University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Strategies employed by successful urban superintendents responding to demands for student achievement reform

(USC Thesis Other)

Strategies employed by successful urban superintendents responding to demands for student achievement reform

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY SUCCESSFUL URBAN SUPERINTENDENTS
RESPONDING TO DEMANDS FOR STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT REFORM

by

Hilda M. Flores

________________________________________________________________________

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 2012

Copyright 2012 Hilda M. Flores

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to impart the sincerest of thanks to all of the individuals who
supported, challenged, and encouraged me throughout my dissertation experience at the
University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education. I first want to recognize
the significant contribution of my dissertation chair, Dr. Rudy Castruita, and my
committee members, Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. Rudy Crew, who provided invaluable
feedback that not only improved my dissertation, but also challenged my thinking. Their
expertise and insights have left an indelible mark on my understanding of what it is to
lead schools for the benefit of all children.
I also want to thank all of the superintendents who participated in this study,
especially those superintendents who allowed me to gain additional insights through
interviews that added a rich depth of complexity to the study. Their generous
contribution of time and information constituted a true act of generosity and goodwill that
I could not have anticipated.
Thanks to my writing partner, Mindy Kozel, who worked alongside me at every
juncture to gather information, synthesize ideas, and argue semantics as we worked to
improve the quality and clarity of our work. I cannot imagine this process without her as
a friend.
I want to acknowledge the contributions of my husband, family, and friends, who
have stood beside me as I embarked on this final degree. As I juggled school, work, and
personal life over the last three years, compromises had to be made and personal life
often lost out. I share my success with my husband, Tony Boccanfuso, who has been my
iii
unwavering support for the last 12 years and through four academic degrees. He knows
better than anyone what this journey has been like. Finally, I credit my parents, Hector
and Atanacia Flores, whom I consider to be my heroes. They taught me through their
example that hard work and a positive attitude can make dreams come true.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ii

List of Tables vii

Abstract viii

Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 6
Purpose of the Study 6
Research Questions 7
Significance of the Study 7
Summary of Methodology 8
Assumptions 8
Limitations 8
Delimitations 9
Definition of Terms 9

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 12
Introduction 12
Overview of the Superintendency 13
Organizational Change 18
Current Challenges 21
Defining Goals and Long-Term Planning 24
Communication and Messaging 27
Building Capacity 30
Sustaining Reform 31
Conclusion 33

Chapter Three: Methodology 34
Introduction 34
Purpose of the Study 35
Research Questions 36
Rationale for Mixed-Method Study Design 36
Research Design 37
Sample and Population 37
Instrument Validity 38
Instrumentation 39
Quantitative Instrumentation 39
Qualitative Instrumentation 40
Data Collection 40
Quantitative Data Collection 40
v
Qualitative Data Collection 41
Data Analysis 41
Quantitative Data Analysis 42
Qualitative Data Analysis 42
Summary 42

Chapter Four: Results 44
Introduction 44
Purpose 45
Response Rate 45
Quantitative Demographic Data 46
Qualitative Demographic Data 53
Research Question One 55
Demands from the Community 56
Market Pressure and Competition 57
Bureaucratic Accountability 58
Discussion 59
Research Question Two 60
Teachers 61
School-Level Administrators 62
School Board 63
District-Level Personnel 64
Discussion 64
Research Question Three 65
Defining Goals and Long-Term Planning 68
Communication and Messaging 69
Building Capacity 70
Discussion 72
Research Question Four 72
Formative Assessment 73
Principal Evaluation 74
Monitoring Report 75
Discussion 75
Summary 76

Chapter Five: Conclusions 78
Introduction 78
Statement of the Problem 78
Purpose of the Study 79
Research Questions 80
Review of the Literature 80
Methodology 82
Findings 83
Implications 87
vi
Recommendations for Future Study 88
Conclusions 88

References 90

Appendices
Appendix A: Research Question/Instrument Connection 96
Appendix B: Survey Instrument 99
Appendix C: Interview Protocol 102
Appendix D: Survey Cover Letter 103
Appendix E: Information Letter 104
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Quantitative Survey: Response Rate 45

Table 2: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Gender 46

Table 3: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Ethnicity 47

Table 4: Quantitative Surveys: Superintendent Age 48

Table 5: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Education 48

Table 6: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Experience 49

Table 7: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Experience in 50
Current District

Table 8: Quantitative Survey: District Characteristics 51

Table 9: Qualitative Interview: Characteristics for 54
Superintendents and Districts

Table 10: Superintendent Rating of Elements Influencing 56
Student Achievement Reform

Table 11: Superintendent Rating of Stakeholder Importance 61
to Reform Development

Table 12: Superintendent Rating of Strategies Important to 66
Student Achievement Reform
viii
ABSTRACT
Superintendents engage in reform aimed at increasing student achievement
because they are influenced to do so by external and internal forces. The role of the
superintendent is successfully managing the organizational change process so that his or
her district may achieve the lofty and worthy goals of equity and excellence in student
achievement. This effort has proved to be a challenging task for superintendents, and
schools continue to falter despite intervention.
This study employed a mixed-methods design to answer four research questions
related to superintendents and student achievement reform. Data was collected via a
quantitative survey of 85 superintendents and a qualitative interview of five
superintendents, and was used to support the four research findings.
First, demands from the community, market pressure and competition, and
bureaucratic accountability influence a superintendent’s adoption of student achievement
reform. Second, teachers, school-level administrators, the school board, and district-level
personnel are important to the reform development process because they bring the
professional expertise necessary to designing an effective plan. Third, superintendents
support a wide variety of strategies — among them, setting high expectations for student
achievement, utilizing student demographic and achievement data to identify student
need, providing instructional leadership, fostering collaboration among stakeholders, and
facilitating alignment of the district’s and principals’ messages, as well as promoting
communication between district and school staff, modeling instructional leadership, and
checking professional accountability. Fourth, superintendents use formative assessment,
ix
principal evaluation, and monitoring reports for the school board and the community to
evaluate and in order to sustain reform aimed at increasing student achievement.

1
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Introduction
The public education enterprise is under unprecedented degrees of pressure to
demonstrate increased academic performance for all students. Demands from
communities, politicians, and the media have created conditions that are forcing
superintendents to embark on student achievement reform. Change, however, has proven
difficult and student achievement persists at low levels for at-risk students despite
multiple interventions (Caldas & Bankston, 1997; Corcoran, Fuhrman, & Belcher, 2001;
Darling-Hammond, 2007).
Schools are failing to prepare American students to compete in a global economy.
Recent indicators, evidence that student performance in the United States lags behind that
of students in other developed countries (Miller, Malley, & Owen, 2009). This finding is
problematic because the United States dedicates more resources to education than any
other nation, yet continues to harvest poor academic outcomes (Hanushek & Lindseth,
2009). Persistently inadequate education outcomes have the potential to threaten national
prosperity, as the United States will be ill prepared to meet the human capital demands of
the 21
st
century (Friedman, 2005; Karoly & Panis, 2004: McKinsey & Company, 2009).
International comparisons aside, achievement gaps persist across economic and
racial lines within the United States. Poor students tend to achieve at lower levels than
their more advantaged peers (Seccombe, 2000; Sirin, 2005). Furthermore, Black and
2
Hispanic students experience lower overall academic performance than White students
who share similar backgrounds (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Rumberger & Palardy, 2005;
Lee, 2002; Ogbu & Simons, 2008). This reality is particularly troublesome due to the
need for a better educated populous — coupled with the shifting United States
demographics. Therefore, increased educational opportunities must be provided for
students who have been historically underserved. If this shift does not occur, a risk of
financial peril looms for the United States (Salamon, 1991).
The No Child Left behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) aims to combat poor student
performance for the good of individuals as well as of the nation. NCLB mandates that all
students achieve minimum proficiency in the areas of English Language Arts and
mathematics by 2014 (Linn, 2005). A unique feature of NCLB is its emphasis on the
academic achievement of significant student subgroups (McDonnell, 2005). This focus
on subgroups promotes a sense of urgency about closing achievement gaps between
historically underserved groups and their more advantaged peers (Sherman, 2008).
NCLB is an example of a bureaucratic accountability system in that it is
hierarchical in nature and reliant upon outcome data in the form of student achievement
results reported to an external agency with the authority to levy sanctions (Goldberg &
Morrison, 2003). The accountability relationships begin at the federal level and funnel
down to states, districts, principals, and teachers (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004).
Stakeholders within the education system are not yet fully capable of meeting this
challenge, thus a gap between student achievement and performance standards persists
(Elmore, 2002).
3
NCLB has provided a much-needed spotlight on the performance of subgroups,
but inequities across economic and racial lines have compounded the problems of
struggling schools and districts. Urban schools and districts tend to serve a
disproportionately high number of at-risk students; therefore, they are particularly
vulnerable to the sanctions and mandates that NCLB imposes on schools and districts
failing to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
AYP is equal to the percentage of students achieving “proficient” or “advanced”
status on the California Standards Test. Schools and districts are required to increase
student achievement on a yearly basis by meeting AYP targets in English Language Arts
and mathematics (Linn, 2005). Failure to meet these targets with any significant
subgroup triggers increasingly rigorous sanctions that can hinder a school’s ability to
sustain reform (Darling-Hammond, 2007). The provisions of NCLB are so restrictive
that most schools, including those making significant academic progress for subgroups,
are unlikely to meet AYP targets and will be deemed in need of corrective action (Linn,
2005).
California schools are measured via the Academic Performance Index (API), an
additional layer of accountability that takes into consideration growth in achievement
over time known. The API score for a school is a value between 200 and 1000. Included
in the API formula are standardized tests in English Language Arts, mathematics, social
studies, and science, along with the California High School Exit Exam. Schools are
expected to meet API growth targets each year, which is equivalent to 5% of the
4
difference between its current API score and 800 or 5 points, whichever is greater. All
schools are expected to reach 800 by 2014 (EdSource, 2005).
Student performance data is more public than ever. NCLB requires that the
School Accountability Report Card (SARC) be published yearly and be made available
via the Internet or through paper copies for anyone interested. Among its 13 components,
the SARC includes information on student performance, dropout rates, school
expenditures, teacher-to-student ratios, and teacher qualifications (Fetler, 1994). This
document provides a high level of transparency about school performance and creates an
opportunity for students, parents, and community members to gain insight, which they
can leverage to demand improvement in schools.
Education interest on the part of the media is increasingly focused on the
persistent deficit of achievement by public schools and districts. The quality of education
provided to students is under constant scrutiny because of the inherent potential it has to
augment or detract from future economic security (Karoly & Panis, 2004; McKinsey &
Company, 2009). Recent documentaries have seized the opportunity to bring the
question of education quality to the nation’s attention (McCluskey, 2010). The point of
view espoused is certainly one-sided; however, many of the concerns have merit and
must be addressed.
The demand for immediate action is the rallying cry; the solution that many
education reformers favor is the expansion of charter schools (LeBlanc, 2010). The
expectation is that charter schools, which operate independently of local school board
control, can more readily adapt and innovate to meet the diverse needs of learners (West,
5
Ingram, & Hind, 2006). In theory, this effort, in turn, will create a confluence of market
pressures that will require traditional schools to improve in similar fashion — or risk
losing students (Eckes & Trotter, 2007).
Students in the United States are underperforming and there is substantial
pressure to increase achievement. Communities, politicians, and the media demand
results. Superintendents have a key role in this endeavor, as they have the power to affect
policies and allocate resources that can increase student achievement (Hallinger & Heck,
1998; Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Power, however, is not enough. Superintendents
must serve as facilitators of change through the use of effective strategies that will
increase access to high quality education opportunities for all students.
Accountability for the academic achievement of all students has served to
redefine the meaning of success for a superintendent. Being a good manager,
maintaining budgets, and pleasing board members are no longer enough.
Superintendents are judged on their ability to increase student achievement and raise test
scores. Results require superintendents to be more skillful in their instructional
leadership.
Reform has proven difficult to implement in large urban school districts, as
evidenced by the great number of students who fail to meet performance targets. Reform
requires the synchronization of large-scale demands with the daily work of people with
varying skills and goals (Stone, Orr, & Worgs, 2006). This balance presents a challenge
for superintendents, who are fundamentally responsible for the successful implementation
of reform plans.
6
Statement of the Problem
Excellence in student performance has long stood as an indicator of future
national prosperity. As such, the perceived deterioration of the American education
system as a whole has been subject to repeated legislative efforts that have imposed
increased accountability for student performance at the state, district, and school level.
Unfortunately, this increased accountability has failed to produce the desired outcomes
for students who are at risk of academic failure.
The inability of schools to meet the needs of some students has created an
accountability problem, which has forced urban superintendents to confront inequities in
outcome within the political arena. Failure to produce student achievement at specified
performance levels leaves superintendents vulnerable to the formal political pressures of
sanctions and mandates, in addition to the plethora of informal pressures that can impede
superintendents from effectively leading. Of specific interest is how urban
superintendents respond to demands for student achievement reform from the
community, media, and politicians so that they can propel their districts forward.
Reform strategies that focus on the school as the level of study are abundant in the
literature; however, the research base on how a superintendent’s actions impact student
achievement is lacking. More specifically, guidance on how student achievement
reforms can be effectively carried out by superintendents is needed.
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to identify strategies employed by successful urban
superintendents responding to demands for student achievement reform. The current
7
climate of bureaucratic accountability for student outcomes is included as a contextual
foundation. In addition, this study examined the processes by which certain
superintendents successfully developed, implemented, and sustained student achievement
reforms.
Research Questions
The following questions guided the study:
1. What are the key elements that influence student achievement reform strategy
for successful urban superintendents?
2. Who are the key stakeholders that successful urban superintendents include in
the development of a student achievement reform strategy?
3. What strategies do successful urban superintendents utilize to execute student
achievement reform?
4. What strategies do successful urban superintendents utilize to evaluate and
sustain the progress of student achievement reform?
Significance of the Study
This study adds to the body of scholarly literature by identifying the strategies
used by successful urban superintendents responding to demands for student achievement
reform. It provides guidance to current or aspiring superintendents in planning and
executing similar goals. Also, this information could be used by school boards that are
seeking to develop criteria to assess the performance of superintendents.
The findings have the potential to provide much-needed guidance to
superintendents in training so that they may be better equipped to meet the challenge of
8
increasing student achievement. In addition, the study may serve to provide guidance to
district and school-level staff working to support the implementation of reform plans.
Summary of Methodology
A mixed-methods design was employed to examine the research questions. This
method was chosen to take advantage of the support that quantitative data provides to the
more naturalistic data gathered through qualitative means (Patton, 2002). Quantitative
data was collected via a 46-item survey fielded to successful superintendents of
California school districts who met selection criteria. Qualitative data was collected via
interviews with five superintendents who participated in the quantitative survey and who
had held their positions for more than two years. The interview protocol consisted of
seven questions fundamentally guided by the research questions.
Assumptions
The study assumed the following:
1. Superintendent leadership is essential to student achievement reform.
2. Superintendents will be able to identify and communicate reform strategies
used.
3. The chosen procedures and methods are appropriate.
4. The information gathered will sufficiently address the research questions.
Limitations
The study included the following limitations:
1. The validity of the data was reliant upon the chosen instruments of
measurement.
9
2. Inherent challenges to isolating the impact of reform strategies from other
variables.
3. The ability or willingness of superintendents to provide accurate responses.
4. The ability to gain access to superintendents.
Delimitations
The delimitations of this study were:
1. Data collection was limited to urban superintendents of California districts
with more than 10,000 students.
2. Interviews were limited to five superintendents whose tenure had been more
than two years.
3. Districts must have achieved 2010 Academic Performance Index targets in
more than 50% of their schools.
4. District must serve more than 15% free or reduced lunch.
5. District must serve more than 33% minority students.
Definition of Terms
Academic Performance Index: Measurement of academic performance and
progress of individual schools and districts in California.
Accountability: An agreement between a director and a provider.
Achievement gap: Disparity in achievement among various groups of people
Adequate Yearly Progress: A federal measure of students meeting or exceeding
“proficient” status on mandated yearly standardized tests in English Language
Arts and mathematics.
10
Assessments: Tools to measure student achievement.
At risk: Minority students and students with low socioeconomic status.
California High School Exit Exam: High stakes assessment required before a high
school diploma can be awarded.
Capacity building: Developing individuals and institutions to meet student
achievement goals.
Charter school: A public school operated independently from local school board
control.
Fundamental change: Change that is highly disruptive and involves significant
alteration to the processes and people in an organization.
Global economy: Interdependent economies of the world’s nations.
Human capital: The knowledge and skills needed to do 21
st
-century work.
Incremental change: Change that follows a natural and logical progression.
Instructional leadership: Generating both the will and the capacity for student
achievement reform within an institution.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: The most recent reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act that ushered in an era of federal
accountability.
Nontraditional superintendents: Superintendents who choose to enter the
education sector after having success in other fields.
11
Professional development: Targeted action to increasing the knowledge, skills,
and motivation of education providers to meet rigorous demands for student
achievement.
Program Improvement: A status designation given to schools that fail to meet
student achievement targets for two consecutive years under the provisions of
NCLB.
Reform: Make changes to improve.
Sanctions: Penalties designed to encourage compliance.
School Accountability Report Card: Annual public disclosure of school-level data.
School Board: Elected officials entrusted with the governance of schools
Stakeholders: Individuals and groups that occupy formal and informal roles
within an organization
Student achievement: The quantifiable academic performance of students.
Subgroup: An identifiable group of students within the student population.
Superintendent: The highest ranking administrator in a district.
Traditional school: The most common type of public school functioning under the
authority of a local school board.
Traditional superintendents: Superintendents who have previously occupied
teaching and administrative roles at schools and district offices.
Unions: Employee organizations that have elected to bargain collectively.
Urban schools: Schools serving a disproportionately high number of at-risk
students.
12
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction
Demand for increased student achievement from the community, politicians, and
the media necessitates education reform. Schools in the United States are failing to
produce students who can compete in the international arena (Miller et al., 2009). In
addition, within the United States, significant gaps in achievement persist across
economic and racial lines (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Rumberger & Palardy, 2005; Lee,
2002; Ogbu & Simmons, 2008; Seccombe, 2000; Sirin, 2005). Ultimately, failure to
respond to these dismal outcomes has the potential to impair the future economic
prosperity of the United States (Salamon, 1991).
NCLB attempts to mandate student achievement reform through bureaucratic
accountability (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). The law requires that schools and
districts meet AYP targets in English Language Arts and mathematics for students as a
whole as well as for significant subgroups of students (McDonnell, 2005). Failure to
meet these targets triggers sanctions designed to stimulate a sense of urgency to improve
student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Sherman, 2008). Superintendents must
respond to these demands for student achievement reform by implementing strategies that
support a sustainable, district-wide plan for improving student outcomes (Togneri &
Anderson, 2003).
13
This review of the literature highlights key themes that provide background,
context, and promising practices related to superintendent responses to demands for
student achievement reform. The review of the literature begins with an overview of the
superintendency, including the changing role of the superintendent, impact of leadership,
and evolving expectations and duties over time. In support of providing rich details,
current challenges to student achievement reform were considered in order to provide a
contextual basis for superintendent responses.
To increase student achievement, superintendents must respond to demands for
student achievement reform by employing strategies that maximize the effectiveness of
individuals, groups, and the collective. Three major themes were identified in the
literature; they are (a) long-term planning and goal defining for increased student
achievement, (b) communication and messaging practices employed by superintendents,
and (c) building capacity at all levels within a school organization to increase student
achievement. In closing, strategies to evaluate and sustain student achievement reform
will be detailed. These elements provide both a comprehensive description of
superintendents’ responses to demands for student achievement reform and essential
foundational information.
Overview of the Superintendency
There are over 13,500 highly varied public school districts across the United
States (Glass, Bjork, & Brunner, 2000). Each district has its own history and culture,
which determine the focus and manner by which goals are accomplished (Glass et al.,
2000). In general terms, districts vary by size, demographics, and setting. In addition to
14
these more obvious descriptors, school districts are political microcosms that are
continually embattled in struggles for power and scarce resources (Glass et al., 2003).
This tension creates an additional layer of complexity with which superintendents must
contend. The strategies used by superintendents of these districts must be adapted to
meet the specific needs of each organization.
Variation among districts is best exemplified by the astounding differences
between a small rural school district of 300 students — where the superintendent may
also serve as school principal — and a large urban district that serves in excess of
400,000 students — where superintendents are far removed from the daily operation of
the many sites they are responsible for leading (Glass et al., 2000). Superintendents
charged with leading these organizations have jobs that are very different from one
another, yet they bear the same title (Glass et al., 2000). This complexity of forms makes
it very difficult to offer sweeping generalizations about the superintendency as a
profession (Glass et al., 2000).
The role of the superintendent has adapted in response to changes in school
organization and teaching methods (Glass et al., 2000). These changes have been
gradual, but the progression toward greater accountability for student achievement has
remained a consistent theme (Elmore, 1997; McDonnell, 2005). The most recent drive
for accountability of increased student achievement, as codified in NCLB, has clarified
the education mission for district offices and school sites alike (Alsbury & Whitaker,
2006; Sherman, 2008).
15
NCLB has specified in unequivocal terms that district offices have an obligation
to support schools in accelerating achievement for all students, with a special focus on
closing the achievement gap among significant subgroups of students (Sherman, 2008).
The central office plays a critical role in making this mission a success by supporting
high performance across all schools (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006).
Unfortunately, few superintendents have demonstrated the capacity to lead successful
student achievement reform; thus gaps in student performance persist (Fuller et al.,
2003).
Communities, politicians, and the media demand student achievement reform.
Superintendent action in response to these demands is critical because superintendent
leadership impacts student achievement (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Waters and
Marzano (2006) provided evidence in support of this assertion in their meta-analysis of
27 reports involving 2,714 districts, 4,434 superintendent ratings, and approximately 3.4
million student achievement scores. Of the 27 reports in the meta-analysis, 14 reports
included data regarding the correlation between district leadership and student
achievement (Waters & Marzano, 2006). A key finding in this research was the positive
correlation (.24) between district leadership and average student achievement. This
finding indicated not only that leadership does matter, but also that effective district
leadership can actually increase student achievement outcomes (Waters & Marzano,
2006). This result aligned with the assumption of this study — that superintendent
leadership is essential to student achievement reform — and lent support to the idea of
designating the superintendent as the subject of examination.
16
The superintendent is responsible for an ever-expanding array of duties and
responsibilities (Fuller et al., 2003). Among these is instructional leadership. According
to Bredeson and Kose (2007), superintendents are expected to increase student
achievement and act as instructional leaders. Instructional leadership is a much sought
after characteristic of superintendents, yet its definition remains fairly ambiguous (Rorrer,
Skrla, & Scheurich, 2008). The expectation is that superintendents go beyond mere
familiarity with the instructional program, and serve to generate both the will and
capacity for reform within an institution (Rorrer et al., 2008). This expectation is a
departure from previous demands that required superintendents to serve as good
managers, to maintain budgets, and to please board members (Glass et al., 2000).
Petersen, Sayre, and Kelly (2007) have provided insight into how teachers
perceive the role of the superintendent as instructional leader. In their 2007 study, survey
data were collected from 268 teachers and 11 school professionals across seven Missouri
school districts (Petersen et al., 2007). Specifically, the study spoke to teacher
perceptions of superintendents’ influence on student achievement (Petersen et al., 2007).
The survey data suggested that teachers believed that superintendents have the ability to
act as instructional leaders capable of supporting instructional capacity at all levels
(Petersen et al., 2007).
Instructional leadership implies that superintendents need to initiate and support
change within their organizations (McRel, 2001). The expectation is that superintendents
ensure that both schools and the district office support the kind of changes to curriculum,
instruction, and assessment necessary to increase student achievement (Bredeson & Kose,
17
2007). This effort is no small endeavor; it requires the organization and all of its
members to adapt to these new demands.
Not all change efforts are equal. McRel (2001) has described two types of change
processes that organizations undertake: incremental change and fundamental change.
Incremental change tends not to disrupt the system on a profound level and is viewed as a
natural logical progression (McRel, 2001). Fundamental change, on the other hand, is
highly disruptive and involves significant alteration to the processes and the people in an
organization (McRel, 2001).
The lack of disruption inherent to incremental change does not make it any less
valuable than fundamental change, as gradual improvement is necessary for all
functioning organizations (McRel, 2001). Fundamental change, however, is often the
only option when sweeping alterations are needed to remedy a failing system.
Generating the will and capacity for reform in a district requires superintendents to
manage stakeholder relationships while challenging current structures and practices
(Stone et al., 2006). The role of superintendents as instructional leaders orchestrating
reform in complex organizations creates an urgency to identify appropriate strategies to
support this venture.
In pursuit of leaders who are capable of accelerating student achievement,
increased focus has been placed on the potential contributions of nontraditional
superintendents (Fuller et al., 2003). Nontraditional superintendents are individuals who
have chosen to tackle this career move without following a traditional path to district
leadership — which would include teaching and administrative experience in schools and
18
district offices (Elmore, 2000; Glass et al., 2000). These newly minted superintendents
hail from fields such as business, law, and military, just to name a few (Fuller et al.,
2003). They are a popular choice for mayoral takeovers and community initiatives that
demand sweeping change (Fuller et al., 2003).
Individuals who comprise this cohort of nontraditional superintendents bring
unique qualities to bear on the superintendency. As a group, they favor standards-based
accountability and maintain a belief that improving strategic processes will improve
outcomes (Fuller et al., 2003). Reports have indicated that they are less equipped than
traditional superintendents to manage the internal pressures of unions and stakeholder
conflict (Fuller et al., 2003). The variation in skills and competencies between traditional
and nontraditional superintendents, along with how they respond to external and internal
pressures, provides valuable insight into strategies used by successful superintendents
charged with increasing student achievement.
Organizational Change
Organizational change is often motivated by external pressures, but can also be
driven by the internal needs of an institution (Johansson & Heide, 2008). In the field, the
impetus for reform is likely to be a mixture of external and internal pressures seeking to
change the way work is done and the expected outcomes (Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005).
Too often organizational change is considered a macro-level process with the entire
organization as the entity in need of intervention (Elias, 2009). This perspective fails to
consider the critical role that change agents and change recipients play in the
implementation of successful organizational change (Ford, Ford, & D’Amelio, 2008).
19
Organizational change theory provides powerful foundational knowledge for
managers in the public and private sector engaging in the change process (Andrews,
Cameron, & Harris, 2008). Unfortunately, the change process has proven to be more
difficult for the public than the private sector (Doyle, Claydon, & Buchanen, 2000).
Increased challenges to successful change in the public sector can be attributed to the
nature of public policy, which tends to rely on top-down management involving threats
for failure, uncompromising timelines, limited planning, and failure to consider the
logistical and legal pressures that will impact the change process (Doyle et al., 2000).
Organizational change tends to fall into two broad categories. The first is
transformational change, which is highly disruptive in its methods of challenging the
paradigm and mind-sets of those working within an organization (Gilley, Gilley, &
McMillan, 2009). When executed well, transformational change has the potential to lead
to increased competitiveness and differentiation of service within a marketplace (Gilley
et al., 2009). The second type of change is developmental change. Organizations that
engage in developmental change tend to frequently revise current practices through
timely assessment of internal and external pressures (Gilley et al., 2009). This type of
change is much less disruptive and tends to beget higher levels of intrinsic motivation,
growth, and development in individuals as well as in the organization (Gilley &
Maycunich, 2000).
Scholars on this subject adamantly assert that leadership practice greatly
influences the success or failure of organizational change (Battilana, Gilmartin, Sengul,
Pache, & Alexander, 2010; Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Ford et al., 2008; Gilley et al.,
20
2009; Johansson & Heide, 2007). According to Battilana et al. (2010), the execution of
planned organizational change has three components; they are communicating the
imperative for change, organizing others in support, and evaluating implementation
(Battilana et al., 2010). These overarching categories provide a basis for examining how
leader performance influences the change process.
Communicating the imperative for change requires that leaders establish a sense
of urgency, motivation, and readiness (Gilley et al., 2009). Communication must be
frequent and enthusiastic so as to inspire confidence in future possibilities (Gilley et al.,
2009). Organizing others in support of change serves to build coalitions, which has been
shown to increase the likelihood of organizational change success (Sims, 2002).
Involving people in the construction of the change plan tends to increase fidelity and
creativity because individuals have a vested personal interest in the process (Gilley et al.
2009).
Leaders often overlook evaluating change implementation as a part of the
organizational change process (Andrews et al., 2008). This oversight likely contributes
to the rapid abandonment of reform efforts that — at first glance — appear to have failed.
Instead of abandoning the change effort after unfavorable returns, leaders should serve as
champions of reflection and adjustment, qualities that serve to reinvigorate the process
(Andrews et al., 2008).
Leaders face many challenges in working with reform agents to safeguard the
change process. They must contend with employee attitudes and employee commitment
to change (Elias, 2009). When employees have a positive view of the change process,
21
they tend to behave in focused, persistent, and effortful ways that support success.
Conversely, when employees lack commitment or resist the change process, little is
accomplished and change remains superficial (Elias, 2009).
Resistance to change is not always the fault of the employee and can actually be
rooted in a failure on the part of leadership to effectively initiate and support change
(Ford et al., 2008). At a more profound level, resistance can actually provide a platform
for providing valuable feedback. This feedback could enhance the execution and
commitment of employees when addressed in meaningful and collaborative ways by
leaders (Ford et al., 2008).
Current Challenges
The superintendency is fraught with significant challenges that test the limits of
the position (Bredeson & Kose, 2007; Fuller et al., 2003). Fuller et al. (2003) have
provided insights offered by superintendents themselves into what makes the
superintendent position an impossible job. Survey responses from 100 superintendents,
along with 40 interviews, provided the data on which to draw conclusions (Fuller et al.,
2003). Fuller et al. (2003) found that (a) The structure of the daily work is not conducive
to effectively responding to demands for increasing student achievement, (b) Local
political pressure tends to focus on issues of employment while external pressures
demand that increased student achievement be a priority, (c) The superintendent wields
great power but is subject to formal and informal pressures that may hamper his/her
ability to maintain staid initiatives, (d) Closing the achievement gap is not a skill that
many have demonstrated, and (e) Capacity building of superintendents is needed but
22
cannot supplant the value of experience in navigating the political schema, (e)
Superintendents need more liberty to fulfill a vision.
By and large, they assert that the job is not possible given the current resources
and authority. Fundamental to resolving this discrepancy is granting superintendents a
level of autonomy in decision making commensurate with the expectations placed upon
them (Fuller et al., 2003). The current misalignment of expectations and opportunities
provides an important lens with which to view the strategies that superintendents use to
respond to demands for student achievement reform.
Superintendents must respond to external pressures to demonstrate increased
student achievement. One of the most pressing concerns is the accountability demands
outlined in NCLB (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Sherman, 2008). According to Darling-
Hammond (2007), NCLB has placed a much-needed spotlight on the performance of
subgroups and has defined “high quality teacher” for the benefit of all students.
However, NCLB has failed to consider the complex education barriers to the
performance of at-risk students (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Sherman, 2008). Darling-
Hammond (2007) has insisted that NCLB has proven unable to support the intellectual
needs of the 21
st
century and thus impedes schools from adequately preparing students
for the future.
Darling-Hammond (2007) indicated that NCLB relies on punitive and regulatory
actions instead of on fundamental change. The sanctions and mandates that follow
failure to meet AYP targets do not, in fact, increase the capacity of schools to meet the
needs of at-risk students (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Sherman, 2008). Instead, these
23
bureaucratic stumbling blocks have the potential to complicate student achievement
reform for superintendents because of the chaos and panic created by the lack of internal
control. NCLB has pushed the student achievement agenda forward but has not proved
to be a comprehensive solution to the overwhelming problems that superintendents
confront in the pursuit of student achievement reform for all students.
Although it is a widely held expectation for superintendents, student achievement
reform is not the only demand (Glass et al., 2000); superintendents are expected to
successfully run school districts exposed to a vast array of pressures that divert their
attention from student achievement (Bredeson & Kose, 2007; Fuller et al., 2003). These
competing demands include legal and political pressures that distract from student
achievement reform (Bredeson & Kose, 2007). The existence of these pressures
elucidates why superintendents feel profoundly challenged in their ability to remain
singularly focused on student achievement.
Bredeson and Kose (2007) found that superintendents respond to demands for
student achievement reform by dedicating additional resources and time to instructional
leadership. However, the nature of the daily work significantly impedes this effort and
often forces superintendents to allocate more time to political and legal matters (Bredeson
& Kose, 2007; Darling-Hammond & Ascher, 1991; Fuller et al., 2003). The insight that
Bredeson and Kose (2007) provided illuminates the process by which superintendents are
influenced by competing demands.
The job of superintendent requires negotiating ever-shifting demands from
external pressures (Fuller et al., 2003). Groups issue demands that reflect disparate
24
agendas (Childress et al., 2006; Nehring, 2007). This diffusion of goals impedes
superintendents from responding effectively to the needs of students (Fuller et al., 2003).
The community wants successful schools that will prepare students to meet the
complex demands of a 21
st
-century economy (Karoly & Panis, 2004). This notion speaks
to the role of the school as center of opportunity and growth for communities, and is one
of the most fundamental roles for schools. Unfortunately, education is not the only goal
demanded of schools. Schools are also expected to serve as hubs for community
employment (Fuller et al., 2003). This secondary expectation shifts focus away from
what is best for children toward what is best for the adults working within the education
system.
Politicians respond to demands from the populous by exerting pressure on schools
to increase achievement. The evidence, however, indicates that schools lack the capacity
to improve on their own and, thus, that support from the district office is critical to
sustainable student achievement reform (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Superintendents
face significant challenges in navigating the current context. These conditions will be no
less prevalent in the future as superintendents press forward to increase student
achievement.
Defining Goals and Long-Term Planning
Defining goals and establishing long-term plans that support successful student
achievement reform is a crucial strategy used by superintendents (Childress et al., 2006;
Corcoran et al., 2001; Darling-Hammond et al., 2003; Togneri & Anderson, 2003). The
expectation that all students succeed draws attention to the instructional core, which is the
25
crucial exchange between instructional practice and student learning (Childress, et al.,
2006). District offices play a decisive role in developing a plan that allows for an
increased capacity among stakeholders to elevate student achievement. Schools are
where the learning occurs, but the central office can do a lot to support learning by
establishing common goals and a supportive plan for bolstering site performance
(Togneri & Anderson, 2003). According to Childress et al. (2006), district offices are
uniquely positioned to (a) create such a plan, (b) identify and share best practices, (c)
develop leadership capabilities at all levels within the education system, (d) build
information systems to monitor student improvement, and (e) hold providers accountable.
Togneri and Anderson (2003) studied five school districts that were both serving a
high proportion of at-risk students and making marked gains in achievement.
In their study, they found seven factors that were essential to success (Togneri &
Anderson, 2003): (a) acknowledgement of poor outcomes and the desire to improve, (b)
establishment of a systematic approach to improving instruction, (c) use of a district-
guided vision, (e) employment of data-based decision making, (f) use of professional
development to improve instruction, (g) establishment of redefined leadership roles at the
district office, and (h) commitment to reform sustainment. Together these elements
enumerate what a district office can do to support student achievement across school
sites. Specifically, they detailed how activities related to goal setting and planning can
bolster student achievement reform.
Waters and Marzano (2006) have echoed similar support for the value of creating
a district-wide focus on goals. They identified five central office responsibilities that
26
contributed to successful schools: (a) Goals are established through a collaborative
process inclusive of all relevant stakeholders, (b) imperative goals are created in the areas
of student achievement and instructional practices, (c) school boards support achievement
and instructional practice goals, (d) achievement and instructional practice goals are
continuously monitored, and the (e) allocation of resources is aligned with achievement
and instructional practice goals.
Critical to the success of the aforementioned goal setting is the use of a
collaborative process inclusive of all stakeholders (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Such
inclusiveness enables superintendents to use the goal-setting process to build support for
student achievement reform.
Student achievement reform is a difficult task to undertake, even when successful
models inform the process (Darling-Hammond et al., 2003). Darling-Hammond et al.
(2003) conducted a five-year study in a large urban district undertaking a school reform
process. The district chose to follow a model that had previously proven successful in
another large urban district. The reform experience was described from both the district’s
and school’s point of view (Darling-Hammond et al., 2003).
During the school reform process, the district engaged in a paradigm shift about
how it viewed its role in supporting student achievement (Darling-Hammond et al.,
2003). The district began by focusing on the critical needs of each school before it
considered available resources (Darling-Hammond et al., 2003). This method forces
decision-makers to place emphasis on what is needed for student achievement reform
instead of on continuing current practices based on available resources. Previously, poor
27
use of resources had created only marginal improvement and had bloated the central
office, further fragmenting the purpose of work (Darling-Hammond et al., 2003). This
change in perspective identified student achievement as paramount and served to focus
the work of all individuals on the business of improving educational opportunities for all
children.
In planning for success, the district created a strategic plan that designated how
funds would be used to support student achievement (Darling-Hammond et al., 2003).
Decisions were made that shrank central office staffing and centered the work of those
remaining on teaching and learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2003). This modification
freed up additional funds that could be allocated to schools (Darling-Hammond et al.,
2003).
Communication and Messaging
As stated earlier, Togneri and Anderson (2003) have asserted that a critical first
step in improving school practice is acknowledging deficits in student performance and
establishing a desire to change these conditions. This motivation for change can be
facilitated through effective communication and messaging from both the central office
and the school sites (White, 2006). The imperative for student achievement reform and
the subsequent actions that occur to support the reform process must be communicated in
a way that is comprehensible and palpable to those who will be impacted (McRel, 2001).
To this end, superintendents must be skilled communicators who are able to build
consensus and align the resources and goals of both the district office and school sites.
28
Johnson and Chrispeels (2010) studied how a year two Program Improvement
district tackled the challenge of reform. The study described the ways in which student
achievement reform was communicated to schools and how the district attempted to
support reform by increasing centralized control while allowing schools autonomy in
how they actually met their goals (Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010). Data was collected from
45 school leadership teams, five principals, and 10 district office personnel (Johnson &
Chrispeels, 2010). The study not only demonstrated that communication is critical to
spreading reform knowledge and but also identified four patterns utilized by the district
to build communication linkages (Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010).
The first communication pattern involved coherent district messages (Johnson &
Chrispeels, 2010). The superintendent saw this uniformity as a priority and stressed the
importance of consistently communicating the need for improvement in teaching and
learning (Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010). Conversely, school leadership teams viewed this
type of communication as top-down and not inclusive of stakeholders (Johnson &
Chrispeels, 2010).
The second communication pattern noted was that of principal as communicator
with the idea that school principals would filter district messages to school sites (Johnson
& Chrispeels, 2010). Principals were clear about the expectation that they should relay
this information to school leadership teams in order to further the district’s reform agenda
(Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010). Oftentimes, teachers believed that the message from the
district was not carried out accurately by the principal, thus implementation at the school
sites was not consistent (Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010).
29
The third communication pattern involved a shift toward two-way communication
(Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010). The district believed in communicating the central vision
to all stakeholders and insisted that district office personnel be open to the insights
provided by principals and teachers (Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010). Two-way
communication served to unify the district office and schools as a team working toward a
common goal (Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010).
The fourth communication pattern that emerged was increased face-to-face
communication (Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010). This mode of connection appeared to be a
powerful strategy for mobilizing reform (Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010). Participants
perceived face-to-face communication as a sign that district offices were invested in the
work of school sites and were willing to work alongside schools in the student
achievement reform process (Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010).
Darling-Hammond et al. (2003) described similar issues with communication in
their description of the reform process in San Diego, California. Particularly troublesome
in San Diego was the rapid speed with which reform was initiated (Darling-Hammond et
al, 2003). This process caused many site-level educators to view the reform as top-down
and noninclusive of the very individuals who would be responsible for implementing the
it (Darling-Hammond et al., 2003).
Datnow (2000) described the reform selection process at 22 schools in three
states. In these schools, reform was adopted 11 times by selection off a menu — four
times through district encouragement of a particular reform, and seven times through
initiation by a school principal (Datnow, 2000). Research has supported the potential of
30
externally developed reforms to increase student achievement (Datnow, 2000). Datnow
(2000) found that reform was more successful when it was supported and not mandated,
and that the context for how a reform is introduced was important.
Building Capacity
Superintendents must invest in building capacity within their districts and schools
if student achievement reform is to succeed (Rorrer et al., 2008). Without assistance
from the district office, isolated pockets of successful schools will persist and student
achievement reform on the whole will fail (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). If schools had
the capacity to improve on their own then reform would be unnecessary (Elmore, 2002).
Thus, school districts must act to identify needs and to facilitate growth in professional
practice. Researchers in the literature have proclaimed professional development as a key
strategy to facilitating student achievement reform (Bredeson & Kose, 2007; Darling-
Hammond et al., 2003; Elmore, 2002; Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010; Petersen et al., 2007;
Waters & Marzano, 2006). Professional development allows district officials to unite the
reform actors by developing a common language and knowledge base (Petersen et al.,
2007). Petersen at al. (2007) surveyed 279 teachers and found that professional
development had the following benefits: (a) Provided new information, (b) changed
teacher views on teaching, (c) initiated independent pursuit of information, and (d)
influenced change in instructional practices. These outcomes of professional
development lend support to the notion that student achievement reform can be bolstered
by investing in developing professional practice.
31
Elmore (2002) has further supported the use of professional development to
influence the practice of individuals, but has also insisted that professional development
center on goals for student achievement and on developing a culture of continuous
improvement. Elmore (2002) asserted that professional development should be
continually evaluated and refined based upon how it is impacting student achievement.
Darling-Hammond and Ascher (1991) brought forth the concept of professional
accountability as a necessary component to school improvement. In this scenario,
accountability goes beyond mere assessment of student learning, requiring the initiation
of policy and practice that allows the system to respond appropriately to fluid demands
(Darling-Hammond & Ascher, 1991). Unfortunately, the bureaucratic accountability that
predominates in the current context stands as a barrier to establishing professional
accountability (Darling-Hammond & Ascher, 1991).
Though principal leadership has long been established as an influencing factor in
successful schools, only recently has the superintendent’s influence on student
achievement been acknowledged (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Superintendents can do
much to support the leadership of site-level principals in the reform process by providing
guidance that will allow them to fulfill their roles more effectively. Principals must be
supported in developing shared leadership at their school sites by addressing policy,
professionalism, and practice (Elmore, 2000).
Sustaining Reform
Reform is difficult in all organizations because of constant distractions from the
change agenda (Stone et al., 2006). Stone et al. (2006) found that building networks of
32
support is essential to protecting the reform process from displacement by a new reform
or agenda. The assumption is that having wide-spread buy-in will help ensure that
institutional actors continue to dedicate time to staying on task for reform.
Chrispeels, Burke, Johnson, and Daly (2008) have similarly asserted that reform
sustainment is reliant upon the development of shared mental models between school
sites and district offices. In their case study of a year two Program Improvement school
district in California, they found that school leadership teams could play a significant role
in bridging school and districts in the reform process (Chrispeels et al., 2008). But,
creating a unified vision for how the reform process would proceed proved to be a
challenge because there was misalignment between school leadership teams and district
offices about the need for frequent assessment of student performance (Chrispeels et al.,
2008). These conditions were minimized at sites that embraced assessment as part of the
ongoing process of improvement (Chrispeels et al., 2008).
Corcoran et al. (2001) have spoken to the instability of leadership as a barrier to
sustaining reform. A study of three districts undergoing reform found that schools were
pressured to increase achievement in short time frames and that leaders had invested in
reform efforts that were in fact designed to function over a much longer time frame
(Corcoran et al., 2001). This longer-term vision is logical, as any true transformation of
practice requires time. Instability of district leadership served to derail this long-term
planning because district leadership changed and uprooted the current practice (Corcoran
et al., 2001).
33
According to Datnow (2000), stability of principal tenure increases reform
sustainment, which is logical given that changes in school leadership have the potential to
disrupt the burgeoning practices of school sites grappling with the complexity of reform.
Thus supporting principals in succeeding at their school sites is a worthy investment for
superintendents who seek to sustain reform.
Conclusion
Superintendents play a critical role as leaders of districts undertaking reform in an
era of accountability for student achievement outcomes. The expectation is that all
students will succeed and that district offices are responsible for supporting student
achievement (Sherman, 2008). Superintendents face many obstacles in the pursuit of
student achievement reform (Fuller et al., 2003). However, superintendents can wield
their bestowed power to combat the many obstacles that they and their districts face
(Togneri & Anderson, 2003).
34
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY

Introduction
Superintendents face formidable challenges in their pursuit of the student
achievement reform demanded by the community, politicians, and the media (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2003). In response to these groups’ demands, superintendents are
expected to employ strategies that will enable increased academic achievement for all
students (Fuller et al., 2003). These challenges often manifest as competing demands that
serve to distract superintendents from their core responsibility for student achievement
reform (Bredeson & Kose, 2003).
To successfully implement reform aimed at increasing student achievement,
superintendents must define goals and create long-term plans that will lead to sustainable
student achievement reform (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). This reform is supported
through the use of effective communication and messaging that provides a coherent base
for stakeholder interaction (Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010). Vital to reform success is
building the capacity of providers to meet increasing demands. Unfortunately, student
achievement reform is highly susceptible to displacement and abandonment; therefore, it
is the role of the superintendent to safeguard against these problems by continually
building networks of support (Stone et al., 2006).
The preceding chapters provided an overview of the study and a review of the
literature that is germane to the topic under examination. This chapter provides an
35
outline of the study and the methodology. It specifically includes the purpose of the
study, research design, sample population, data collection protocols, and data analysis
process used.
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to identify the strategies employed by successful urban
superintendents responding to demands for student achievement reform by the
community, politicians, and the media. Superintendents play a critical role in shaping
district response to these demands because they are uniquely positioned as the highest
ranking administrator within a school district to shape policy and resource allocation to
best meet the needs of the service providers and students functioning within the
instructional core. Their influence extends well beyond these expected roles, as
superintendents work within their districts to foster a culture of continuous improvement
that will allow for the prompt execution of effective practices (Elmore, 2002). They do
so by defining goals and creating long-term plans, using effective strategies to
communicate and message the plan, building the capacity of providers to implement the
core strategies, and continually investing in sustaining student achievement reform.
The current climate of bureaucratic accountability for student outcomes is a
critical contextual element. Progression toward increased accountability for student
achievement outcomes has been a long-standing theme. The latest reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, NCLB, has pushed the envelope by creating
strict definitions of success and failure for schools and districts alike. These stark and
public declarations of competency have provided a critical platform for those interested
36
in reforming schools. The expectation is that all students will achieve at high levels and
that the work of the adults within the education sector is to assure that this expectation
materializes in tangible and democratic ways.
Research Questions
The following questions guided the study:
1. What are the key elements that influence student achievement reform strategy
for successful urban superintendents?
2. Who are the key stakeholders that successful urban superintendents include in
the development of a student achievement reform strategy?
3. What strategies do successful urban superintendents utilize to execute student
achievement reform?
4. What strategies do successful urban superintendents utilize to evaluate and
sustain the progress of student achievement reform?
Rationale for Mixed-Method Study Design
Quantitative data provided a platform for defining the overarching strategies that
superintendents engage when responding to demands for student achievement reform.
This data allowed for assertions to be made based upon a wide breadth of superintendents
but failed to provide the nuanced information that would tell a more complete story.
Qualitative data gathered provided depth of information about the district context,
history, and relationships needed to understand the actions taken by superintendents.
Qualitative data provided rich information that allowed the researcher to understand the
finer elements of superintendent responses to demand for student achievement reform.
37
Combining quantitative and qualitative methods served to increase methodological rigor
(Patton, 2002). Triangulation of the data provided for greater strength in methodological
practice, allowing the researcher to align closed-ended survey questions that rely upon
prior research in the body of scholarly literature with the naturalistic responses provided
by open-ended qualitative interview methods.
Research Design
Delineating the strategies that successful superintendents employ in response to
demands for student achievement reform is a complex undertaking. To sufficiently
address the research questions, this researcher deemed that a mixed-methods study design
was necessary. The study began with a quantitative survey of selected superintendents.
Following the quantitative survey, select superintendents engaged in qualitative
interviews.
Sample and Population
Purposeful criterion sampling was used to identify superintendents for both the
quantitative and qualitative inquiry (Patton, 2002). Criterion sampling allowed the
researcher to select superintendents who had demonstrated a high level of academic
achievement while serving student populations considered at high risk for academic
failure. Quantitative sampling criteria to determine which superintendents would
participate were that participants were from (a) California school districts, (b) districts
that had more than 50% of schools meeting API, (c) districts that had more than 15% free
or reduced meals(d) districts that had more than 10,000 students, and (e) districts that had
more than 33% minority students. The quantitative and qualitative sampling criteria were
38
equal — with the exception of requiring that superintendents who were interviewed must
have served in their current position for greater than two years. This additional criterion
was deemed essential to the qualitative component because the superintendent needed to
have had in-depth involvement in the student achievement reform process as it had
unfolded over time. Superintendents who agreed to participate in the qualitative
interview were harvested from participants who had indicated their willingness on the
quantitative survey.
The data used for sampling was limited to information reported by the California
Department of Education for 2010. The entire state of California was selected for
examination, as the rigorous criteria dictated the number of districts that were deemed
successful. The researcher elected not to extend the scope beyond the state of California,
as the accountability formulae and thresholds for success vary so widely among states
that determining equivalent performance levels would be far removed from the intent of
the research study.
Instrument Validity
Support for survey and interview instrument validity was determined by the
similarity of the chosen instrument to instruments used in prior studies. Questions were
informed by the research on superintendents and student achievement reform available in
the body of scholarly literature. The instruments were gender neutral and were field
tested on education professionals at the director level and above to ensure that the
questions were presented in a clear and concise way while verifying expected time on the
task required of participants.
39
Instrumentation
Instruments listed below facilitated the research and ensured that a consistent
approach to collecting data was developed for the quantitative and qualitative inquiries.
Appendix A evidences the alignment between the four research questions and the
quantitative and qualitative instruments used in the course of this study.
Quantitative Instrumentation
The quantitative survey question design was informed by the review of prior
research. Specifically, the questions speak to three major themes in the literature: (a)
defining goals and long-term planning, (b) messaging and communication, and (c)
building capacity. The research topic is not commonly found in the literature, thus a
framework for questions was designed using multiple resources that would speak to the
variety of strategies employed by successful superintendents engaged in the complex
endeavor of student achievement reform. The quantitative instrument consisted of 46
questions (Appendix B) broken down in the following way: (a) six demographic
questions, (b) one question to evaluate willingness to participate in an interview, and (c)
39 Likert-style survey items that reflected the research questions
The 39 Likert-style survey items required superintendents to respond with a value
of 1-4, “1” indicating strongly disagree, “2” indicates disagree, “3” indicates agree, and
“4” indicates strongly agree. This format allowed the researcher to gauge the level of
support for the survey items.

40
Qualitative Instrumentation
The qualitative interview protocol consisted of seven open-ended questions that
reflected the research questions and body of scholarly literature that is relevant to the
topic (Appendix C). The protocol was implemented consistently among interview
participants but was not limited to these questions. In addition to the predesigned
interview protocol, the researcher asked follow-up questions either to gain clarity or to
attain more elaborate information about specific statements or sentiments. The questions
were designed to compel the superintendents to share strategies they had successfully
engaged to respond to demands for student achievement reform.
Data Collection
Data collection was divided into two distinct and linear phases. The first phase
involved gathering quantitative survey data from superintendents. The second phase
entailed conducting qualitative interviews with selected superintendents. In accordance
with the provisions of the Institutional Review Board at the University of Southern
California, applications were submitted to ensure that the research subjects were
protected during the course of the study. All identifiable data was protected from access
beyond this study and the participant’s identities remain confidential. Participation in the
study was voluntary.
Quantitative Data Collection
Surveys were sent out to the 85 superintendents in California who met the
sampling criterion. The method of delivery was Survey Monkey, a web-based surveying
tool that allows for efficient reporting and collection of data. Each survey was
41
accompanied by a survey cover letter, delivered via email, which explained the purpose
of the research and the potential impact on participants who volunteer to participate
(Appendix D). Those who elected to participate followed a link contained in the email,
which directed them to the online survey (Appendix B). Participants who did not
respond to the survey within the first 10 calendar days were contacted by the researcher
via phone call and additional email.
Qualitative Data Collection
Interviews were conducted with five California superintendents who met the
sampling criterion. Only superintendents who answered yes to a follow up interview on
the initial quantitative survey were contacted to participate in a 45-minute interview.
The interview was conducted by a single interviewer using an interview protocol
(Appendix C). At the start of the interview, the survey participant was asked to confirm
his or her willingness to be audio recorded and was provided with an information letter
(Appendix E). At the time of interview, superintendents were offered an opportunity to
receive a copy of the final dissertation. Audio recordings of the interview were
transcribed via a professional transcription service.
Data Analysis
In pursuit of answering the research questions, the researcher strategically
analyzed quantitative and qualitative data so as to identify the strategies employed by
successful urban superintendents responding to demands for student achievement reform.
To serve as further validation of significance, research findings were compared to the
body of literature.
42
Quantitative Data Analysis
Data collected via the survey instrument completed by the 85 participants were
analyzed using the four research questions. The researcher quantified the mean for each
item using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. This effort allowed the researcher to identify
level of agreement with each research-based assertion.
Qualitative Data Analysis
Transcriptions of the interviews, along with the accompanying notes, were
analyzed using the methods of Miles and Huberman (1994), outlined as follows:
1. Data Reduction: Data is reconfigured and coded into categories that focus on
the subject of the research. This step assures that only the most relevant data
is considered.
2. Data Display: Transparent graphic representation of the coding process is
placed into distinct categories so that conclusions can be drawn.
3. Conclusion Drawing and Verification: The researcher derives meaning from
the data and draws out conclusions based upon the data.
Summary
The preceding chapter explained the purpose of the study, research design, sample
population, data collection protocols, and the data analysis process used in the study. The
overarching study goals necessitated a mixed-method study design that included
quantitative survey and qualitative interview of superintendents deemed to be successful
based upon purposeful, criterion sampling within California. The researcher strove to be
43
transparent in the process so as to limit the appearance of impropriety (Creswell, 2002).
Chapter Four follows with an analysis of the data collected and the major findings.
44
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS

Introduction
The current climate of accountability for increased student performance has been
produced and accelerated largely by demands from the community, politicians, and
media coverage of schools and districts. Schools must increase academic achievement
for all students or face increasingly restrictive sanctions from the state and federal level
(Darling-Hammond, 2007). Superintendents play a critical role in this effort, as they lead
school districts to develop, execute, and sustain reforms aimed at increasing student
achievement in their districts (Togneri & Anderson, 2003).
This chapter presents the findings from a mixed-method study comprised of a
quantitative survey completed by 41 superintendents and qualitative interviews
conducted with five superintendents, which aligned with the following research
questions:
1. What are the key elements that influence student achievement reform strategy
for successful urban superintendents?
2. Who are the key stakeholders that successful urban superintendents include in
the development of a student achievement reform strategy?
3. What strategies do successful urban superintendents utilize to execute student
achievement reform?
45
4. What strategies do successful urban superintendents utilize to evaluate and
sustain the progress of student achievement reform?
Purpose
The purpose of the study was to identify the strategies employed by successful
urban superintendents responding to demands for student achievement reform by the
community, politicians, and the media. Specifically, this study focused on strategies
related to defining goals and long-term planning, communication and messaging,
building capacity, and evaluating and sustaining reform. Data collected through surveys
and interviews were used to formulate the significant research findings asserted by the
researcher.
Response Rate
Based upon the selection criteria imposed upon this study, 85 successful urban
superintendents qualified to participate in the quantitative survey. Table 1 indicates that
of the 85 potential participants, 41 elected to participate. This resulted in a response rate
of 48.2% of superintendents. This pool satisfied the goal of the researcher, which was a
response rate of 40% or more based on the average return rate for a survey conducted
through email (Dillman, 2000).
Table 1
Quantitative Survey: Response Rate
Measure No. Invited to
Participate

No.
Participated
%
Participated
Superintendents 85 41 48.2

46
Of the 41 superintendents who elected to participate in the quantitative survey, 29
met the criteria to participate in a qualitative interview, 17 superintendents agreed to an
interview, and 5 were selected by the researcher. Reasons reported by superintendents
for declining participation included lack of time, retirement, lack of interest, and having
left the school district of study.
Quantitative Demographic Data
Table 2 specifies the gender of the 41 superintendents who participated in the
quantitative survey. Respondents were 80.5% male and 19.5% female.
Table 2
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Gender
Measure Male Female Total
No. of
Superintendents

33 8 41
% of
Superintendents

80.5 19.5 100

These values align with the findings of Kowalski, McCord, Petersen, Young, and
Ellerson (2010), who reported that 24.1% of the 1,867 superintendents who participated
in a nationwide survey of superintendents were women. The difference is 4.6%.
Table 3 reports the ethnic breakdown of the 40 superintendents who participated
in the quantitative survey. Superintendents surveyed were 15% Hispanic, 77.5% White,
and 7.5% other. One person declined to respond to this survey item.

47
Table 3
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Ethnicity
Measure Asian Black/
African
American

Hispanic White Other Total
No. of
Superintendents

0 0 6 31 3 40
% of
Superintendents

0 0 15 77.5 7.5 97.5

These values did not align with the research of Kowalski et al. (2010), who
reported that 94.1% of the 1,800 respondents in their survey were White. However,
further evaluation of the data provided by Kowalski et al. (2010) showed that as the
percentage of minority students served increased, the likelihood of having a minority
superintendent also went up. Thus, the focus on districts with more than 33% minority
students may have influenced the ethnic distribution of superintendents and skewed the
number of non-White superintendents in the sample upward from the overall national
trend.
Table 4 details the distribution of superintendents by age, broken down into bands
of 10 years. Of the 41 superintendents surveyed, 24.4% were 40-49, 46.3% were 50-59,
and 29.3% were 60 or more years old.

48
Table 4
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Age
Measure 29 or
under

30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 or
over
Total
No. of
Superintendents

0 0 10 19 12 0 41
% of
Superintendents

0 0 24.4 46.3 29.3 0 100

The number of superintendents over 60 in this study did not align with the research of
Kowalski et al. (2010), who reported that only 18.1% of the 1,842 superintendent
respondents in their nationwide survey were older than 60. The superintendents in this
study were 11.2% more likely to be over 60.
Table 5 presents the highest level of education attained by the 41 superintendents
who participated in the quantitative survey. Superintendents with a master’s degree were
31.7%, other professional degree was 2.4%, and doctoral degree was 65.9%.
Table 5
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Education
Measure Bachelor’s
Degree
Master’s
Degree
Other
Professional
Degree

Doctoral
Degree
Total
No. of
Superintendents

0 13 1 27 41
% of
Superintendents

0 31.7 2.4 65.9 100
Kowalski et al. (2010) reported that of the 1,867 superintendents who participated in their
nationwide survey, only 45.3% had earned doctoral degrees. This finding indicates that
49
the superintendents identified for this study earned doctoral degrees at a rate 20.6% above
projected national rates.
Table 6 indicates the distribution of years of experience as a superintendent,
reported by the 41 respondents. Interestingly, over two-thirds (68.3%) of superintendents
had an experience level of nine years or fewer.
Table 6
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Experience
Measure Fewer
than 2
years

2-5 6-9 10-13 14-17 18 or
more
Total
No. of
Superintendents

5 12 11 6 3 4 41
% of
Superintendents

12.2 29.3 26.8 14.6 7.3 9.8 100

Superintendents had an average of 8.3 years of experience. This result is
important because it indicates that, on average, superintendents surveyed had taken their
positions during the era of high stakes accountability for student outcomes and codified
requirements for student achievement reform as imposed by NCLB in 2003.
Table 7 indicates the distribution of years of experience as a superintendent in
their current district, as reported by the 41 respondents. Similar to the results around
overall experience, superintendent tenure in their current district was skewed heavily
toward the lower range, with over two-thirds (68.5%) of respondents having maintained
tenure in their current district for a duration of four years or fewer.

50
Table 7
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Experience in Current District
Measure Fewer
than 2
years

2-4 5-7 8-10 10-12 13 or
more
Total
No. of
Superintendents

11 17 9 2 1 1 41
% of
Superintendents

26.8 41.5 22.0 4.9 2.4 2.4 100

On average, superintendents reported of 3.9 years of tenure in their current district. This
value aligns with the research of Kowalski et al. (2010), which indicated that the 1,867
superintendents who participated in a nationwide survey had an average tenure of 3.6
years.
Table 8 provides the enrollment, percent of free or reduced meals, percent
minority, and percent of schools making API targets for each district whose
superintendent participated in the quantitative survey. Districts surveyed ranged from
10,320 to 75,468 students in attendance and had an average enrollment of 25,085.
Percent of free or reduced meals ranged from 15.6% to 91.8%, and had an average of
53.9%. Percent minority ranged from 35.6% to 97.9%, and had an average of 71.8%.
Percent of schools meeting API ranged from 50.5% to 95%, and had an average of
65.3%.

51
Table 8
Quantitative Survey: District Characteristics
District Enrollment %
Free or Reduced
Meals
%
Minority
%
Schools Making
API Targets

1 10,320 83.3 97.1 80.0
2 10,471 33.5 66.1 77.8
3 10,617 81.8 77.4 80.0
4 10,699 48.3 45.5 56.3
5 10,805 78.4 80.1 58.8
6 10,893 76.6 94.9 68.8
7 10,906 22.5 40.8 64.3
8 11,633 73.1 79.8 61.1
9 12,409 76.2 75.7 52.6
10 12,646 22.3 73.4 68.8
11 13,372 82.2 97.4 64.3
12 13,616 41.8 74.3 95.0
13 13,787 84.0 94.7 57.9
14 13,805 58.6 61.0 64.3
15 14,404 40.5 68.2 69.2
16 14,525 48.0 77.2 78.6
17 15,836 91.8 97.9 64.3
18 17,494 38.8 71.9 64.7
19 20,748 45.5 91.9 55.6
20 21,122 56.7 72.4 58.3
52
Table 8 (Continued)

21 21,199 17.9 35.6 71.4
22 22,132 71.1 60.7 53.8
23 22,273 23.7 50.5 58.8
24 22,685 86.7 94.6 61.3
25 25,920 29.4 50.6 64.5
26 26,574 43.8 43.9 69.0
27 27,473 42.5 60.8 79.5
28 29,323 56.9 73.9 60.0
29 30,183 15.6 50.0 79.3
30 30,210 39.7 63.5 65.8
31 31,213 79.4 66.2 56.0
32 31,992 36.1 74.4 63.3
33 32,304 18.8 78.6 57.5
34 32,387 19.0 43.1 72.7
35 41,004 73.1 94.1 61.0
36 42,696 61.6 70.4 61.0
37 47,914 71.0 88.0 61.9
38 53,381 19.6 38.7 59.3
39 55,140 56.8 84.7 65.4
40 56,937 84.0 97.0 63.2
41 75,468 80.6 86.3 50.5
Average 25,085.8 53.9 71.8 65.3

53
Qualitative Demographic Data
If they had served as superintendent in their current district for more than two
years, superintendents who participated in the quantitative survey were given the option
to participate in a qualitative interview. The expectation reflected in this requisite was
that the superintendent would have participated meaningfully in the reform process and
could speak to the arc of the reform process. Five superintendents were selected to
participate in an interview. Special consideration in selection was given to
superintendents who represented districts with the largest enrollment available.
Table 9 details the demographic profile of each superintendent who participated
in a qualitative interview along with the characteristics of the district they led. This
information provides a snapshot of the leaders interviewed and lends context to the
responses provided.
54
Table 9
Qualitative Interview: Characteristics for Superintendents and Districts
Superintendent Profile

District
A Gender: Male
Ethnicity: Hispanic / Latino
Age: 60-69
Education: Doctoral degree
Years as superintendent: 7
Years in current position: 7

Enrollment: 15,836
Free or reduced meals: 91.8%
Minority: 97.9%
Schools Making API: 64.3%
B Gender: Male
Ethnicity: White
Age:60-69
Education: Doctoral degree
Years as superintendent: 9
Years in current position: 9

Enrollment: 17,494
Free or reduced meals: 38.8%
Minority: 71.9%
Schools Making API: 64.7%
C Gender: Male
Ethnicity: White
Age: 50-59
Education: Doctoral degree
Years as superintendent: 6
Years in current position: 6

Enrollment: 20748
Free or reduced meals: 45.5%
Minority: 91.9%
Schools Making API: 55.6%
D Gender: Male
Ethnicity: White
Age: 60-69
Education: Doctoral degree
Years as superintendent: 26
Years in current position: 12

Enrollment: 25,920
Free or reduced meals: 29.4%
Minority: 50.6%
Schools Making API: 64.5%
E Gender: Male
Ethnicity: White
Age: 60-69
Education: Doctoral degree
Years as superintendent: 22
Years in current position: 2.5

Enrollment: 42,696
Free or reduced meals: 61.6%
Minority: 70.4%
Schools Making API: 61%

All of the superintendents interviewed were male and had earned doctoral
degrees. The ethnic distribution was four White and one Hispanic. One of the
superintendents was 50-59 years old; the remaining four were aged 60-69 years old.
55
Three of the superintendents had six to nine years total experience as superintendent, and
two superintendents had 18 or more years total experience as superintendent. They had an
average experience of 14 years as a superintendent.
Three of the five superintendents were in their first superintendency. One
superintendent had a tenure of 2 to 4 years, two had a tenure of 5 to 7 years, one had a
tenure of 8 to 10 years, and one had a tenure of 10-12 years. Together they had an
average tenure of 7.3 years in their current position.
Research Question One
What are the key elements that influence student achievement reform strategy for
successful urban superintendents?
Superintendents initiate reform aimed at increasing student achievement in
response to demands by the community, media, and politicians (Darling-Hammond et al.,
2003). But superintendents are also influenced by bureaucratic accountability demands
imposed upon schools (Sherman, 2008), along with market pressure and competition that
threaten to draw families away from neighborhood schools (LeBlanc, 2010). Public
reporting of student achievement data allows for increased scrutiny and attention to gaps
in student achievement over time, which have served as rallying points for those
demanding improvement (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
Table 10 depicts superintendent responses to the question: To what extent do you
agree that the following factors influence student achievement reform? Superintendents
were asked to indicate level of agreement using a Likert-type scale in which “1” indicates
56
strongly disagree, “2” indicates disagree, “3” indicates agree, and “4” indicates strongly
agree.
Table 10
Superintendent Rating of Elements Influencing Student Achievement Reform

The response mean range for all categories within this item is 2.54 to 3.05. “Demands
from the community” was rated most favorably (3.05), whereas “demands from
politicians” received the lowest response mean (2.48).
Demands from the Community
“Demands from the community” recorded the highest response mean (3.05) from
superintendents. Additionally, four of the five superintendents interviewed affirmed that
demands from the community are a driving force in the initiation and selection of reform.
Each of those superintendents who mentioned demands from the community spoke about
the influence of parents who serve as consumers of education.
Element Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Bureaucratic
accountability

5 7 21 8 2.78 41
Demands from the
community

1 3 30 7 3.05 41
Demands from
politicians

8 8 21 3 2.48 40
Demands from the
media

4 14 20 3 2.54 41
Market pressure and
competition

1 10 23 7 2.88 41
57
Parents demand change that provides better opportunities for their children and
their communities. Superintendent D stated that, “Each school community is unique and
parents have the ability and opportunity to look at their own schools and question what is
going on, and pressure the school to make improvements.” Parents have unprecedented
access to assessment data that label schools as succeeding or failing based upon
assessment and graduation data, but parents demand more than just success on yearly
standardized assessments. They want schools that are safe and nurturing places for their
children to grow and develop. Along these lines, Superintendent A stated that: “Parents
expect schools to be a safe place where kids receive a quality education, and they are
generally very concerned with conventions like facilities, technology, grades, attendance,
and discipline because they are easy to see and understand.” Schools are expected to
overcome all barriers and provide excellent educational opportunities to all children. It is
evident that demands from the community for school reform represent more than test
scores alone; they reflect the expectation that schools will serve to educate the next
generation of citizens to succeed in a 21
st
-century economy.
Market Pressure and Competition
“Market pressure and competition” recorded the second highest response mean
(2.88) from superintendents. Similarly, four out of five superintendents mentioned
market pressure and competition as a factor influencing reform strategy. Three
categories of market pressure and competition were mentioned by superintendents; the
first was competition from charter schools, the second was competition with other school
58
districts, and the third was competition between district schools. All of this competition
was heavily influenced by the concern about losing students at the district and site level.
Superintendent B weighed in by saying, “Charter Schools are competitors and so
you better get your game plan, you better be on top of your game plan, or they’ll take
your students.” Superintendent C had taken a proactive approach to maintaining
enrollment at high levels, stating that:
Three years ago our district was losing student enrollment and considered putting
together a committee to close down schools. But we have more magnet schools
now that draw in students from outside the district which is permissible in the
magnet program. We think we’ll either stay level this year or we’ll have a slight
increase.

Superintendent D and E each spoke about the pressures that schools within a given
district were experiencing to perform. According to Superintendent E, “Parents look to
neighboring schools and expect to be doing just as well if not better than them. This
forces principals to continually evaluate their current offerings in light of what is working
at other schools.”
These statements affirm that superintendents are feeling the market pressure to
improve or risk losing students to other schools. A decline in student enrollment means
that revenue allocation will diminish in accordance with average daily attendance funding
formulas. Superintendents are wise to consider these concerns, as declining enrollment
places schools and districts in economic peril.
Bureaucratic Accountability
Bureaucratic accountability recorded the third highest response mean (2.78) from
superintendents. Each of the five superintendents interviewed insisted that bureaucratic
59
accountability had a significant influence on student achievement reform strategy.
Furthermore, bureaucratic accountability was the most discussed influence on student
achievement reform during questioning. The superintendents expressed mixed
impressions about the imposition of this type of accountability. Superintendent A
summarized the sentiment expressed by each superintendent in saying:
Well, I think the initial thought regarding the journey of reform brings to mind the
accountability factors that we’re all facing. The pressures and the actual aspects
of accountability at the national, at the state, and at the local level are quite
persuasive.

Bureaucratic accountability has created an environment that demands change at both
schools and districts. Superintendents have heeded this demand for improvement and are
responding with a greater focus on the needs of all students at all schools.
Discussion
Schools are being forced to change because they are failing to meet the
expectations set for them by external and internal demands. Superintendents are exposed
on multiple fronts by the pressure to increase student achievement (Fuller et al., 2003).
These pressures create a sense of urgency about increasing student achievement. Schools
are expected to provide students excellent educational opportunities — and there is little
tolerance for failure to produce.
Demands from the community, market pressure and competition, and bureaucratic
accountability stood out as major themes both in the quantitative survey and qualitative
interviews of superintendents. Superintendents generally supported all of the survey
items as important, but qualitative interviews provided clarity about the mechanisms by
60
which superintendents experience demands for reform. Superintendent D helped to
summarize these pressures when he stated:
Would we have done this all on our own? I don’t know. Perhaps we would;
perhaps we would not. I think that the federal push, the state push, and the media
helped to shine a spotlight on it and encourage continued efforts in this regard.

Superintendents recognize that the media and politicians play a critical role in generating
the demands imposed upon them, but these pressures are regarded as secondary to the
more palpable demands that manifest in the daily operation of a school district.
Research Question Two
Who are the key stakeholders that successful urban superintendents include in the
development of a student achievement reform strategy?
Superintendents are most successful when they build support for student
achievement reform by engaging stakeholders to participate meaningfully in the process.
According to Waters and Marzano (2006), the district office is responsible for ensuring
that goals are formed through collaboration with significant stakeholders. This effort will
support the success and longevity of organizational change because those responsible for
carrying it out will have a hand in its design (Sims, 2002). Shared ownership of the plan
creates accountability for outcomes that cannot be engineered through mandates and
compliance monitoring. Success in this undertaking is of paramount concern to
superintendents, who are expected to increase student achievement across school sites.
Table 11 depicts superintendent responses to the question: To what extent do you
agree that the following stakeholders are important to the reform development process?
Superintendents were asked to indicate level of agreement using a Likert-type scale
61
where “1” indicates strongly disagree, “2” indicates disagree, “3” indicates agree, and
“4” indicates strongly agree.
Table 11
Superintendent Rating of Stakeholder Importance to Reform Development
Stakeholder
Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Community 0 3 23 15 3.29 41
District-level
personnel

0 1 12 28 3.66 41
Parents 0 1 24 16 3.37 41
Politicians 5 12 21 2 2.50 40
Media 5 12 22 1 2.48 40
School-level
administrators

0 0 4 37 3.90 41
Teachers

0 0 3 38 3.93 41
Unions

1 3 22 14 3.23 40
School boards

0 1 12 28 3.66 41
Students

0 3 21 16 3.33 40

The response mean range for all categories within this item is 2.48 to 3.93. Teachers
were rated most favorably (3.93), whereas the media received the lowest response mean
(2.48).
Teachers
Superintendents who were surveyed and interviewed overwhelmingly supported
involving teachers in the reform creation process. Teachers recorded the highest
62
response mean (3.93) from superintendents; this response was one of only two items
within this survey question that received unanimous support from all surveyed. Five out
of five superintendents interviewed also described teachers as critical stakeholders in the
reform development process and spoke to engaging teachers as professional educators
with much to contribute to the planning and ultimate execution of a reform plan. They all
spoke vehemently about involving those engaged in the core learning that occurs in
classrooms each day. Superintendent C grounded the success of his reform efforts in his
collaboration with teachers as fellow educators defining solutions that would have a
direct impact on teaching and learning. On this subject, Superintendent C stated that:
We’re all educators and we engage the front line educators, in the selection and
refinement of curriculum, the pacing, their individual assessments, and their
formative assessments. Those are all performed by practitioners continuously.
We don’t have separate entities at the district office that prescribe those. We
create those with the engagement of our teaching community.

Involving teachers at the onset of reform development is vital, as they will be the ones
responsible for implementing the plan to promote improvement in student achievement.
They experience the daily challenges and successes and can support the reform
development process.
School-Level Administrators
School-level administrators recorded the second highest response mean (3.90)
from superintendents, and were the only other group to receive unanimous support from
those surveyed. Five out of five superintendents interviewed spoke about the role of
school-level administrators as critical engineers of reform at each of their school sites, as
well as links back to the district office. This structure has created the need for
63
superintendents to employ principals who have the capacity to act as innovative
instructional leaders who can help move an entire organization forward.
Superintendent C had created a formal mechanism for continuously involving
school-level administrators by rotating in three school principals a year to the executive
cabinet. He explained the process in the following way:
They’re not on the cabinet to be dipsticks. They don’t go out and test the waters
or anything like that. They are the waters we’re testing right here. It’s
confidential, but it makes what we produce more credible because it has been
looked at by principals and staff.

Because superintendents want student achievement reform to work at school sites, they
must make sure that principals believe their efforts will make a difference. Failure to
garner the input of principals represents a lost opportunity to build the supportive
infrastructure that any change process needs.
School Board
School boards recorded the third highest response mean (3.66) from
superintendents. Similarly, during interviews, only one of the five superintendents
reported school boards as not being important to the reform development process.
Superintendents interviewed reported that school boards must play a critical role because
they need to support superintendents as they embark on change efforts that challenge the
current constructs within an organization. Superintendent A exemplified this belief by
describing the role of the school board as a critical partner that must be highly engaged in
the process so that it can effectively support the plan as it develops. He stated that:
One of the main things that I feel is extremely important is that your governing
board, the trustees, have a strong commitment and strong understanding and sense
of what all that plan might look like. And that they also realize that it’s not a two
64
or a three-year referendum, but more a five to seven-year referendum of success
and growth accordingly.

It is understandable why superintendents so frequently mention school boards in
discussions of reform strategy — school boards hold superintendents accountable for
student achievement outcomes.
District-Level Personnel
District-level personnel also ranked third in response mean (3.66). Five out of
five superintendents interviewed spoke specifically about the role of the executive
cabinet in the support of reform development. Superintendents rely heavily on their
cabinet to execute the vision set forth for the district. Superintendent C described his
cabinet as a group of individuals who “make great things happen.” He held them in high
regard and took time to tout each one’s area of expertise as it had contributed to the
success of the district. He said, “You have a cabinet of very talented people. They didn’t
get to be cabinet level folks without being talented.”
Discussion
Superintendents surveyed and interviewed acknowledged the value of involving a
multitude of stakeholders in the process of creating a reform development plan.
Teachers, school-level administrators, the school board, and district-level personnel were
identified as being of the greatest importance because they bring to bear the experience
and expertise necessary to designing an effective plan. Other groups were mostly
identified as supporters of a completed reform plan.

65
Research Question Three
What strategies do successful urban superintendents utilize to execute student
achievement reform?
Table 12 depicts superintendent responses to the question: To what extent do you
agree that the following are important to superintendent execution of student
achievement reform? Superintendents were asked to indicate their level of agreement
using a Likert-type scale, on which “1” indicates strongly disagree, “2” indicates
disagree, “3” indicates agree, and “4” indicates strongly agree.

66
Table 12
Superintendent Rating of Strategies Important to Student Achievement Reform
Strategy Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree

(2)
Agree

(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Creation of a vision

0 0 8 33 3.80 41
High expectations
for student
achievement

0 0 6 35 3.85 41
Utilizing student
demographic and
achievement data to
identify student
need

0 0 9 32 3.78 41
Collaboration
among stakeholders

0 0 6 33 3.85 39
Long-term planning

0 1 17 23 3.54 41
Rapid
implementation of
reform

1 20 14 6 2.61 41
Gradual
implementation of
reform

0 10 24 6 2.90 40
Resource allocation

1 0 16 23 3.53 40
Standardization of
academic goals for
schools in district

1 5 17 18 3.27 41
Providing reform
selection options to
school sites

0 15 18 7 2.80 40
Instructional
leadership

0 1 2 38 3.90 41
PD for principals

0 1 10 30 3.71 41
67
Table 12 (Continued)

PD for teachers at
school site

1 1 7 32 3.71 41
PD chosen by
school site

1 6 19 14 3.15 40
PD offered at
district office

0 3 22 15 3.30 40
Face-to-face
communication

0 1 16 23 3.55 40
Visiting school sites
regularly

0 2 10 29 3.66 41
Two-way
communication
between district and
school site staff

0 0 11 30 3.73 41
Alignment of
district’s message
and principal’s
message

0 0 9 32 3.78 41
Professional
accountability

0 0 10 29 3.74 39
Rewards and
recognition for
individual schools

0 7 23 10 3.08 40
Rewards and
recognition for
individual teachers

1 9 27 3 2.80 40
Monitoring
implementation

0 0 9 32 3.78 41
Evaluating
implementation

0 0 8 32 3.80 40
68
The response mean range for all categories within this item was 2.61 to 3.90.
Instructional leadership was rated most favorably (3.90), whereas rapid implementation
of reform received the lowest response mean (2.61).
Defining Goals and Long-Term Planning
High expectations for student achievement and collaboration among stakeholders
each recorded the second highest response mean (3.85) from superintendents surveyed.
That these two items would share this high ranking is fitting because together they
represent the what and the how of reform aimed at increasing student achievement. In
other words, this data suggest that superintendents have a duty to demand high levels of
performance in their organizations and that they involve critical stakeholders as
meaningful partners in the change effort. Superintendents interviewed also supported
these elements of reform strategy; describing practices that they believed had led them to
be successful.
Four out of five superintendents interviewed mentioned high expectations for
student achievement as an important strategy to achieve success as superintendent. This
commitment helped to foster an organizational culture that is results oriented. To this
end, superintendents described high expectations as central to building a reform plan
aimed at increasing student achievement.
Superintendents are accountable for the performance of all schools within their
district. This level of oversight provides a distinct vantage point for examining the
performance of the organization as a whole and for identifying persistent gaps in
performance among schools and populations within the district. Superintendent A spoke
69
about “a moral imperative to examine who we are working with and how to make sure
they achieve.”
Utilizing student demographic and achievement data to identify student need
recorded a response mean of 3.78 from superintendents surveyed. Superintendent C
summarized the sentiment expressed by each superintendent by saying:
We are getting services to students that were underserved to a greater extent than
we’ve ever before, and we’re able to use a systematic way to identify students that
aren’t achieving. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than anything we’ve had before?
Yes. Every superintendent that has experienced academic growth in his or her
district will tell you the same thing. The California standards tests are good, the
API is good. It helps us focus resources.

Collaboration among stakeholders recorded a response mean of 3.85, revealing
itself as a key area for reform success. All five superintendents talked about the value of
pooling knowledge and resources. Superintendent E stated that:
It’s not my job to be smarter than everybody else in the room. It’s foolish
because we have thousands of employees, wouldn’t it make sense for thousands
of employees to have a whole lot better ideas than I do? I think I have to create
structure, build capacity, and encourage and affirm those that are moving it
forward.

Interviewees also tended to tie collaboration to the core value of relationships as they
discussed the conditions for reform. Superintendent C supported this notion by saying,
“We’re conversation-rich, and we’re relationship-rich. None of this can happen without
trust in people and schools.” Investing in people and relationships creates an
environment for change that is inclusive and supportive of multiple points of view.
Communication and Messaging
Alignment of a district’s and its principals’ message recorded a response mean of
3.78 from superintendents surveyed. This strong level of support indicated in the survey
70
was reflected by four out of five superintendents interviewed. Superintendent A
described the need to ensure that there were “district-wide commitments to common
goals and strategies so that staff members have trust that the whole organization is
focused on the same thing, which is student achievement.” The need to develop trust
within an organization undergoing change speaks to the delicacy of the reform process.
Individuals undergoing change need to have confidence that assimilating new practices
will, in fact, have the desired outcome of increased achievement for students. Lack of
clarity in messages from the district office down to the classroom creates chaos, as front
line educators struggle to decipher the meaning and purpose of reform.
Two-way communication between district and school staff recorded a response
mean of 3.73. All of the superintendents interviewed indicated strong levels of support
for this topic as they described their organizations. This exchange of information was
detailed by Superintendent C, who stated:
What I want to be is a network myself. So I’m not only part of the
communication system, I’m the conduit, too. I want to be both message sender
and method. I want to be the wire – the collar and the wire.

This statement evidenced that superintendents highly value the kind of flow of
information through their organizations that facilitates the transfer of ideas. The primary
goal of this flow of communication is to provide support and resources, and to promote
best practices so that the entire organization thrives.
Building Capacity
Instructional leadership recorded the highest response mean (3.90) from
superintendents surveyed. All five superintendents interviewed spoke about how district
71
and school leaders are expected to have strong backgrounds in teaching and learning and
are selected on the basis of their ability to increase student achievement. Two of the
superintendents actually shared a remarkably similar anecdote about the leadership under
the superintendency being heavily populated with former high school football coaches
who had been selected for their ability to dominate others. In support of this assertion,
Superintendent B said that:
Years ago, I would describe most of the people in school administration as White
males who were former coaches. You looked for somebody that had been able to
bark orders and get unruly kids that are usually big, to do things. I think that, for
our school district, what we value in picking leaders of our schools is their
prowess at producing academic growth in schools, and strength in curriculum.
Those other elements aren’t as needed anymore.

This change in expectations for leaders reflected how demands for improving student
performance have led schools and districts to support leadership focused on increased
student achievement.
Professional accountability recorded a response mean of 3.74 from
superintendents surveyed. Superintendents interviewed also expressed this sentiment as
they reflected on the need for individuals within an organization to take ownership over
outcomes and to commit to making changes that positively impact student achievement.
To this end, each superintendent described the critical need to provide staff development
to teachers and administrators in order to effect change. Superintendent C had developed
a unique relationship with the union to support change efforts and to expand educational
opportunities for teacher and administrators by pooling resources. He explained:
Our union is as committed as our administration staff is to the success of students.
And when you reach that point where it’s – when your gut suffers when you don’t
72
succeed, the union has tremendous resources they can bring to bear. If the union
is backing a reform, where does the reluctant teacher hide? No place to go.

Superintendent C created an environment for change in which student achievement was
clearly of paramount concern to all entrusted with its implementation. To support this
notion, the district committed itself to professional development as a means of improving
student achievement outcomes.
Discussion
Superintendents surveyed and interviewed expressed widespread support for
using a variety of strategies to increase student achievement. In particular, this study
focused on defining goals and long-term planning (Childress et al, 2006; Togneri &
Anderson, 2003), communication and messaging (Datnow, 2000, Johnson & Chrispeels,
2010), and building capacity (Petersen et al., 2007; Rorrer et al., 2008). Superintendents
provided insight into each category and detailed how their districts had implemented
these strategies successfully.
Superintendents, on average, agreed with all of the strategies offered on the
quantitative survey. The qualitative interviews helped to gain a deeper perspective into
the responses garnered through survey, and served to articulate descriptions of
superintendent strategies.
Research Question Four
What strategies do successful urban superintendents utilize to evaluate and
sustain the progress of student achievement reform?
The success of any reform plan has much to do with the ability to continuously
evaluate the plan in order to make the necessary adjustments to enhance practice
73
(Chrispeels et al., 2008). This effort necessitates a dynamic work environment in which
adapting to changing needs is expected of all stakeholders. This commitment gives the
organization the strength to endure challenges and demonstrate resiliency, which is
critical because too often reforms are abandoned before they have been given the
opportunity to succeed.
Superintendents interviewed provided deep insight into how they personalized the
reform process within their organizations to reflect the belief that improvement is a
continuous process. Four superintendents used their own terms — be it renewal,
improvement, revitalization, or change — to describe the reform process in which their
organization engaged. Changing the terminology helped the superintendents frame the
venture as the way business gets done in their districts.
Both Childress et al. (2003) and Togneri and Anderson (2003) have asserted that
successful districts use student achievement data to evaluate student achievement reform.
All five superintendents interviewed broached this topic as they discussed how they
monitor reform progress in their respective districts. Specifically, they mentioned
formative assessment, evaluation of principals, and monitoring reports to the school
board. These assessment methods gave them the opportunity to evaluate student
achievement reform at multiple levels.
Formative Assessment
Five out of five superintendents interviewed mentioned formative assessment.
Formative assessment helps districts to conduct ongoing evaluations of their performance
relative to instruction provided. This continuous churning of data exemplifies the ideal of
74
an educational system that is highly responsive to the needs of students. Superintendents
are held accountable for end-of-year outcomes on standardized tests, but as
Superintendent C pointed out, that information is limited in its application as its lead-time
is too far out:
I don’t frankly, personally/professionally value using the California Standards
Tests to improve instruction. The scores come way too late. It’s an autopsy. It’s
not a medical checkup. We’re much better at using embedded formative
assessments that are tied to the standards tests throughout the year. And then look
at those results collaboratively.

Formative assessment provides stakeholders at all levels the information they need to
make improvements.
Principal Evaluation
Principal evaluation was discussed by four out of the five superintendents
interviewed. Superintendents made it clear that principal evaluation was not meant to be
punitive. Instead, evaluations helped district and site leaders to collaboratively identify
areas of need and to create action plans with indicators of success. This work serves to
create an environment where risk taking and high expectations are encouraged
Superintendent E stated that he helped site-level leaders evaluate their own practice
relative to the data by holding “principal summit reviews of data, position, and strategy.”
Such self-examination provides an opportunity for the superintendent to guide school-
level leaders toward a high degree of alignment between strategy selection and expected
outcomes.

75
Monitoring Report
Providing a monitoring report to the school board and community was mentioned
by all five superintendents interviewed. The monitoring report speaks to each of the
goals set forth by the board of education and provides feedback about progress toward
those goals. Superintendent D stated:
Each year, we spend two days with the board reviewing all the data – each one of
the fourteen goals has evidence in terms of how well we’ve progressed in meeting
that goal. Goals include everything from parent satisfaction to academic progress,
to facilities and so forth.

Reflecting on goals and insisting that the progress be documented through tangible
evidence is essential to sustaining support from the school board.
Members of the community are also consumers of the board monitoring report;
however, the message is relayed to them by school principals, who are charged with
communicating the progress of the individual school to stakeholder groups.
Superintendent A described the need to provide “tangible evidence of success that parents
and community members can understand and relate to.”
Discussion
The continuous process of evaluating and sustaining reform aimed at increasing
student achievement is of great concern to superintendents. In order to maintain progress
and overcome barriers, they must push their organizations out of their comfort zones into
a state where responding to changing needs is a hallmark of excellence encouraged at all
levels of the organization. Superintendents seek to achieve this level of reform through
formative assessments of student achievement, principal evaluations, and monitoring
reports to the board and community. These strategies are by no means an exhaustive list.
76
Instead, they provide a schema for how superintendents view the varied levels within
their organizations as contributing to the overall success of student achievement reform.
Summary
Superintendents interviewed and surveyed cited a wide variety of strategies they
had employed to achieve success with student achievement reform. The data suggests the
following findings related to the four research questions.
Research question one asks, What are the key elements that influence student
achievement reform strategy for successful urban superintendents? Demands from the
community, market pressure and competition, and bureaucratic accountability all
influence a superintendent’s adoption of student achievement reform.
Research question two asks, Who are the key stakeholders that successful urban
superintendents include in the development of a student achievement reform strategy?
Teachers, school-level administrators, the school board, and district-level personnel are
important to the reform development process because they bring the professional
expertise necessary to designing an effective plan.
Research question three asks, What strategies do successful urban
superintendents utilize to execute student achievement reform? Superintendents
supported a wide variety of strategies, including placing high expectations on student
achievement, utilizing student demographic and achievement data to identify student
need, providing instructional leadership, facilitating collaborations among stakeholders,
aligning the district’s and its principals’ message, engaging in two-way communication
77
between district and school staff, enlisting instructional leadership, and checking on
professional accountability.
Research question four asks, What strategies do successful urban superintendents
utilize to evaluate and sustain the progress of student achievement reform?
Superintendents used formative assessment, principal evaluation, and monitoring reports
to the school board and community to evaluate and sustain reform aimed at increasing
student achievement.
Chapter Five follows with a summary of the research study including conclusions
and implications.
78
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS

Introduction
Public education is under intense pressure from the community, politicians, and
the media to increase student achievement for the good of individuals as well as for the
welfare of the nation. The expectation is that schools will prepare all students with the
knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a 21
st
-century economy. Superintendents
play a critical role in this mission, as they deploy strategies that will increase the
effectiveness of their organizations to meet increasing demands for student achievement
(Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Togneri & Anderson, 2003).
This chapter provides a summary of the study, including a statement of the
problem, purpose of the study, research questions, and a review of the literature and
methodology used, followed by findings related to the four research questions. In
closing, implications and recommendations for future study will be detailed.
Statement of the Problem
The economic security of the nation depends upon the ability of schools to
adequately prepare the next generation to compete globally (Salamon, 1991). Schools are
failing to meet this expectation and student achievement data support these concerns.
Students are underperforming when compared internationally (Miller et al., 2009) and
significant gaps in student performance persist along economic and racial lines within the
United States (Secombe, 2000; Sirin, 2005).
79
In response to the demonstrated inadequacy of performance, legislation has
increased bureaucratic accountability for student achievement outcomes. NCLB is the
latest iteration of this initiative and has sought to define schools as successful or not
while mandating equity in outcomes across significant subgroups of students
(McDonnell, 2005). Despite these efforts, student achievement continues to languish for
students most at risk for academic failure (Corcoran et al., 2001; Darling-Hammond,
2007).
The inability of schools and districts to attain minimum proficiency levels creates
an accountability issue that forces superintendents to confront issues of equity and
excellence in the political arena. In addition to facing formal sanctions and mandates
through bureaucratic accountability, superintendents experience external and internal
pressure from community members, politicians, and the media. This confluence of forces
has created a sense of urgency for superintendents as they work through the reform
creation, development, execution, and sustainment process.
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to identify the strategies employed by successful urban
superintendents responding to demands for student achievement reform from the
community, politicians, and the media. Student achievement reform requires that
superintendents access the most effective strategies given the structures and relationships
that exist in their organizations (Stone et al., 2003). They meet these aims by defining
goals and creating long-term plans, using effective strategies to communicate and
80
message the plan, building the capacity of providers to implement the core strategies, and
continually investing in evaluating and sustaining student achievement reform.
Research by Waters and Marzano (2006) has indicated that superintendent
leadership impacts student achievement; as such, superintendents must create a district
culture focused on continuous improvement (Elmore, 2002).
Research Questions
The following questions guided the study:
1. What are the key elements that influence student achievement reform strategy
for successful urban superintendents?
2. Who are the key stakeholders that successful urban superintendents include in
the development of a student achievement reform strategy?
3. What strategies do successful urban superintendents utilize to execute student
achievement reform?
4. What strategies do successful urban superintendents utilize to evaluate and
sustain the progress of student achievement reform?
Review of the Literature
The review of the literature sought to capture relevant knowledge as it related to
the background, context, and successful strategies of superintendents and student
achievement reform. Three major themes related to superintendent strategies emerged
from the literature: (a) long-term planning and goal defining, (b) communication and
messaging, and (c) building capacity. In addition, reform evaluation and sustainment will
be discussed as a critical component of lasting improvement.
81
Over time the superintendency has become an increasingly complex and
challenging enterprise (Fuller et al., 2003; Glass et al., 2000). Superintendents are
expected to embark on organizational change efforts that challenge current practices and
improve student achievement outcomes for a school district (Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005).
Successful models of school district change have proven elusive and difficult to
reproduce (Darling-Hammond et al., 2003). Change is difficult for any organization, but
successful change within the top-down public sector policy that impacts schools and
districts has proven to be an even more daunting a task (Doyle et al., 2000).
Superintendents employ strategies to define goals and create long-term plans to
support student achievement reform in their districts. Essential elements considered in
the literature are high expectations for student achievement, creation of a vision,
collaborative establishment of goals, resource allocation, and sharing best practices
(Childress et al., 2006; Togneri & Anderson, 2003; Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Developing a plan focused on expected outcomes serves to guide districts as they face a
multitude of competing pressures that threaten to draw attention away from the
instructional core (Elmore, 2002).
Superintendents must articulate the exigency of student achievement reform and
the subsequent actions that must occur to support the reform process in a way that is
comprehensible and manageable to those impacted (McRel, 2001). In examining a
school undergoing the reform process, Johnson and Chrispeels (2010) identified four
communication patterns used to communicate reform. The first pattern was coherent
district messages that emphasized the need to focus on improving teaching and learning;
82
the second was principal as communicator, which required that principals serve to carry
the district message to school personnel; the third was two-way communication between
school district and site-level staff to aid in unification of goals; the fourth was face-to-
face communication, which imparted a sense of unity and commitment to reform.
Superintendents must build capacity within their districts and schools to support
student achievement reform (Rorrer et al., 2008). For school districts, building capacity
means investing in professional development that will equip educators at all levels with
the skills needed to meet rigorous demands (Petersen et al., 2007). Professional
development must go beyond knowledge and skill acquisition to challenge the current
beliefs and practices privileged by individuals and organizations.
Evaluating and sustaining reform has proven difficult for school districts.
Superintendents can help to minimize the challenges by emphasizing the value of
continuously refining plans based on an ongoing intake of information (Chrispeels et al.,
2003), developing deeply embedded networks of support for reform at all levels in the
organization (Stone et al., 2006), and maintaining consistent principal leadership at
school sites (Corcoran, et al., 2001).
Methodology
The study employed a mixed-methods design consisting of 41 quantitative
surveys and five qualitative interviews completed by successful urban superintendents in
California. This method was selected for increased rigor, as it allows for comparisons
among findings and provides greater depth and complexity to the data collected (Patton,
2002).
83
In order to distinguish superintendents as successful for this study, selection
criteria were applied. Selected superintendents for the quantitative survey had an
enrollment in excess of 10,000 students with more than 50% of schools meeting API
while serving a population comprised of more than 15% free or reduced meals and more
than 33% minority students. From these participants, five superintendents who had
maintained tenure for more than two years were selected for a qualitative interview.
The quantitative survey queried demographic data, willingness to be interviewed,
and level of agreement with 39 Likert-style survey items related to superintendents and
student achievement reform. The qualitative interviews were conducted using an
interview protocol of seven questions accompanied by follow-up questions to clarify
responses. All interviews were recorded and transcribed for accuracy.
Instrument design was informed by the body of scholarly research and was
subsequently aligned to the research questions in order to enhance instrument validity.
Data gathered through surveys and interviews were analyzed and used to support the
significant research findings as they related to each of the four research questions.
Findings
Research question one asks, What are the key elements that influence student
achievement reform strategy for successful urban superintendents? Demands from the
community, market pressure and competition, and bureaucratic accountability were
salient themes in both the quantitative survey and qualitative interview of superintendents
for this study. Demands from the community recorded the highest response mean (3.05)
on the quantitative survey and four out of five superintendents interviewed identified this
84
group as critical to the reform initiation process. Market pressure and competition
recorded the second highest response mean (2.88) on the quantitative survey, and four out
of five superintendents interviewed affirmed the importance of these external demands.
Bureaucratic accountability recorded the third highest response mean (2.78) on the
quantitative survey and was mentioned by four out of the five superintendents
interviewed as important to student achievement reform strategy. Importantly, however,
politicians and the media also make demands for student achievement reform but their
influence tends to create indirect pressure and is less prominent in the daily operations of
a school district.
Research question two asks, Who are the key stakeholders that successful urban
superintendents include in the development of a student achievement reform strategy?
The superintendents surveyed and interviewed identified teachers, school-level
administrators, the school board, and district-level personnel as key stakeholders in the
development of student achievement reform strategy. Teachers recorded the highest
response mean (3.93) on the quantitative survey and were mentioned by all five
superintendents interviewed as key stakeholders. School-level administrators recorded
the second highest response mean (3.90) on the quantitative survey and were mentioned
by five out of five superintendents interviewed as key stakeholders who must be
included. School boards and district-level personnel shared the third highest response
mean (3.66) on the quantitative survey and were mentioned by five out of five
superintendents interviewed as key stakeholders that must be included.
85
The superintendents interviewed provided greater depth of insight through their
responses, insisting on involving only those individuals who can contribute specialized
knowledge and expertise to the reform development plan. Superintendents tended to
engage additional stakeholders — like parents, students, and media — as supporters after
the plan had been developed in order to foster widespread support.
Research question three asks, What strategies do successful urban
superintendents utilize to execute student achievement reform? Superintendent responses
collected through surveys and interviews were put into four broad categories of
strategies: defining goals and long-term planning, communication and messaging, and
building capacity.
In the area of defining goals and long-term planning, superintendents indicated
support for high expectations for student achievement (3.85), utilizing student
demographic and achievement data to identify student need (3.78), and collaboration
among stakeholders (3.85). With regard to communication and messaging,
superintendents supported the alignment of district’s and principals’ messages (3.78) and
two-way communication between school and district staff (3.73). In relation to building
capacity, superintendents identified the strategies of instructional leadership (3.90) and
professional accountability (3.74) most favorably. These strategies were confirmed
through interviews in which superintendents provided greater detail as to how the
strategies are carried out in their districts.
Although the superintendents surveyed recorded the highest level of agreement
with the aforementioned strategies, it is also important to note that, on average, they
86
supported all of the strategies offered. This commitment lends credence to the assertion
that superintendents must be skilled in implementing a wide breadth of strategies in order
to accommodate the changing needs of a district engaging in reform aimed at increasing
student achievement.
Research question four asks, What strategies do successful urban superintendents
utilize to evaluate and sustain the progress of student achievement reform?
Superintendents interviewed supported the use of formative assessment, principal
evaluation, and monitoring reports to the board and community to evaluate and sustain
the progress of student achievement reform.
Formative assessment was mentioned by all five superintendents interviewed.
Superintendents described the use of formative assessment data as necessary to
evaluating student performance as a result of instruction provided. This transparency
allowed stakeholders to have all of the information they needed to make the best
decisions when it came to making improvements.
Principal evaluation was mentioned by four out of five superintendents
interviewed. Superintendents emphasized that principal evaluation provided a venue for
collaboration around needs, strategies, and goals specific to each school site. This
process served to create greater alignment between strategies and expected outcomes,
while encouraging high expectations and risk taking.
Monitoring reports to the school board and community was mentioned by all five
superintendents interviewed. The monitoring report details district goals and current
progress toward meeting those goals. The document serves as a formal communication
87
to the board and also helps site principals accurately impart the district status to
stakeholders.
Implications
The significant findings associated with this study contribute to the body of
scholarly literature by identifying the strategies used by successful superintendents
responding to demands for student achievement reform. The insights herein are useful to
current or aspiring superintendents embarking on reform because they provide a
framework for understanding how other successful leaders manage organizational change
efforts.
Although successful models are difficult to duplicate, this study suggests that
superintendents engage in many of the same strategies in the execution of student
achievement reform. The identification of common strategies can provide guidance to
superintendent preparation programs as they consider how most effectively to train
leaders to meet increasing demands from internal and external sources.
In addition, the findings can be used by school districts to help increase awareness
about the student achievement reform process and the conditions needed for success.
School boards can also use this information to develop superintendent performance
criteria. Such implementation creates a tighter coupling between research-based
strategies and superintendent accountability.

88
Recommendations for Future Study
In pursuit of greater clarity about the actions of superintendents responding to
demands for student achievement reform, the researcher recommends that the following
be considered for future study:
1. This study suggested that superintendents should involve stakeholders at
all levels of their organizations as they enact reform. This effort creates a
need for focused case studies of school districts and of the nuanced
dynamics that facilitate success. Based upon the results of this study,
teachers, school-level administrators, the school board, and district-level
personnel should be included in the inquiry.
2. Identifying the strategies utilized by successful superintendents highlights
the need for comparison among successful and unsuccessful
superintendents. This information would help further distill the strategies
that contribute to success.
3. There is a need to analyze documents used by districts in the development,
execution, and sustainment of reform. This study indicated that principal
evaluations, school site plans, board goals, and monitoring reports to the
board and community provide great insight into the superintendent’s
directives.
Conclusion
Schools and districts are under extraordinary pressure to fulfill the education
promise for all students as they face demands for change in school districts in order to
89
better meet the needs of students. As a result, superintendents must proactively confront
current practices to create substantive and enduring change in their organizations.
Ultimately, the strategies chosen and implemented by superintendents create the
conditions for change within a school district.
90
REFERENCES
Andrews, J., Cameron, H., & Harris, M. (2008). All change? Managers’ experience or
organizational change in theory and practice. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 20(3), 300-314. doi:10.1108/09534810810874796

Battilana, J., Gilmartin, M., Sengul, M., Pache, A.C., & Alexander, J. (2010). Leadership
compentencies for implementing planned organizational change. The Leadership
Quarterly, 21, 422-438. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.007

Bredeson, P., & Kose, B. (2007). Responding to the education reform agenda: A study of
school superintendents’ instructional leadership. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 15(5), 1-23.

Caldas, S. J., & Bankston, C. (1997). Effect of school population socioeconomic status on
individual academic achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(5),
269-277. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27542104

Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school districts.
Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 55-68.

Chrispeels, J. H., Burke, P. H., Johnson, P., & Daly, A. J. (2008). Aligning mental modes
of district and school leadership teams for reform coherence. Education and
Urban Society, 40(6), 730-750. doi:10.1177/0013124508319582

Corcoran, T., Fuhrman, S. H., & Belcher, C. L. (2001). The district role in instructional
improvement. Phi Delta Kappa International, 83(1), 78-84.

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative research. Upper Saddle Creek, NJ: Pearson Education.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). The color line in American education: Race, resources,
and student achievement. W. E. B. DuBois Review: Social Science Research on
Race, 1(2), 213-246.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Evaluating ‘No Child Left Behind.’ The Nation. Retrieved
from http://www.thenation.com/node/22962

Darling-Hammond, L., & Ascher, C. (1991). Creating accountability in big city schools.
Clearinghouse on Urban Education, Columbia University, 1-47.

91
Darling-Hammond, L., Hightower, A., Husbands, J., LaFors, J., Young, V., &
Christopher, C. (2003). Building instructional quality: “Inside-Out” and “Outside-
In” perspectives on San Diego’s school reform: A research report. Center for the
Study of Teaching and Policy: A National Research Consortium.

Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of school reform models.
Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 357-374.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The total design method (2nd ed.).
New York: Wiley.

Doyle, M., Claydon, T., & Buchanen, D. (2000). Mixed results, lousy process: The
management experience of organizational change. British Journal of
Management, 11(special issue), S59-S80.

Eckes, S. E., & Trotter, A. E. (2007). Are charter schools using recruitment strategies to
increase student body diversity? Education and Urban Society, 40(1), 62-90.
doi:10.1177/0013124507304012

EdSource. (June, 2005). The state’s official measures of school performance. Mountain
View, CA: EdSource, Inc. Retrieved from
http:www.edsource.org/pdf/perfmeasguideo5.pdf

Elias, S. M. (2009). Employee commitment in times of change: Assessing the importance
of attitude toward organizational change. Journal of Management, 35(1), 37-55.
doi:10.1177/0149206307308910

Elmore, R. (1997). The politics of education. Issues in Science and Technology, 14(1),
41-49.

Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute.

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert
Shanker Institute.

Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. (2006, March/April). Managing successful organizational
change in the public sector, 66(2) Public Administration Review, 168-176.

Fetler, M. E. (1994). Carrot or stick? How do school performance reports work?
Eduation Policy Analysis Archives, 2(13), 1-18.

92
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the
story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377.

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the 21
st
century. New York:
Picador/Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Fuller, H., Campbell, C., Celio, M., Harvey, J., Immerwahr, J., & Winger, A. (2003). An
impossible job? The view from the urban superintendent’s chair. The Wallace
Foundation: Center on Reinventing Public Education: Seattle, Washington.

Gilley, A., Gilley, J. W., & McMillan, H. S. (2009). Organizational change: Motivation,
communication, and leadership effectiveness. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 21(4), 75-94. doi:10.1002/piq.20039

Gilley, J. W., & Maycunich, A. (2000). Beyond the learning organization: Creating a
culture of continuous growth and development through state-of-the-art human
resource practices. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

Glass, T. E., Bjork, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The study of the American school
superintendency, 2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new
millennium. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.

Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-Nect: Purpose, accountability, and school
leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership Lessons from
Comprehensive School Reforms (pp. 57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2),
157-191.

Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and statehouses:
Solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America’s public schools. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability.
University of Southern California Urban Education, Spring/Summer, 17-19.

Johansson, C., & Heide, M. (2008). Speaking of change: Three communication
approaches in studies of organizational change. Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, 13(3), 288-305. doi:10.1108/13563280810893661

Johnson, P., & Chrispeels, J. (2010). Linking the central office and its schools for reform.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 738-775.
93
Karoly, L. A., & Panis, C. W. (2004). The 21st century at work: Forces shaping the
future workforce and workplace in the United States. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation.

Kowalski, T. J., McCord, R. S., Petersen, G. J., Young, P., & Ellerson, N. M. (2010). The
American school superintendent: 2010 decennial study. Lanham, MD: The
American Association of School Administrators.

LeBlanc, R. (2010). Reform, ideology and the politics of waiting for 'Superman.' Power
and Education, 2(3), 300-308. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/power.2010.2.3.300

Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic gap trends: Reversing the progress towards equity?
American Educational Research Association, 31(1), 3-12.

Linn, R. L., (2005). Fixing the NCLB accountability system. Los Angeles: University of
California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student
Testing.

McCluskey, N. (2010, October 11). No more Waiting for Superman. The Cato Institute.
Retrieved from http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12465

McDonnell, L. M. (2005). No Child Left Behind and the federal role in education:
Evolution or revolution? Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 19-38.
doi:10.1207/S15327930pje8002_2

McKinsey & Company. (2009). The economic impact of the achievement gap in
America’s schools. Social Sector Office

McRel. (2001). Leadership for school improvement. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent
Research for Education and Learning.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, D. A., Malley, L. B., & Owen, E. (2009). Comparative indicators of education in
the United States and other G-8 countries: 2009. Washington, DC: Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

Ogbu, J. U., & Simons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-
ecological theory of school performance and some implications for education.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.

94
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rorrer, A., Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in
educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 307-358.

Rumberger, R. W., & Palardy, G. J. (2005). Does segregation still matter? The impact of
student composition on academic achievement in high school. Teachers College
Record, 107(9), 1999-2045.

Salamon, L. M. (1991). Overview: Why human capital? Why now? In D. Hornbeck & L.
M. Salamon (Eds.), Human capital and America’s future: An economic strategy
for the nineties (pp. 1-28). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Seccombe, K. (2000). Families in poverty in the 1990s: Trends, causes, consequences,
and lessons learned. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 1094-1113.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1566726

Sherman, W. H. (2008). No Child Left Behind: A legislative catalyst for superintendent
action to eliminate test-score gaps. Educational Policy, 22(5), 675-704.

Sims, R. R. (2002). Employee involvement is still the key to successfully managing
change. In S. J. Simms & R. R. Simms (Eds.), Changing the way we manage
change (pp. 33-54). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic
review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3). 417-453. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3515987

Stone, C., Orr, M., & Worgs, D. (2006). The flight of the bumblebee: Why reform is
difficult but not impossible. Perspectives on Politics, 4(3), 529-546.

Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can
do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC:
Learning First Alliance.

Vakola, M., & Nikolaou, I. (2005). Attitudes towards organizational change: What is the
role of employees’ stress and commitment? Employee Relations, 27(2), 160-174.
doi: 10.1108/01425450510572685

Waters, J., & Marzano, R. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. A Working Paper. Denver,
CO: McRel Publishing.
95
West, A., Ingram, D., & Hind, A. (2006). “Skimming the cream”: Admissions to charter
schools in the United States and to autonomous schools in England. Educational
Policy, 20(4), 615-639. doi:10.1177/0895904805284054

White, J. (2006). How to tell your story with confidence. Leadership, 35(3), 8-10.
96
APPENDIX A

RESEARCH QUESTION/INSTRUMENT CONNECTION

Research Question
1
What are the key elements that influence student
achievement reform strategy for successful urban
superintendents?

Interview 2. What factors influence your reform strategy selection?

4. How have demands from the media, community, and
politicians influenced reform in your district?

Survey To what extent do you agree that the following factors
influence student achievement reform?
1. Bureaucratic accountability
2. Demands from the community
3. Demands from politicians
4. Demands from the media
5. Market pressure and competition

Research Question
2
Who are the key stakeholders that successful urban
superintendents include in the development of a student
achievement reform strategy?

Interview 3. What key stakeholders are involved in the creation of the
reform?

Survey To what extent do you agree that the following stakeholders
are important to the reform development process?
1. Community
2. District-level personnel
3. Parents
4. Politicians
5. Media
6. School-level administrators
7. Teachers
8. Unions
9. School boards
10. Students

97

Research Question
3
What strategies do successful urban superintendents
utilize to execute student achievement reform?

Interview 1. What reform strategies have helped you achieve success
with student achievement as superintendent? (3 & 4)

5. What is the process for developing a reform plan?

7. How do you build the capacity of schools in your district to
implement reform? (3 & 4)

Survey To what extent do you agree that the following are important
to superintendent execution of student achievement reform?
1. Creation of a vision
2. High expectations for student achievement
3. Utilizing student demographic and achievement data to
identify student need
4. Collaboration among stakeholders
5. Long-term planning
6. Rapid implementation of reform
7. Gradual implementation of reform
8. Resource allocation
9. Standardization of academic goals for schools in
district
10. Providing reform selection options to school sites
11. Instructional leadership
12. PD for principals
13. PD for teachers at school site
14. PD chosen by school site
15. PD offered at district office
16. Face-to-face communication
17. Visiting school sites regularly
18. Two-way communication between district and school
site staff
19. Alignment of district’s message and principal’s
message
20. Professional Accountability
21. Rewards and recognition for individual schools
22. Rewards and recognition for individual teachers
23. Monitoring implementation
24. Evaluating implementation

98
Research Question
4
What strategies do successful urban superintendents utilize
to evaluate and sustain the progress of student achievement
reform?

Interview 1. What reform strategies have helped you achieve success
with student achievement as superintendent? (3 & 4)

6. What strategies are most important when evaluating and
sustaining student achievement reform?

7. How do you build the capacity of schools in your district to
implement reform? (3 & 4)

99
APPENDIX B

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Gender?
Male
Female

Ethnicity?
American Indian / Alaska Native
Asian
Black / African American
Hispanic
Native Hawaiian / Other Pacific Islander
White
Two or More
Some Other: ___________________

Age category?
29 or under
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70 or over

Highest educational attainment?
Bachelors Degree
Masters Degree
Other Professional Degree
Doctoral Degree

Years of experience as the superintendent of your current school district:
__________

Years of experience as a school superintendent: ______

If you have served in your current position for greater than two years, would you be
willing to participate in a 45-minute follow-up interview?
Yes
No

100
To what extent do you agree that the following factors influence student
achievement reform?
(1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree)
1. Bureaucratic accountability 1 2 3 4
2. Demands from the community 1 2 3 4
3. Demands from politicians 1 2 3 4
4. Demands from the media 1 2 3 4
5. Market pressure and competition 1 2 3 4

To what extent do you agree that the following stakeholders are important to the
reform development process?
(1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Agree, 4=Strongly agree)
1. Community 1 2 3 4
2. District-level personnel 1 2 3 4
3. Parents 1 2 3 4
4. Politicians 1 2 3 4
5. Media 1 2 3 4
6. School-level administrators 1 2 3 4
7. Teachers 1 2 3 4
8. Unions 1 2 3 4
9. School boards 1 2 3 4
10. Students 1 2 3 4

101
To what extent do you agree that the following are important to superintendent
execution of student achievement reform?
(1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree)
1. Creation of a vision 1 2 3 4
2. High expectations for
student achievement 1 2 3 4
3. Utilizing student demographic and
achievement data to identify student need 1 2 3 4
4. Collaboration among stakeholders 1 2 3 4
5. Long-term planning 1 2 3 4
6. Rapid implementation of reform 1 2 3 4
7. Gradual implementation of reform 1 2 3 4
8. Resource allocation 1 2 3 4
9. Standardization of academic
goals for schools in district 1 2 3 4
10. Providing reform selection
options to school sites 1 2 3 4
11. Instructional leadership 1 2 3 4
12. PD for principals 1 2 3 4
13. PD for teachers at school site 1 2 3 4
14. PD chosen by school site 1 2 3 4
15. PD offered at district office 1 2 3 4
16. Face-to-face communication 1 2 3 4
17. Visiting school sites regularly 1 2 3 4
18. Two-way communication between
district and school site staff 1 2 3 4
19. Alignment of district’s message
and principal’s message 1 2 3 4
20. Professional accountability 1 2 3 4
21. Rewards and recognition for
individual schools 1 2 3 4
22. Rewards and recognition for
individual teachers 1 2 3 4
23. Monitoring implementation 1 2 3 4
24. Evaluating implementation 1 2 3 4
102
APPENDIX C

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Superintendent Strategies for Student Achievement Reform

1. What reform strategies have helped you achieve success with student achievement
as superintendent? (research question 3 & 4)
2. What factors influence your reform strategy selection? (research question 1)
3. What key stakeholders are involved in the creation of the reform? (research
question 2)
4. How have demands from the media, community, and politicians influenced
reform in your district? (research question 1)
5. What is the process for developing a reform plan? (research question 3)
6. What strategies are most important when evaluating and sustaining student
achievement reform? (research question 4)
7. How do you build the capacity of schools in your district to implement reform?
(research question 3 & 4)

103
APPENDIX D

SURVEY COVER LETTER

Date
Dear (Superintendent Name),

Based on your success at implementing student achievement reform in your school
district, we invite you to participate in our research study. This study is being conducted
under the guidance of Dr. Rudy Castruita, as part of our doctoral studies at the Rossier
School of Education at the University of Southern California. This study seeks to
identify the strategies employed by successful urban superintendents responding to
demands for student achievement reform.

We understand your time is extremely valuable and limited. The survey will take
approximately ten minutes. Your voluntary participation is much appreciated and would
provide an important contribution to the research on superintendent implementation of
reforms strategies aimed at increasing student achievement. Your relationship with will
not be affected whether or not you participate in this study. There are no known risks
associated with participation in this study.

Thank you in advance for your time. Please contact either of us if you have any
questions.

Sincerely,

Hilda Flores
Doctoral Candidate
hflores@usc.edu
(562) 685-6636

Mindy Kozel
Doctoral Candidate
kozel@usc.edu
(949) 290-0794
104
APPENDIX E

INFORMATION LETTER

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Strategies Employed by Successful Urban Superintendents to Implement Student
Achievement Reform

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study will focus on the strategies employed by superintendents to implement student
achievement reform. Strategies pertaining to defining goals and long-term planning,
messaging and communication, and building capacity will be the focus of the study. This
study will employ mixed methods to understand successful implementation of student
achievement reform. Participation is voluntary.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete a 46 item survey (6
demographic questions, 39 questions pertinent to the literature, and 1 question regarding
availability to participate in the qualitative portion). The instrument will take
approximately 10 minutes to complete. You may also be asked to participate in a 45
minute, 7 item interview with follow up questions. This interview will be audio recorded
with your permission.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The identity of survey participants will remain confidential and pseudonyms will be used.
All data will be kept in a secure location and destroyed after three years.

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

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Hilda Flores: hflores@usc.edu
Mindy Kozel: kozel@usc.edu

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier
Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Superintendents engage in reform aimed at increasing student achievement because they are influenced to do so by external and internal forces. The role of the superintendent is successfully managing the organizational change process so that his or her district may achieve the lofty and worthy goals of equity and excellence in student achievement. This effort has proved to be a challenging task for superintendents, and schools continue to falter despite intervention. ❧ This study employed a mixed-methods design to answer four research questions related to superintendents and student achievement reform. Data was collected via a quantitative survey of 85 superintendents and a qualitative interview of five superintendents, and was used to support the four research findings. ❧ First, demands from the community, market pressure and competition, and bureaucratic accountability influence a superintendent’s adoption of student achievement reform. Second, teachers, school-level administrators, the school board, and district-level personnel are important to the reform development process because they bring the professional expertise necessary to designing an effective plan. Third, superintendents support a wide variety of strategies — among them, setting high expectations for student achievement, utilizing student demographic and achievement data to identify student need, providing instructional leadership, fostering collaboration among stakeholders, and facilitating alignment of the district’s and principals’ messages, as well as promoting communication between district and school staff, modeling instructional leadership, and checking professional accountability. Fourth, superintendents use formative assessment, principal evaluation, and monitoring reports for the school board and the community to evaluate and in order to sustain reform aimed at increasing student achievement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase student achievement

PDF

Strategies employed by successful superintendents and boards of education resulting in increased student achievement

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Effective strategies that urban superintendents use that improve the academic achievement for African-American males

PDF

The sustainability of superintendent-led reforms to improve student achievement

PDF

Successful communication strategies used by urban school district superintendents to build consensus in raising student achievement

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

The role of the superintendent in ensuring school board focus on student achievement

PDF

Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

An urban superintendent's strategies for systemic reform: a case study

PDF

Superintendents' viewpoint of the role stakeholders can play in improving student achievement

PDF

An examination of traditional versus non-traditional superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve student achievement

PDF

Superintendents and Latino student achievement: promising practices that superintendents use to influence the instruction and increase the achievement of Latino students in urban school districts

PDF

Reform strategies implemented to increase student achievement: a case study of superintendent actions

PDF

The role of superintendents as instructional leaders: facilitating student achievement among ESL/EL learners through school-site professional development

PDF

Sustainable reform: a follow-up case study on one urban superintendent’s efforts to improve student achievement

PDF

Sustaining student achievement: Six Sigma strategies and successful urban school district superintendents

PDF

Effective strategies urban superintendents utilize that improve the academic achievement for African American males

Asset Metadata

Creator Flores, Hilda M. (author)

Core Title Strategies employed by successful urban superintendents responding to demands for student achievement reform

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2012-05

Publication Date 03/15/2012

Defense Date 02/21/2012

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

Tag achievement,capacity,Communication,district,OAI-PMH Harvest,planning,reform,stakeholders,strategies,student,superintendent,urban

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy Max (committee chair), Crew, Rudolph (committee member), García, Pedro Enrique (committee member)

Creator Email hflores@usc.edu,hildamflores@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC11290557

Unique identifier UC11290557

Identifier etd-FloresHild-502.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-FloresHild-502

Dmrecord 204763

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Flores, Hilda M.

Internet Media Type application/pdf

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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu