAD’s comprehensive, leadership-focused professional learning for veteran site leaders.
Participation in the ExCEL Project will be open to all veteran principals in the LEAD network.
The framework will consist of three main components — communities of practices, coaching
relationships, and asynchronous eLearning courses designed to provide site leaders with real-
world connections to the CPSEL matched to meet personalized needs. LEAD should consider
offering all three elements to all veteran site leaders and coordinated through a staff member
from LEAD. The Coordinator would be responsible for matching participants with coaches and
arranging communities of practice centered around leaders’ needs. The eLearning modules
would be available on demand for participants based on coach recommendations and personal
choices. LEAD can add modules to their library of offerings based on evaluation data and
identified gaps.
Community of practice. Communities of practice will be developed to match site
leaders with like-minded site leaders to share best practices, engaging in problem-solving, and
ongoing support. Communities of Practice will benefit leaders by providing them with a
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

153
network of principals where they can share knowledge and develop a trusting community to
strengthen their practices. Research has shown that when professionals work collaboratively,
their energy, commitment, and development of new skills is elevated (Davis et al., 2005). LEAD
would organize the CoP by offering the structure for teams to meet and provide a facilitator to
model the practice until the community is ready to lead the network on their own. Once
established, CoP can efficiently function on their own with participants creating the agenda.
Communities of Practice can continue as long as the participants feel value in meeting as a
group. As a fidelity check, LEAD can provide an annual check-in with CoP to allow
communities to reflect on progress, identify any structural needs, provide participants any
resources needed to support their topics of discussion, and provide an opportunity for LEAD to
gather information on the value of the process. LEAD can serve as a voice for CoP to strengthen
their value at the district level.
Coaching. Coaching relationships will be developed to create an opportunity for site
leaders to interact with other professionals in a predictable manner. These coaching relationships
should be designed to provide support for site leaders in a formal setting. It is important to note
that coaching relationships should be considered from both perspectives: what one can offer
another colleague and what one can benefit from another colleague. Coaching relationships
should be viewed as an opportunity to provide less experienced site leaders with rich knowledge
from veteran leaders, but also as an opportunity for experienced principals to learn from newer
site leaders as well. By focusing on developing a mutually beneficial relationship, opportunities
are provided to keep site leaders engaged in learning long into their careers. This opportunity
can also be considered as a career ladder by developing leadership skills and expertise in support
for both participants.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

154
LEAD would facilitate coaching relationships, first in the recruitment and training of
coaches, then in duplicating current practices for coaching for new administrators. LEAD’s
recruitment process could expand to include practicing administrators who desire to connect with
other site leaders in a mutually beneficial relationship. Like LEAD’s existing coaching network,
coaches would reach out to their partners at least monthly, but the focus of the meeting would be
based on goals established between the partners at an initial meeting. While the premise of the
meetings could be initially centered on the CPSEL, the focus may shift based on the immediate
needs of the coached leader.
LEAD would be responsible for ongoing training and support for coaches based on their
needs. LEAD would host bi-annual meetings of coaches to provide leadership and scholarship
about best practices of coaching. LEAD would also be responsible for tracking the progress of
the partners towards meeting goals of participants and collecting data for districts about progress.
eLearning modules. The final phase of professional learning could be delivered through
a series of asynchronous e-learning modules designed to provide site leaders with a variety of
options for personalized learning. These modules can serve as job aids for principals who are
maybe entering schools and districts with different knowledge or experiences. eLearning
modules would be available on demand for principals. Best practices could include producing
short 15-30 minute segments that could be accessed through the internet, allowing flexibility for
participants to complete them. When possible, LEAD should seek out local examples of best
practices that could feature current site leaders, coaches, and past participants of the LEAD’s
programs who have demonstrated competency in the CPSEL. Creating modules that explore the
best practices of site leaders as described in the CPSEL will serve not only as a model of
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

155
exemplary practices but as examples from local leaders as well utilizing the depth of experience
within LEAD’s circle of influence.
LEAD would produce the modules or use their resources to find existing e-learning
modules for site leaders. Site leaders do not always have the time to seek out the resources
needed to further their learning, but LEAD could serve as a conduit to provide links to evidence-
based best practices aimed to strengthen leadership skills and applications for site leaders. At the
beginning of the year, participants would establish their personal goals for professional learning
based on the CPSEL. LEAD would then take this information to research and vet appropriate
learning modules. Creating e-learning opportunities that depict best practices within their local
community would also be beneficial for participants. Building local connections that
participants can contact for further information will strengthen the practices within LEAD’s
service area. Again, as adult learners, participants must have the ability to choose learning
opportunities they deem as relevant. LEAD would collect participant data to report back to
districts to build support for the time principals need to engage in professional learning.
Components of learning. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) have determined there are
five components of Level 2 learning: knowledge, skill, attitude, confidence, and commitment.
Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that Level 2 learning impacts change during the learning process.
It is essential to understand participants’ knowledge levels before they can be expected to apply
what they have learned. Level 2 learning can also serve as an early warning system or as a
measure of progress during implementation allowing for opportunities to correct information
readily. Evaluating declarative knowledge ensures the learner knows what to do while
evaluating skills through procedural knowledge ensures the learner know how to do certain
things. Evaluating attitude can measure the learner’s commitment to applying new learning and
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

156
is evaluated through the instructor’s observations. Evaluating confidence and commitment
requires some discussion around the topic to ensure that the learner has a firm grasp on the
information necessary to apply what has been learned. Level 2 learning is generally formatively
assessed through activities and discussions held throughout training, however some summative
assessment is also common. Table 26 lists the evaluation methods and timing for these
components of learning.

Table 26
Components of Learning for the Program
Methods or Activities Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks using short answer and multiple-
choice answers to test relevant knowledge retention.
In the asynchronous portions of
professional learning.
Knowledge checks through discussions with coaches. During coaching sessions as
recorded by coaches.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Matching activities during communities of practice
discussions.
During CoP meetings.
Demonstration in individual coaching sessions using job
aids to successfully identify best practices in leadership.
During the coaching sessions.
Quality of the feedback from peers during group sharing. During CoP meetings.
Individual application of the skills At the end of the workshop.
Pre/Posttest of CPSEL elements. In the asynchronous portions of
the course at the end of each
module.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

157
Table 26, continued
Methods or Activities Timing
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Coach observation of participant statements and actions
demonstrating that they understand that the value of their
leadership decisions.
During coaching sessions.
Facilitator observations of participants’ statements
demonstrating that they understand how the CPSEL
guide their leadership practices.
During CoP session.
Discussions of the value of what they are being asked to
do on-the-job.
During coaching and CoP
sessions.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item. After asynchronous sessions.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Survey items using confidence scales. Following each module in the
asynchronous portions of the
course.
Discussions following practice and feedback. During coaching and CoP
sessions.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item. After coaching orientation and
end of year review.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Survey items using commitment scales. Following each module in the
asynchronous portions of the
course.
Discussions following practice and feedback. During coaching and CoP
sessions.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item. After coaching orientation and
end of year review.
Action plans to implement CPSEL practices. At the end of coaching sessions
and CoP sessions.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

158
Level 1: Reaction
After professional learning opportunities, it is vital to get immediate feedback about the
quality of a session, meeting, or training specifically aimed at the information delivery methods
and the quality of the facilitator or coach. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) refer to this as
measuring the degree the participants found the training engaging, relevant to their positions, and
participant satisfaction. It measures the quality of the facilities, logistics, and level of comfort
participants felt while engaging in learning. This is the purest form of evaluation. Table 27 lists
the methods and tools used to evaluate engagement, relevance, and satisfaction.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

159
Table 27
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Data analytics in the learning management
system.
Ongoing during asynchronous modules.
Completion of online modules. Ongoing during asynchronous portion
modules.
Module evaluations. At the end of each module.
Observation by instructor/facilitator. During communities of practice and coaching
sessions.
Attendance. During Communities of Practice, Coaching
Sessions, and asynchronous sessions.
End of Year evaluation. At the final coaching sessions and
communities of practices.
Relevance
Brief pulse-check with participants via
discussion (ongoing).
During coaching sessions and communities of
practice meetings.
Module evaluation. At the end of each module.
Participant Satisfaction
Brief pulse-check with participants via
survey (online) and discussion (ongoing).
During communities of practice and coaching
sessions.
Module evaluation. At the end of each module.
Program evaluation. End of the Year Summative Evaluation of all
three program components.
Impact of participation. Monthly electronic check-in.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

160
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Evaluation of each component
will consist of a short post experience evaluation. The evaluation will contain scaled items to
measure Level 1 reactions to component’s engagement, relevance, and satisfaction. The survey
will also contain Level 2 questions intended to gather information on participants’ knowledge,
procedural skills, attitudes, confidence, and commitment.
During coaching and community of practice sessions, coaches and facilitators will
observe participants and do pulse-checks to measure Level 1 reactions. Level 2 learning will
also be evaluated through facilitator observation and check-ins during in-person sessions.
Facilitators will ask for feedback to solicit declarative and procedural knowledge based on the
topic at each session. Attitudes and confidence will be assessed through discussions. Level 2
commitment will be evaluated through action planning reviews in coaching and community of
practice sessions. The survey, observation, and discussion topics are included in Appendix C.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Six months after
Communities of Practice and Coaching sessions have begun, LEAD will administer a brief
survey to measure site leaders’ satisfaction and relevancy of participation in each type of support
using the Kirkpatrick New World Blended Evaluation Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
The scaled survey and open-ended discussion items will measure the participants’ satisfaction
and relevance of the eLearning module, coaching sessions, and CoP events (Level 1), the impact
of the CPSEL on leadership practices (Level 2), the degree of collaboration and alignment to the
CPSEL in professional relationships (Level 3), and the extent to which their leadership practices
have been impacted as a result of their participation in the LEAD program (Level 4). The survey
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

161
instrument, Appendix B, will consist of scaled items and open-ended discussion items addressing
all four levels of the Kirkpatrick Blended Evaluation model.
Data Analysis and Reporting
It is critical to monitor the impact of all three components of LEAD’s ExCEL Project
during and after implementation to create a cycle of continual improvement and to maximize site
leaders’ experiences with coaches and in ongoing CoP. Monitoring suggestions are summarized
in Table 28. Participants must see the relevance to keep them engaged in ongoing learning
(Drago-Severson, 2013). The value of the ExCEL Project will be measured by how site leaders
feel their participation in the program benefits their performance as a site leader and is reflected
in their leadership practices. Data reporting is also critical to share with participating districts
since their support is imperative for ExCEL’s success. Implementing the ExCEL Project is a
shift in most districts since most professional learning has historically been provided at the
district level.

Table 28
Possible Key Performance Indicators

Metric Frequency
Dashboard
Representation
Participation in a
Community of Practice
Participation documentation Monthly Monthly line graph
Coaching relationships Contact with coach Monthly Monthly line graph
eLearning modules Completion rate of self-
paced learning modules
Monthly Monthly line graph
Self-efficacy towards
CPSEL applications
Monthly reflection and
indication of job satisfaction
Monthly Job satisfaction
histogram

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

162
A data dashboard tracking key indicators will be used to provide stakeholder groups with
information about the success of ExCEL and serve as an accountability tool for participants and
LEAD. Samples of possible dashboards are depicted in Figures 10 and 11. LEAD’s goal is to
provide opportunities for professional learning by January 2019. It is also a goal for veteran
principals to participate in LEAD’s professional learning by August 2020. For LEAD to support
this goal, they must also seek support from district leadership. Providing information on a
dashboard can help LEAD show the impact of ExCEL, capture the number of site leaders who
are participating, and begin a dialogue about future offerings to address the needs of all site
leaders. Simple feedback forms provided to facilitators and coaches will collect attendance data
monthly. Monitoring eLearning completion rates will be gleaned from electronic tracking. Also,
participating site leaders will be sent a monthly efficacy check feedback survey. A simple 3-4
question survey can be sent monthly to remind leaders of the goals of ExCEL and quickly gather
information about their feelings of self-efficacy towards their positions. Results can be depicted
on a brief histogram that can be shared with not only LEAD and participants but district leaders
as well to define job satisfaction trends among participants.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

163

Figure 10. Possible dashboard data point, sample 1

Figure 11. Possible dashboard data point, sample 2

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

164
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) framework is the
basis for ongoing evaluation of LEAD’s ExCEL Project. By using this model, LEAD has an
opportunity to improve support for site leaders and reach its organizational goal. The more
significant work for LEAD lies in its ability to attract site leaders to participate in the project, as
well as garner support from partnering districts to provide the time for their leaders to engage in
professional learning designed to meet their individual needs. By evaluating all aspects of
ExCEL at all four levels in the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016),
LEAD can monitor its progress aimed at increasing support for site leaders and ultimately,
increasing job satisfaction for them, keeping them on the job longer and increasing their
leadership capacity. This model places the focus on the desired outcomes for principals
supported by the literature, study findings, and best practices for adult learners. This plan
provides LEAD with rich data that can be used for ongoing support and an accountability plan
aligned to bring the CPSEL alive for site leaders by creating a learning environment that directly
supports their needs.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The basis of this study relied on the framework of Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO Gap
Analysis model, evaluated through the lens of the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) New
World Evaluation Model. Both frameworks have strengths and weaknesses. The Clark and
Estes model provides a consistent application for examining human performance and
organizational culture to determine any gaps that may prevent the organization from maximizing
their outcomes. This approach focuses on an organization performance goal and then
systematically identifies any gap that exists between current performance and desired
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

165
performance. Using the trio of influences of knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture,
the process examines all facets of organizations to determine a clear and concise pathway to goal
attainment. The weakness of this approach has been in pinpointing the appropriate stakeholders
and their commitment to solving problems. The complex nature of educational organizations,
the interrelatedness of LEAD with multiple districts, and individual site leaders make it difficult
to precisely determine the correct organizational influences that may impede progress towards
the organizational goal.
The New World Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) succinctly organizes
implementation evaluation beginning with anticipated outcomes. By looking at evaluation
practices in the reverse order as designed by The New World Model, organizations can focus
their efforts on the results ensuring the steps taken along the way contribute directly to the goal.
This approach also breaks evaluation into more meaningful chunks, allowing for adjustments
along the way. The weakness of this model is the complexity of steps and time it takes to
evaluate progress. Given the dynamic nature of school systems, ensuring that personnel is
available to monitor all steps in the process could be difficult.
Limitations and Delimitations
This research study intended to explore the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that support veteran principals’ leadership development. This study is not without
limitations. Limitations of this study are the limited sample group, response rates, time
constraints, unavailability for interviews, or dishonest responses. These factors are out of the
control of the researcher. While flexibility to schedule interviews, extended time frames to
solicit survey responses, and assurances of confidentiality provided support for limitations, the
influence of some factors may have played a role in the results. Other limitations of this study
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

166
included the misalignment of some survey and interview questions. This prevented the exact
information from being collected from all respondents. The survey design did not require each
question to be answered by all respondents making response rates inconsistent. While interview
respondents could have been contacted for follow up interviews, time constraints did not permit
second sessions. Some limitations did impact data analysis leaving gaps in necessary
information needed for validation.
Delimitations may have also impacted data analysis. The researcher chose to study a
small, targeted sample of participants to address a specific problem of practice. It was meant to
inform the development of a specific framework for professional learning. The researcher hopes
that the process used may have a future impact on other institutions wishing to develop similar
programs. It is the intent that the information provided in this study could be used in future
professional learning development beyond site leaders. By identifying the needs of adult
learners in professional learning opportunities, the applications of this research may extend
beyond the intended audience of this study.
Future Research
Research confirms that principals are critical to the success of students and teachers in
their care, yet they are often overlooked in their roles. The original conception for this study was
aimed at developing a support network and community of practice for school leaders who may
struggle, burnout, or fail to recognize the value of leadership in their practice. As a practicing
principal, this researcher was impressed by the passion, commitment, and deep understanding of
the role of site leadership that was shared by the new administrators. During the interview
process, it became evident that LEAD’s initial training programs had a profound impact on
participants far more significant than this researcher could have imagined. As respondents
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

167
shared their stories, the level of maturity in understanding the role of a leader far surpassed
expectations. While researching assumed gaps and adult learning theory, it became evident that
LEAD’s program meets most, if not all, of the current researched-based practices for leadership
development. The gap appears in the disconnect in the relationship administrators have with
their supervisors that focuses on nurturing and fostering this leadership commitment in young
leaders through the CPSEL.
In retrospect, the needed research does not lie in program design as much as it resides in
perceived gaps of practice between site leaders and supervisors. Using the KMO framework to
examine possible knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers that inhibit innovation and
creativity for school leaders would be a topic of future research.
The concept of applying adult learning theory in practice is also topic for future research.
Understanding the differences between adult learners and young learners may lead to a more
comprehensive approach to school innovation. Most interview respondents reflected a definite
attribution in the power of working with their colleagues in communities of practice and the
value of a mentor in their responses. While the learning style questions were intentional, the
global responses confirm that these practices alone show great promise in supporting school
leaders.
Finally, the emotional wellness of site leaders was briefly discussed as part of this
research study. Research and literature reviewed on leader burnout and turnover coincide with
feelings of loneliness and overwhelmedness. While not explored in this study, this theme
resonates with the respondent’s desire to work with others on a more consistent basis. Future
research in this area may provide more support for focusing on the needs of adult learners
through professional learning activities.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

168
Conclusion
Leading a school is difficult, especially in the age of accountability. Students rely on
adults to provide them with the necessary skills to lead them to a productive life. Young people
do not have the luxury of choosing their schools, their teachers, or the administrators who
influence their lives. Teachers generally have one year to work with and develop a child, while
site leaders often invest in a child’s life for multiple years. The window of opportunity may be
higher than that of a beloved teacher, but its impact may be even more significant. School
leaders influence the climate of a school including the environment, working conditions, and
general attitudes towards learning. Their scope of influence permeates through community,
making it essential for leaders to have the tools, support, and power necessary to stimulate all
those around them to achieve at extraordinary levels.
The purpose of this study was to comprehend what will be necessary to inspire site
leaders to pursue a deeper understanding of the role of leadership and what would motivate them
to participate in ongoing training and development of their skills. School districts do not often
focus on supporting leaders, nor do leaders make their priority when faced with a multitude of
other demands for their time. The emotional, financial, and logistical costs associated with a
principal change impacts the entire community. By examining this problem through the KMO
Gap Analysis framework, LEAD can design an extended training program aimed at maintaining
a high level of efficacy, confidence in their ability to lead, and knowledge and application of best
practices for leadership by applying the California Professional Standards for Educational
Leaders. The recommended solutions provided in this study will provide justification for leaders
to truly lead and develop their school communities so all in their care can thrive in a healthy and
productive educational environment.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

169
Nelson Mandela is often remembered for his wisdom. He said, “Education is the most
powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” To prepare our students, leaders must
guide their cultures to create the place where everyone flourishes and every child is afforded the
opportunity to succeed. Every kid deserves a great school.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

170
REFERENCES
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474.
Alvoid, L., & Black Jr, W. L. (2014, July 1). The changing role of the principal: How high-
achieving districts are recalibrating school leadership. Washington, D.C.: Center for
American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-
k-12/reports/2014/07/01/93015/the-changing-role-of-the-principal/
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/attribution-theory/
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., . . .
Wittrock, M. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of
Bloom’s taxonomy. New York, NY Longman Publishing.
Anderson, L. M., & Turnbull, B. J. (2016, January). Evaluating and supporting principals
(Building a stronger principalship: V olume 4). New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.),
Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Barnes, C. A., Camburn, E., Sanders, B. R., & Sebastian, J. (2010). Developing instructional
leaders: Using mixed methods to explore the black box of planned change in principals’
professional practice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 241–279.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

171
Bates, R. (2006). Culture and leadership in educational administration: A historical study of what
was and what might have been. Journal of Educational Administration and History,
38(2), 155–168.
Béteille, T., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2012). Stepping stones: Principal career paths and
school outcomes. Social Science Research, 41(4), 904–919.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bogue, E. G., & Hall, K. B. (2003). Quality and accountability in higher education: Improving
policy, enhancing performance. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boske, C. (2009). Children’s spirit. International Journal of Educational Management, 23(2),
115–128.
Boyan, N. (1981). Follow the leader: Commentary on research in educational administration.
Educational Researcher, 10(2), 6–21.
Branch, G. F., Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2009, January). Principal turnover and
effectiveness. Paper presented at the American Economics Association, San Francisco,
CA.
California Department of Education. (2016a). DataQuest. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved
from http://data1.cde.ca.gov
California Department of Education. (2016b). Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

172
Cardno, C., & Fitzgerald, T. (2005). Leadership learning: A development initiative for
experienced New Zealand principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(3), 316–
329.
Cardno, C., & Youngs, H. (2013). Leadership development for experienced New Zealand
principals: Perceptions of effectiveness. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 41(3), 256–271.
Christensen, J., Burke, P., Fessler, R., & Hagstrom, D. (1983). Stages of teachers’ careers:
Implications for professional development. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 227 054)
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2017). Services credential requirements. Sacramento,
CA: Author. Retrieved from https://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/req-services
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org
Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly successful people. New York, NY:
Fireside/Simon & Schuster.
Covey, S. R. (1990). The seven habits of highly effective people. New York, NY: Fireside.
Creswell, J. W. (2014a). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2014b). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

173
Darling-Hammond, L., Meyerson, D., LaPointe, M., & Orr, M. T. (2009). Preparing principals
for a changing world: Lessons from effective school leadership programs. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., Orphanos, S., LaPointe, M., & Weeks, S. (2007). Leadership
development in California (Getting Down to Facts: Effectiveness Studies series).
Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Institute for Research on Education Policy & Practice
and the School Redesign Network.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). Developing successful
principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
Dimmock, C., & Hattie, J. (1996). School principals’ self ‐efficacy and its measurement in a
context of restructuring. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7(1), 62–75.
DiPaola, M., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The principalship at a crossroads: A study of the
conditions and concerns of principals. NASSP Bulletin, 87(634), 43–65.
Donaldson, G. A. (2008). How leaders learn: Cultivating capacities for school improvement.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Doyle, D., & Locke, G. (2014). Lacking leaders: The challenges of principal recruitment,
selection, and placement. Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Drago-Severson, E. (2008). 4 practices serve as pillars for adult learning. Journal of Staff
Development, 29(4), 60–63.
Drago-Severson, E. (2012). The need for principal renewal: The promise of sustaining principals
through principal-to-principal reflective practice. Teachers College Record, 114(12), 1–
56.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

174
Drago-Severson, E. (2013). Learning for leadership: Developmental strategies for building
capacity in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Drago-Severson, E., Blum-DeStefano, J., & Asghar, A. (2013). Learning and leading for growth:
Preparing leaders to support adult development in our schools. Journal of School
Leadership, 23(6), 29–55.
Ediger, M. (2014). The changing role of the school principal. College Student Journal, 48(2),
265–267.
Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro level of
the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 53(4), 583–598.
Federici, R. A., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2012). Principal self-efficacy: Relations with burnout, job
satisfaction and motivation to quit. Social Psychology of Education, 15(3), 295–320.
Fernet, C. (2010). Development and validation of the work role motivation scale for school
principals (WRMS-SP). Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 307–331.
Feuerborn, L. L., Tyre, A. D., & King, J. P. (2015). The staff perceptions of behavior and
discipline survey: A tool to help achieve systemic change through schoolwide positive
behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17(2), 116–126.
Fink, A. (2012). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fisher, Y . (2011). The sense of self-efficacy of aspiring principals: Exploration in a dynamic
concept. Social Psychology of Education, 14(1), 93–117.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

175
Fraser, C., Honeyfield, J., Breen, F., Protheroe, M., & Fester, V . (2017). From project to
permanence: Growing inter-institutional collaborative teams into long-term, sustainable
communities of practice. In J. McDonald & A. Cater-Steel (Eds.), Communities of
practice (pp. 567–598). Singapore: Springer.
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Fullan, M. (2015). Freedom to change: Four strategies to put your inner drive into overdrive.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2016). Amplify change with professional capital. Journal of Staff Development,
37(1), 44–48.
Fullan, M., Hord, S. M., & V on Frank, V . (2014). Reach the highest standard in professional
learning: Implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and
systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Garza, E., Drysdale, L., Gurr, D., Jacobson, S. L., & Merchant, B. (2014). Leadership for school
success: Lessons from effective principals. International Journal of Educational
Management, 28(7), 798–811. doi:10.1108/IJEM-08-2013-0125
Glesne, C. (2015). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (5th ed.). New York, NY:
Pearson.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

176
Goff, P., Guthrie, J. E., Goldring, E., & Brickman, L. (2014). Changing principals’ leadership
through feedback and coaching. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 682–704.
Goldring, E., Porter, A., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2009). Assessing learning-
centered leadership: Connections to research, professional standards, and current
practices. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(1), 1–36.
doi:10.1080/15700760802014951
Goldring, R., & Taie, S. (2014). Principal attrition and mobility: Results from the 2012-13
Principal Follow-up Survey (NCES 2014-064). Washington, D.C.: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Goldstein, A. (2001, July 20). How to fix the coming principal shortage. Time. Retrieved from
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,168379,00.html
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (2013). Running on empty? Finding the time and capacity to lead
learning. NASSP Bulletin, 97(1), 5–21.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2013). The power of professional capital. Journal of Staff
Development, 34(3), 36–39.
Hargreaves, A. P., & Shirley, D. L. (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational
change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Heitin, L. (2013, February 21). Survey finds rising job frustration among principals. Education
Week. Retrieved from
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/02/21/22leaders.h32.html
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

177
Herman, R., Gates, S. M., Chavez-Herrerias, E. R., & Harris, M. (2016). School leadership
interventions under the Every Student Succeeds Act. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation. Retrieved from
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1500/RR1550/RAND_
RR1550.pdf
Houle, J. C. (2006). Professional development for urban principals in underperforming schools.
Education and Urban Society, 38(2), 142–159.
Hull, J. (2012). The principal perspective: Full report. Alexandria, V A: Center for Public
Education.
Iannone, R. (1973). What motivates principals? The Journal of Educational Research, 66(6),
260–262.
Johnson, L. A. (2005). Why principals quit: There are many reasons why principals voluntarily
leave the positions they worked so hard to earn. Principal, 84(3), 21–23.
Johnston, W. R., Kaufman, J. H., & Thompson, L. E. (2016). Support for instructional
leadership: Supervision, mentoring, and professional development for U.S. school
leaders: Findings from the American School Leader Panel (RR-1580-1-WF). Santa
Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1580-1.html
Kafka, J. (2009). The principalship in historical perspective. Peabody Journal of Education,
84(3), 318–330.
Kearney, K. (Ed.). (2003). Moving leadership standards into everyday work: Descriptions of
practice. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Kearney, K. (2005). Guiding improvements in principal performance. Leadership, 35(1), 18–21.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

178
Kearney, K. (Ed.). (2015). Moving leadership standards into everyday work: Descriptions of
practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Killion, J. (2015). Strengthening principal leadership is only one piece of the puzzle. Journal of
Staff Development, 36(6), 56–58.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, V A: Association for Talent Development.
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). A cognitive load approach to collaborative
learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 31–42.
Klein, A., & Ujifusa, A. (2016, February 8). Commenters clash on what ESSA rules should look
like: Next steps on ESSA mulled. Education Week. Retrieved from
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/02/10/commenters-clash-on-what-essa-rules-
should.html
Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., & Talbert, J. E. (2003). Leading for learning: Reflective tools for
school and district leaders. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy.
Knowles, M. S. (1970). The modern practice of adult education. New York, NY: Association
Press.
Knowles, M. S. (1978). Andragogy: Adult learning theory in perspective. Community College
Review, 5(3), 9–20.
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult learner: The definitive
classic in adult education and human resource development (5th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

179
Lakshman, C. (2008). Attributional theory of leadership: A model of functional attributions and
behaviors. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29(4), 317–339.
Leana, C. R. (2011). The missing link in school reform. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(4),
30–35.
Leithwood, K. A. (2005). Educational leadership. Philadelphia, PA: Laboratory for Student
Success, Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education.
Leithwood, K. A., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions
of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496–528.
Leithwood, K. A., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S. E., & Knapp, M. S. (2012). Linking leadership to
student learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leithwood, K. A., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How
leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.
Leithwood, K. A., Strauss, T., & Anderson, S. E. (2008). District contributions to school leaders’
sense of efficacy: A qualitative analysis. Journal of School Leadership, 17(6), 735–770.
Leo, U. (2015). Professional norms guiding school principals’ pedagogical leadership.
International Journal of Educational Management, 29(4), 461–476. doi:10.1108/IJEM-
08-2014-0121
Leonard, J. C. (2010). Finding the time for instructional leadership: Management strategies for
strengthening the academic program. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Levy, G. D., & Ronco, S. L. (2012). How benchmarking and higher education came together.
New Directions for Institutional Research, 2012(156), 5–13.
Lincoln, Y . S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in
naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 1986(30), 73–84.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

180
Lindberg, E. (2014). Principals with and without performance measures means no change?
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(3), 520–531.
Loeb, S., Kalogrides, D., & Béteille, T. (2012). Effective schools: Teacher hiring, assignment,
development, and retention. Education, 7(3), 269–304.
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating the links
to improved student learning: Final report of research findings. New York, NY: Wallace
Foundation.
Lovely, S. (2004). Staffing the principalship: Finding, coaching, and mentoring school leaders.
Alexandria, V A: ASCD.
Lyons, C. A., & Murphy, M. J. (1994, April). Principal self-efficacy and the use of power. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Manna, P. (2015). Developing excellent school principals to advance teaching and learning:
Considerations for state policy. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, V A: ASCD.
Mascall, B., & Leithwood, K. (2010). Investing in leadership: The district’s role in managing
principal turnover. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(4), 367–383.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing.
Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–139.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

181
McCullers, J., & Bozeman, W. (2010). Principal self-efficacy: The effects of No Child Left
Behind and Florida school grades. NASSP Bulletin, 94(1), 53–74.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mhatre, K. H., & Riggio, R. E. (2014). Charismatic and transformational leadership: Past,
present, and future. In D. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and
organizations (pp. 221–240). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Militello, M., Fusarelli, B., Alsbury, T., & Warren, T. P. (2013). How professional standards
guide practice for school principals. The International Journal of Educational
Management, 27(1), 74–90.
Miller, A. (2013). Principal turnover and student achievement. Economics of Education Review,
36, 60–72.
Miller, W. (2013). Better principal training is key to school reform: To ensure that schools can
help children develop the skills they need, we need principals with sharper skills and
more effective professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(8), 80.
Mitgang, L. (2012). The making of the principal: Five lessons in leadership training. New York,
NY: Wallace Foundation.
Murphy, J. (2002). Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints.
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 101(1), 65–82.
Murphy, J. (2003). Reculturing educational leadership: The ISLLC standards ten years out.
Reston, V A: National Policy Board for Educational Administration.
Murphy, J. (2005). Unpacking the foundations of ISLLC standards and addressing concerns in
the academic community. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 154–191.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

182
Murphy, J., & Shipman, N. (1999). The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium: A
standards-based approach to strengthening educational leadership. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 13(3), 205–224.
Murphy, J., Yff, J., & Shipman, N. (2000). Implementation of the Interstate School Leaders
Licensure Consortium Standards. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(1),
17–39.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). National Center for Education Statistics.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Departmet of Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov
National Staff Development Council. (2000). Learning to lead, leading to learn. Oxford, OH:
Author.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Papa Jr., F. (2007). Why do principals change schools? A multivariate analysis of principal
retention. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(3), 267–290.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Analysis and reporting of survey data (part 3 of 3) (REL 2016-164). Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory
Northeast & Islands. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Petersen, G. J., & Young, M. D. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and its influence on
current and future district leaders. Journal of Law and Education, 33(3), 343–363.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

183
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 137–145.
Prothero, A. (2015). For principals, continuous learning critical to career success. Education
Week, 34(18), 10–11.
Rousmaniere, K. (2013). The principal’s office: A social history of the American school
principal. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Rowland, C. (2017). Principal professional development: New opportunities for a renewed state
focus. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research.
Roza, M. (2003). A matter of definition: Is there truly a shortage of school principals? Seattle,
WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Salkind, N. J. (2016). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
School Leaders Network. (2014). Churn: The high cost of principal turnover. Retrieved from
https://connectleadsucceed.org
Shipps, D., & White, M. (2009). A new politics of the principalship? Accountability-driven
change in New York City. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3), 350–373.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

184
Simkin, L., Charner, I., & Suss, L. (2010). Emerging education issues: Findings from the
Wallace Foundation survey. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.
Spanneut, G., Tobin, J., & Ayers, S. (2012). Identifying the professional development needs of
public school principals based on the Interstate School Leader Licensure Consortium
standards. NASSP Bulletin, 96(1), 67–88.
Stronge, J. H. (1993). Defining the principalship: Instructional leader or middle manager. NASSP
Bulletin, 77(553), 1–7.
Superville, D. R. (2014, November 11). Study finds principal mobility takes toll on budgets,
learning. Education Week. Retrieved from
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/11/12/12report-b1.h34.html
Tekleselassie, A. A., & Villarreal, P. (2011). Career mobility and departure intentions among
school principals in the United States: Incentives and disincentives. Leadership and
Policy in Schools, 10(3), 251–293.
Tracy, G., & Weaver, C. (2000). Aspiring leaders academy: Responding to the principal shortage.
NASSP Bulletin, 84(618), 75–83.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. R. (2004). Principals’ sense of efficacy: Assessing a
promising construct. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(5), 573–585.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. R. (2007). Cultivating principals’ self-efficacy: Supports
that matter. Journal of School Leadership, 17(1), 89–114.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). Occupational outlook handbook: Elementary, middle,
and high school principals. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/elementary-middle-and-high-school-principals.htm
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

185
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Laws & guidance. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/policy
Usdan, M., McCloud, B., & Podmostko, M. (2000, October). Leadership for student learning:
Reinventing the principalship (School leadership for the 21st century initiative: A report
of the task force on the principalship). Washington, D.C.: Institute for Educational
Leadership.
V ogel, L., & Weiler, S. C. (2014). Aligning preparation and practice: An assessment of coherence
in state principal preparation and licensure. NASSP Bulletin, 98(4), 324–350.
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. Denver, CO:
McREL.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York, NY: Springer-
Verlag.
Weiner, B. (2010). The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history of
ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 28–36.
Wells, C. M., & Klocko, B. A. (2015). Can teacher leadership reduce principal stress? Journal of
School Leadership, 25(2), 313–344.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A
guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Zepeda, S. J. (2012). Professional development: What works. New York, NY: Routledge.
Zepeda, S. J., Parylo, O., & Bengtson, E. (2014). Analyzing principal professional development
practices through the lens of adult learning theory. Professional Development in
Education, 40(2), 295–315.
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

186
APPENDIX A
SCHOOL LEADERS SUPPORT SURVEY
Dear Former LEAD Participant,

You are invited to participate in this brief survey of all former participants of the LEAD Tier 1
Credential program. My name is Mary Beth Kropp. I am a current doctoral student at the
University of Southern California. This survey is being conducted in conjunction with LEAD as
part of a doctoral research project under the guidance of Dr. Monique Datta from the Rossier
School of Education. The purpose of this study is to gather information about current practices
of school leaders as it relates to the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders.
As a participant in LEAD’s program, you were immersed in the leadership standards adopted by
the State of California as a component of your credentialing requirements for a Preliminary
Administrative Service Credential. This study has been designed to learn how those standards
connect to your professional learning practices as a current administrator. This research will be
used to design opportunities for professionals to continue their leadership development after all
credentialing requirements have been satisfied.

Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary, and your responses will never be
associated with your personal information. All participants will remain completely confidential.
If you agree to this research study, please complete the online survey at the following link:
_________________________________. You are welcome to skip any question you choose and
can withdraw from the study at any time.

This survey should take about 15 minutes to complete and consists of three sections. Your
support in completing all three sections is greatly appreciated:

Part I: Current Practices in Professional Learning for Site Leaders
Part II: Current Challenges for Site Leaders (Sense of Efficacy Scale)
Part III: Demographic information

After the survey, you will be invited to submit your name for an individual follow-up interview.
The responses to the first two parts are not connected to Part 3 to protect your anonymity.
Interviewees will be selected to represent participants to create a broad view of the districts
supported by LEAD. Follow-up interviews will allow the researcher to gain a better
understanding on how professional learning can be promoted in the future.

For additional questions, please contact me directly at marybetk@usc.edu. Thank you for your
participation in this survey. By clicking on this link, you agree to participate.

Survey Link: ______________________________________

Respectfully,
Mary Beth Kropp, Doctoral Candidate
University of Southern California
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

187
Participant Survey
Part I: Current Practices in Professional Learning for Site Leaders

Unfamiliar Familiar
Somewhat
Familiar
Very
Familiar
1. How familiar are you with the
California Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders?

2. How familiar are you with best
practices and exemplars identified by
the California Professional Standards
for Educational Leaders?

3. How familiar are you with the
correlation between student
achievement and leadership?

4. How familiar are you with the
Standards for Professional Learning?

Never Rarely Sometimes Often
All the
Time
5. How often have you used the
California Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders when setting your
annual goals in the past five years?

6. How often have you engaged in
professional learning aligned to the
California Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders in the past five
years?

7. How often do you use the California
Professional Standards for Educational
Leaders to identify areas of weakness
in your student performance?

8. How often have you self-selected your
professional learning in the past five
years?

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

188
9. How often have you participated in
professional learning that was chosen
by your supervisor in the past five
years?

10. How often do you have opportunities to
work directly with principal colleagues
in a professional learning setting?

11. How often do you work directly with a
coach or mentor?

12. How often do you work in a formal
professional learning community?

13. How often have you participated in
professional learning designed by a
colleague?

Never Rarely Sometimes Often
All the
Time
14. How often are you able to provide
feedback about the quality of your
professional learning?

15. How often are you offered follow-up
coaching or further support related to
your professional learning?

16. How often is your professional
learning outcome stated as a
professional learning standard for
educational leaders?

17. How often is your professional
learning focused on job-embedded
skills?

18. How often is your professional
learning considered ‘hands-on’?

19. How often is your professional
learning is delivered by a lecture with
limited interaction?

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

189
20. How often do you work with
colleagues to present about a relevant
professional learning topic?

21. How often is your professional
learning rooted in current research?

22. How often do you participate in on-
line professional learning that is self-
paced?

23. How often do you participate in
professional learning that addresses
your wellness including stress
reduction?

Never Rarely Sometimes Always
24. Do you feel confident about your leadership
skills?

25. Do you feel confident about your professional
learning plan to support your needs as a site
leader?

26. Do you feel confident that your leadership
contributes to the success of your school
community?

Based on your experiences with LEAD, how would you rate your professional learning
activities?

N/A
Below
Average Average
Above
Average
One of
the best
TIER 1 and TIER 2 Participants
27. Saturday Classes
28. Online Coaching
29. Projects
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

190
TIER 2 Participants Only
30. Progress Meetings
31. 1:1 Coaching

Part II: Principal Sense of Efficacy Scale
This questionnaire is designed to help us gain a better understanding of things that create
challenges for school leaders in their school activities.

Please indicate your opinion about each of the questions below making one of the nine responses
in the columns on the right. The scare of responses ranges from “None at All” (1) to “A Great
Deal” (9), with “Some Degree” representing the mid-point between these low and high extremes.
You may choose any of the nine possible responses since each represents a degree on the
continuum. Your answers are confidential.

Please respond to each of the questions by considering the combination of your current ability,
resources, and opportunity to do each of the following in your present position.

In your current role, to what extent can you …

None
at All
Very
Little
Some
Degree
Quite
a Bit
A Great
Deal
1. facilitate student learning in your school?
2. generate enthusiasm for a shared vision for
the school?

3. handle the time demands of the job?
4. manage change in your school?
5. promote school spirit among a large
majority of the student population?

6. create a positive learning environment in
your school?

7. raise student achievement on standardized
tests?

8. promote a positive image of your school
with the media?

9. motivate teachers?
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

191
10. promote the prevailing values of the
community in your school?

11. maintain control of your own schedule?
12. shape the operational policies and
procedures that are necessary to manage
your school?

13. handle effectively the discipline of students
in your school?

14. promote acceptable behavior among
students?

15. handle the paperwork required of the job?
16. promote ethical behavior among school
personnel?

17. cope with stress of the job?
18. prioritize among competing demands of the
job?

Principal’s Sense of Efficacy Scale; College of William and Mary, Department of Education,
Tschannen-Moran & Gareis; http://mxtsch.people.wm.edu/research_tools.php

Part III: Demographics
Please complete the following demographic information. The surveys above are anonymous and
cannot be associated with your personal information below. Your responses will be used for
statistical purposes only.

How long have you served in a leadership position? _______ years
How long have you been in your current position? _______ years
How long have you been at your current site? _______ years
What year did you complete your Tier 1 Administrative Services
Preliminary credential through LEAD?

What year did you begin working in an administrative position?
KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

192
What year did you/will you complete your Clear Administrative
Services credential through LEAD?

List your top five topics of interest for professional learning as a
school leader. Rank from Highest Priority in descending order with
your top choice listed first.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
After completing your program were there any areas of the CPSEL
(California Standards for Educational Leaders) where you wished
your knowledge was deeper than the information shared in your
coursework?
Be specific about
topics you feel you
needed more
information about to
support your work in
your current position.
CPSEL 1: Development and Implementation of a Shared Vision
CPSEL 2: Instructional Leadership
CPSEL 3: Management and Learning Environment
CPSEL 4: Family and Community Engagement
CPSEL 5: Ethics and Integrity
CPSEL 6: External Context and Policy

Request for Personal Interview
Would you be willing to participate in an individual interview to deepen the
researcher’s understanding of the professional learning needs of site
principals? Interviews will take no longer than 1 hour and will be conducted at
a mutually agreed upon location.
YES
NO
If you agree to an interview, please provide your contact information. All
responses to personal interviews will be kept confidential and will be used for
research purposes only.
Name:
Best Email
Address:
District:

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

193
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW PERMISSION AND PROTOCOL
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me about your professional learning as a school
leader in more detail. I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California interested
in learning how school leaders extend their professional learning specifically as it relates to your
role as leader. I am interested in gaining a better understanding as to how site leaders can
develop their leadership skills as they progress through their careers.

All the information collected through this interview will remain confidential. I am working with
XXXX to develop opportunities for leaders to continue their professional learning in the future.
Nothing you say will be attributed to you by name, school, or district. You can be brief in your
responses and I do not want you to feel the need to explain or justify any of your answers. You
can skip any question or end the interview at any time. I have allotted 30 minutes for this
interview and promise not to take more time than you have allocated.

Permission to Record: I would also ask your permission to record this conversation. Your
verbal consent will be recorded and added to the transcripts of our conversation. This will allow
me to focus on what you say rather than taking notes. The recording will allow me to go back
and transcribe your answers exactly as you have responded rather than run the risk of
misinterpreting what you have said. After I conclude my research, all interview recordings will
be destroyed.

Before I begin, are there any questions you have for me? At the end of this interview, I have also
allowed some time for you to ask questions as well. I want to be sure you understand the
implications of this research and its intended outcomes.

Question
Recorded
Responses
1. What is your official job title? How long have you been in that role?
2. Who is your direct supervisor?
Director? Assistant Superintendent? Principal? Other?
How often do you meet with this person to discuss your leadership?

3. How has your knowledge and understanding of the CPSEL influenced your
leadership?

4. What are your main responsibilities as a leader in your district?
5. Do you have enough support/time to adequately address all your
responsibilities as a leader? (CS1)

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

194
6. How confident are you that you have enough time to be effective in your
position? (M1, M2)

7. Do you formally set annual goals for yourself? If so, are they aligned to
the CPSEL or other district expectations? (KC, CS3)

8. How often do you reflect on your progress towards your annual goals? Is it
formal or informal reflection? (K5)

9. How are students are impacted by your leadership? (K3, M2)
10. What might be some of the most difficult challenges you face in your
position as a site leader right now? (CS1)

Now I want to shift gears to talk about professional learning for specifically for site leaders.
11. How do you define your professional learning? (KC)
12. What professional learning opportunities exist for you? (CM2)
13. What motivates you to participate in professional learning? (CM1)
14. What holds you back from participating in professional learning? (CS1)
15. Describe the most beneficial professional learning opportunity you have participated
in. (CS2)

16. How did this PL impact your professional practice? (CS2)
17. Think about the last professional learning activity you participated in. (CM2, CS2)
a. Was it your choice of someone else’s choice?
b. Was it something you needed or something someone else wanted you to
learn?
c. How has the PL influenced your current professional goals?
d. Did this PL impact your professional goals?
A
B
C
D
18. Describe the ideal professional learning plan for yourself. (CS2)
a. What would be your focus?
b. How would you assess its impact on your practice?
c. What skills would you hope to enhance through this PL?
d. How would it be funded/supported?

19. How much have the California Standards for Professional Leaders influenced your
leadership development? (K1, K2)

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

195
20. Have you ever worked with a coach or a mentor? If so, can you please share how
that experience supported or deterred from your growth as a leader? (CS2)

21. Do you think having a mentor or serving as a mentor is a good practice? (CS2)
22. Have you/are you a part of a professional learning community or community of
practice for site leaders? (CS2)

23. What do you gain from being a part of a PLC or CoP? (CS2)
24. Where do you see yourself in 5 years? 10 years? (M1, M2)
25. How did your training with the LEAD contribute to your preparation to assume your
current position? (KF)

26. Is there any you would change about your experiences at the LEAD? (KM)
27. If you had one wish for your professional development, what would that be? (CS2)
28. If you could share just one piece of advice with a new administrator about their
development as a school leader, what would you tell them and why is that important
to you? (KM)

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

196
APPENDIX C
SAMPLE COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE AND COACHING EV ALUATION
The purpose of this evaluation is to evaluate the design of LEAD Communities of Practice and
coaching sessions. Your feedback is important to assist LEAD in ensuring the quality of your
experiences and to understand your ongoing needs as a site leader.

Communities of Practice
Strongly
agree Agree Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Level 1 Engagement
1. My community of practice met my expectations.
2. I was excited to participate in my Community of
Practice meetings.

Level 1 Relevance
3. I benefitted from the content of my CoP.
4. The discussion items in my CoP were relevant to
my site needs.

Level 1 Participant Satisfaction
5. I would recommend participating in a CoP to my
colleagues.

Level 2 Attitude
6. I believe my participation in my CoP benefits me
as a site leader.

Level 2 — Confidence
7. I believe I have gained knowledge of the CPSEL
through CoP discussions.

Level 2 — Commitment
8. I will apply my new knowledge and skills in my
daily work as a site leader.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

197
Coaching Sessions
Strongly
agree Agree Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Level 1 Engagement
1. The time I spent with my coach met my
expectations.

2. I was encouraged by my coach’s interactions.
Level 1 Relevance
3. I benefit from my coaching sessions.
4. The discussion items in my coaching sessions
were relevant to my site needs.

Level 1 Participant Satisfaction
5. I would recommend having a coach to my
colleagues.

Level 2 Attitude
6. I believe my interaction with my coach benefits
me as a site leader.

Level 2 — Confidence
7. I believe I have gained knowledge of the
CPSEL through discussions with my coach.

Level 2 — Commitment
8. I will apply my new knowledge and skills in my
daily work as a site leader.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

198
CPSEL eLearning Modules
Strongly
agree Agree Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Level 1 Engagement
1. The module held my interest.
Level 1 Relevance
2. The module was relevant to my position.
Level 1 Participant Satisfaction
3. I am satisfied with the module experience.
Level 2 Declarative Knowledge
4. I learned how the CPSEL are designed for site
leaders.

Level 2 — Procedural Knowledge
5. I understand how the CPSEL are designed to
support my development a leader.

Level 2 — Commitment
6. I am committed to using the CPSEL to guide
my development as a leader.

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

199
APPENDIX D
LEAD SITE LEADER EXCEL PROGRAM
Coaching Sessions
Strongly
agree Agree Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Level 1 Reaction
1. What I have learned by being a participant in
ExCEL is useful for my leadership development.

2. I have benefitted from participating in ExCEL.
Level 2 Learning
3. My relationship with my coach benefits my
practice.

4. There are benefits to me personally and
professionally for participating in a CoP.

Level 3 Behavior
5. My supervisor has recognized the
accomplishments of our school because of my
leadership.

6. I have engaged in self-reflection about my
leadership based on the CPSEL.

Level 4 Results
7. I am excited to be a site leader.
8. The staff and students at our school are
benefitting from my leadership.

9. What information should be added to eLearning modules to increases their relevance to your
position? (Level 1 — Relevance)

10. How have your practices changed because of your participation in the EXCEL program?
(Level 2 — Confidence)

KEEPING PRINCIPALS AT THE TOP OF THE CLASS

200
11. How has your work with your coach benefited your practice? (Level 3 – Reinforcing)

12. Describe the impact of your participation in the LEAD program. (Level 4 – Results)

Monthly Confidence Check
Please respond to your current confidence in your abilities as a leader.
Increasing About the Same Decreasing
Confidence in Management Skills
Confidence in Instructional Leadership
Confidence in Overall Leadership Abilities

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Nourish to flourish: strengthening social emotional wellness of teachers to mitigate stress, enrich engagement, and increase efficacy: an evaluation study

PDF

The role of international school teacher leaders in building leadership capacity within their teams

PDF

Exploratory study on Race to the Top schools and the impact a school principal has on a school’s academic performance

PDF

Overcoming the cultural teaching gap: an evaluative study of urban teachers’ implementation of culturally relevant instruction

PDF

Application of professional learning outcomes into the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

Gender inequity and leadership in the large state militia: an innovation study

PDF

Improving pilot training by learning about learning: an innovation study

PDF

The Bridge Program and underrepresented Latino students: an evaluation study

PDF

Addressing the principal shortage: women teachers

PDF

The happiness design: an innovation study

PDF

Developing a computer science education program: an innovation study

PDF

An exploratory study of professional development to improve student reading: a case study in Oahu Hawaii

PDF

Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study

PDF

Health care disparities and the influence of nurse leader cultural competency: an evaluation study

PDF

Reconstructing the literary canon: an innovation study

PDF

A case study analysis of high school principals' criteria in the teacher selection process

PDF

Student engagement in online education: an evaluation study

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

The role of higher education in bridging workforce skills gaps: an evaluation study

PDF

Lack of diversity in leadership: An organizational problem

Asset Metadata

Creator Kropp, Mary Beth Morris (author)

Core Title Keeping principals at the top of the class: an innovation study of principal leadership, self-efficacy, and the pursuit of leadership development

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 03/13/2018

Defense Date 02/02/2018

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

Tag California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders,leadership development,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional standards for educational leaders,school leaders,self-efficacy,veteran school leaders

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Datta, Monique (committee chair), Picus, Lawrence (committee member), Winlock, L. Steven (committee member)

Creator Email marybetk@usc.edu,mbkropp@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-486090

Unique identifier UC11266962

Identifier etd-KroppMaryB-6106.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-486090 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KroppMaryB-6106.pdf

Dmrecord 486090

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kropp, Mary Beth Morris

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