University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The impact of principal leadership and model schools on state‐wide school reform: case studies of four Oregon elementary model schools

(USC Thesis Other)

The impact of principal leadership and model schools on state‐wide school reform: case studies of four Oregon elementary model schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS 1

THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS ON
STATE-WIDE SCHOOL REFORM: CASE STUDIES OF FOUR OREGON
ELEMENTARY MODEL SCHOOLS

by

Todd S. Schmidt

_______________________________________________________________________

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

May 2014

Copyright 2014 Todd S. Schmidt

THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

2
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my amazing and beautiful wife, Shannon, and my two
wonderful little girls, Callie and Brynn. There is no way that I could have ever completed this
process without your constant love, support, and patience. You three mean the world to me, and I
love you all so very much.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am extremely indebted to the following for their support as I completed this program:
• To my parents, John and Linda Schmidt, and my sister, Jennifer, for their
encouragement and support. You helped lay a foundation that shaped me into the
person I am today, and for that I am forever grateful.
• To my in-laws, Charles and Janice Griffen, for instilling a sense of pride about the
University of Southern California, and for providing support to my family as I went
through this program.
• To my dissertation chair, Dr. Larry Picus. Thank you for your expertise, insight,
encouragement, and support through this process.
• To Dr. Rudy Crew and Dr. Mike Selig. Thank you for being on my dissertation
committee and offering insight and suggestions throughout the process.
• To the Superintendents and Principals in Oregon that agreed to be interviewed for this
dissertation. Thank you for opening your districts and schools to me. You are all
doing amazing things for the students under your guidance! I learned so much from
each of you that will only make me a better site leader.
• To Sherine, Diane, Lynn, Erin, Kim, Brad, and Josh for making the last three years
endurable as well as enjoyable. More than just colleagues, I am blessed to call you all
friends.
• To the staffs at Temecula Middle School and Oak Middle School. Thank you for
showing me the impact that a positive school culture can have on student learning and
teacher collaboration.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

4
• To the staffs, students, and parents of Costa Mesa Middle and High Schools and
Harbor View Elementary School. Thank you for your patience and support through
this process. You have also taught me how to be a better administrator and leader. I
have been blessed to be a part of these extraordinary schools.
• To my friends and colleagues who gave me constant encouragement and the never
ending reminder that they would not be calling me “Doctor” when I was done.
• Finally, to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. My faith was instrumental in seeing me
through. I am reminded of Philippians 4:13, “I can do anything through him who
gives me strength.” Thank you so much for the many blessings in my life.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
Abstract 8
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 9
Chapter 2: Literature Review 25
Chapter 3: Methods 68
Chapter 4: Findings 81
Chapter 5: Discussion 111
References 125
Appendices 133
Appendix A: Letter Invitation to Participate — Superintendents 133
Appendix B: Letter Invitation to Participate — Principals 134
Appendix C: District Superintendent Interview Dates 135
Appendix D: Site Principal Interview Dates 136
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Definitions and Methodologies for Outcome Measures in Achievement 37
Compacts
Table 2.2: Cotton’s Leadership Areas and Behavior Exemplars 45
Table 2.3: Whitaker’s Eighteen Things That Matter Most 47
Table 2.4: Marzano et al.’s Leadership Responsibilities and Behavior Exemplars 49
Table 3.1: Overall Level Assignments: Oregon’s Next Generation Accountability Policy 71
Table 3.2: Elementary School Academic Level Cutoffs 72
Table 3.3: Achievement Level Cutoffs 73
Table 3.4: Median Growth Percentile Points Cutoffs (Academic and Subgroup) 74
Table 3.5: Academic and Subgroup Growth Level Cutoffs 75
Table 3.6: Percentages of Students Classified as EL, SED, or Underserved Minority 76
Table 3.7: Points Earned in Academic Growth and Subgroup Growth 77
Table 4.1: Summary of Total Enrollment and Percentages of Students Classified as 83
ELL, SED, or Underserved Minority
Table 4.2: Percentages of Ethnic Breakdown for Sample Districts 84
Table 4.3: Proficiency Rates for Elementary Students in Sample Districts in Comparison 85
to Statewide Results
Table 4.4: Summary of Four Schools that Participated in This Study 86
Table 4.5: Percentages of Students Classified as EL, SED, or Underserved Minority 87
Table 4.6: Ethnic Breakdown for Each of the Four Model Schools 87
Table 4.7: Total School Proficiency — Reading 88
Table 4.8: Total School Proficiency — Math 89
Table 4.9: Total School Proficiency — Science 89
Table 4.10: Total School Proficiency — Douglas Elementary (2010-11 – 2012-13) 90
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

7
Table 4.11: Total School Proficiency — Hamilton Elementary (2010-11 – 2012-13) 91
Table 4.12: Total School Proficiency — Burr Elementary (2010-11 – 2012-13) 91
Table 4.13: Total School Proficiency — Carter Elementary (2010-11 – 2012-13) 92
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

8
ABSTRACT
This study selected a purposeful sample of a total of four Title I elementary schools within three
different districts in Oregon. Each of the elementary schools has been ranked in the top ten
percent of all Title I schools in Oregon and has been granted “Model” status. This qualitative
study interviewed the three district superintendents and the four site principals of these model
schools. The purpose was three-fold: (1) to determine the programs, practices, and instructional
strategies that are being implemented in these elementary schools; (2) to ascertain the impact
principal leadership had on these elementary schools attaining model school status; and (3) to
establish the training and professional development provided by districts to site principals.
Findings from this study show that there is an emphasis on developing a “student-first” culture at
each of these elementary schools. Teachers do not look at students as “my students” or “your
students” but as “our students.” In addition, all four sites as well as all three districts espouse the
importance of the professional learning community, both at the site and district level. Also, each
of the sites had implemented a Response to Instruction (RtI) program that provided additional
time and support to struggling students, while at the same time, providing enrichment
opportunities for students who had mastered specific grade level standards. Each of the
superintendents also discussed the importance of providing timely, constructive feedback to both
teachers and site administrators. Thus, each district was devoting significant resources to train
their principals as instructional leaders of their sites. Finally, implications for future practice and
decision-making are discussed.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

9
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) as part of his “War on Poverty.” This act was meant to ensure equal access to education
for all students while establishing high standards and a system of accountability. At the time,
ESEA was meant to close the skill gap in reading, writing and mathematics between children
from low-income households who attend urban or rural school systems and children from the
middle-class who attend suburban school systems (Farkas & Hall, 2000). Originally authorized
through 1970, this act has been reauthorized by the United States government several times since
its inception.
The most recent authorization came in 2002 when President George W. Bush signed the
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. Developed by the United States Department of Education,
NCLB was meant to address the still-present achievement gap that President Johnson hoped to
address with the ESEA. Standardized test results had showed a nationwide trend where white
students were outperforming not only socioeconomically disadvantaged students, but also
minority students, students with special needs, and English-language learners (EdSource, 2008).
NCLB’s purpose was to ensure that all students become proficient in English language arts and
mathematics by the spring of 2014 by requiring states to create standardized assessments in both
language arts and math. States must give these assessments to all students at select grade levels
in order to receive federal school funding. NCLB expanded the federal government’s role in
education through annual testing, accountability measures, and annual reporting of results
(Center on Education Policy [CEP], 2007). However, since its passage in 2002, local and state
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

10
teachers’ unions have argued for the repeal of NCLB, citing unrealistic expectations and an
overreliance on standardized testing (Louis et al., 2008). As more and more school districts have
failed to keep pace with federal proficiency benchmarks, governors as well as members of
Congress have advocated for either dramatically revising or repealing NCLB (CEP, 2007). In
fact, President Obama has not reauthorized NCLB since his election in 2008.
More recently, in 2009, President Barack Obama announced the Race to the Top (RTTT)
initiative, which looked to fund innovations and reform movements in K-12 education at the
state and local district level. RTTT also included a provision which allowed states the
opportunity to seek a waiver from NCLB compliance provided the state demonstrated an
actionable plan to address the achievement gap through accountability and high standards
(Dufour & Marzano, 2011). States could submit an application that would waive them from the
requirement that 100% of all students be proficient in language arts and mathematics by 2014.
One key provision of the waiver is that states must identify fifteen percent of schools that are
struggling most to help students achieve and show learning growth (Dufour & Marzano, 2011).
Several states seized this opportunity to waive compliance of NCLB. One of the forerunners to
seek a waiver from the federal government was the state of Oregon, a state with a history of
proactive school reform (Oregon Education Investment Board [OEIB], 2012).
In 1991, the state of Oregon passed the Oregon Educational Act for the 21st century. This
measure established state assessments and set levels of proficiency with state standards. With
this act, Oregon was one of the first states to adopt a system of state-wide accountability (Conley
& Picus, 2003). Louis et al. (2008) claimed, “educational groups in Oregon have cooperated to
produce a comprehensive and rationalized system of standards and accountability that predates
NCLB by a decade while still preserving a sense that education is locally controlled” (p. 17).
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

11
One of the key engineers of the Oregon Educational Act for the 21st century is the
current governor of Oregon, John Kitzhaber. Currently serving his third term as Oregon’s
governor (following an eight-year break after his second term), Dr. Kitzhaber was instrumental
in creating the Oregon Health Plan, which expanded the number of people covered by health
insurance while ensuring that public investments in health care were targeted to the most
effective treatments (Oregon Department of Education [ODE], 2013). Building on the success of
the state-run health care system, he turned to educational reform that followed in the same model
as his health care initiative: focusing on educational investments that are targeted towards the
most effective practices and strategies (OEIB, 2012).
Towards the aim of revamping the Oregon educational system by focusing on key
investments, Governor Kitzhaber and the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 909 (SB 909) in
2011. This law created the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) which would oversee the
effort to “create a seamless, unified system for investing in and delivering public education from
early childhood through high school and college so that all Oregonians are well prepared for
careers in our economy” (OEIB, 2012). SB909 also outlined specific charges for the OEIB which
included developing an education investment system strategy, hiring a Chief Education Officer,
establish a statewide student database, establishing an early learning council, and reporting back
to the Oregon legislature on progress and legislation for 2012 (OEIB, 2011). In 2012, the OEIB
appointed Dr. Rudy Crew as its first Chief Education Officer to help oversee the integrate public
education system from pre-kindergarten through college and career readiness.
In addition to SB 909, the Oregon Legislature and Governor Kitzhaber drafted and signed
Senate Bill 253 (SB 253) in 2012. SB 253 defines the goal of the OEIB is to ensure that by 2025,
forty percent of Oregonians have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, that forty percent have
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

12
earned an associate’s degree or post-secondary credential, and that the remaining twenty percent
or less have earned a high school diploma or its equivalent. These targets have been referred to
as the “40-40-20” goal for the state of Oregon (OEIB, 2011).
Finally, in 2012, Governor Kitzhaber signed into law Senate Bill 1581 (SB 1581). Under
SB 1581, the OEIB will enter into achievement compacts with every K-12 school district,
education service district, community college, the university system and individual university,
and Oregon Health Sciences University. These two-way partnership agreements “challenge
educators across Oregon to set targets on key student outcomes and encourage broad
collaboration to adopt transformational practices, policies, and budgets to help students achieve
the educational outcomes valued by Oregonians” (OEIB, 2012). Starting in early April of 2012,
the OEIB, under the auspice of SB 1581, established guidelines and timelines for completion of
the achievement compacts. In order for the achievement compacts to have taken effect for the
2012-13 school year, districts had to submit their completed compacts by July, 2012.
Because of the relatively brief timeline, from the passage of SB 1581 to the completion of
the compacts in the summer of 2012, several key constituencies raised concerns about the
achievement compacts. The Oregon Education Association (OEA) felt that not enough time had
been allotted for the creation of the achievement compacts and that “educators must be equal
partners in developing achievement compacts, as the front-line required for successful
implementation with our students and in our schools” (Oregon Education Association [OEA],
2012a). The OEA also asked that the achievement compacts not be enacted until the 2013-14
school year so that districts could adequately plan and work collaboratively with educators. In
addition to the OEA, Oregon’s Confederation of School Administrators (OCSA) felt that
incomplete data from the 2011-12 school year made many districts establish overly cautious
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

13
goals (Hammond, 2012). This, in turn, led to a very public showdown between district
superintendents and school boards and the new Chief Education Officer, Dr. Rudy Crew. Dr.
Crew chastised several school districts for aiming too low on their achievement compacts. In
response, the OCSA claimed that tight budgets were the number one reason districts set cautious
goals (Hammond, 2012). In return, Dr. Crew required nearly a third of all districts to resubmit
their compacts before he would sign off on them.
Statement of the Problem
In 2012, the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 1581 which requires that all of
Oregon’s education entities enter into annual achievement compacts with the OEIB beginning
with the 2012-13 school year. Districts received compacts from the OEIB populated with the
most current student data in terms of demographics and student achievement. Each district was
to take these compacts and create goals and action plans to address achievement gaps at the
schools and in the district. However, while school boards and superintendents were tasked with
creating the goals, the implementation of programs to meet the goals will be at the school level
and require efforts on the part of both principals and teachers to address these achievement gaps
and make gains towards the “40-40-20” goal established by Senate Bill 253. In addition, in 2012,
twenty-seven schools were classified as “model” schools as they were making significant strides
towards closing the achievement gap.
Purpose of the Study
In February of 2013, Oregon’s Chief Education Officer, Dr. Rudy Crew, explained that
the OEIB is looking at four major investments meant to move the Oregon educational system
towards its 40-40-20 goal. These investments include: (1) An emphasis on early learning
especially in literacy/reading comprehension; (2) A focus on opportunities to earn college credit
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

14
in high school to encourage a college-going culture; (3) A revamped teacher training and
recruitment program; and (4) a spotlight on science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)
education. As mentioned before, the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 1581 which
mandated that districts enter into achievement compacts with the OEIB and the ODE. It is
important to understand the impact “model” schools and their principals will have in establishing
district goals through achievement compacts and providing support to other schools in the
district.
The purpose of the this study is three-fold: (1) to determine the role principals of “model”
schools played in the creation of the achievement compacts for their respective districts; (2) to
establish what leadership practices, strategies, and professional development opportunities
principals of “model” schools utilized prior to the implementation of these achievement
compacts and which ones they will implement after; and (3) to analyze what role “model”
schools and their principals will have in helping other schools close their achievement gaps.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study are:
• Prior to the implementation of the achievement compacts, what leadership practices,
strategies, and protocols were individual principals at “model” schools implementing
at their sites to address the needs of SED, ELL, and underserved minorities? Were
there any similarities in leadership practices, strategies, or protocols?
• What role did individual principals of “model” schools play in the development of the
new achievement compacts mandated by Senate Bill 1581?
• What changes, if any, will “model” schools have to make to meet the achievement
compact?
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

15
• How are individual principals of “model” schools preparing/supporting their staffs in
the implementation of the compacts?
• How is the district preparing/supporting site principals in the implementation of the
compacts and how will they use “model” schools to drive reform?
Importance of the Study
Mendels (2012) and Leithwood et al. (2004) point out that principal and site leadership is
second only to teacher quality among school-related factors in its impact on student learning. In
addition, educational reform needs leadership, especially at the site level and the impact of
leadership tends to be greatest in schools where the learning needs of students are most acute.
(Dufour & Marzano, 2011; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Leithwood et al., 2004; Knapp et al.,
2003). Because site leadership is so instrumental in enacting reform, it is important to study how
districts are preparing principals to lead this change, and in turn, how principals are guiding their
staffs in the implementation of the goals established by the district’s achievement compact.
Summary of Methodology
In 2012, Oregon won the right to rate schools differently when the Obama administration
approved its application to drop many of the structures of No Child Left Behind. For the first
time, the state of Oregon called attention not only to the schools that failed to make gains in
student achievement but also to those who made significant progress towards closing the
achievement gap. Twenty-seven schools that receive Title I funding were designated as “model”
schools. It is the hope of the Oregon Department of Education that the highly effective
techniques of these model schools will be studied and shared.
In an effort to examine not only what role the principal played in leading these change
initiatives but also how the achievement compacts mandated by SB 1581 have affected their
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

16
schools, this study will conduct case studies of four elementary schools in Oregon. All four of
the schools will be classified as “model” schools as characterized by the annual Oregon
Department of Education’s Next Generation Accountability Report and at least three of the
schools will be from different districts. Additionally, in order to be considered a model Title I
school, each of the schools must have at least 40% of the students qualify for the free or reduced
lunch program and are identified socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED). In addition, to see
how model schools were closing the achievement gap with Hispanic/Latino, African-American,
or English language learner subgroups, schools chosen had either 20% of students classified as
“underserved races/ethnicities” and/or 20% designated as English language learners as
referenced in SB 1581.
Two distinct groups will be interviewed for this study. For each district, an interview will
be conducted with the superintendent of that district, and for each school site, an interview with
the school principal will be carried out. As this is primarily a qualitative study, interviews will be
used as the primary source of information for this study. Quantitative data including results from
the Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS) and the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) was collected to identify patterns and areas of concern. Using the
interviews as well as additional qualitative and quantitative data, an analysis was completed to
determine how districts determined their goals and how principals used these achievement
compacts to determine not only areas of focus for improvement in the coming school year but the
resources and professional development plan they implemented to make these improvements.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

17
Limitations
The following limitations are present in the study:
• The primary method of data collection will be based upon structured and semi-
structured interviews. Thus there is a possibility that the results may be subjective.
• Because the schools were not chosen in a randomized manner, the data obtained may
not be generalized to other schools, especially those with different student
demographics.
• Only elementary principals will be interviewed for this study. Thus, these principals
may not constitute a representative sample of other principals in the middle and/or
high school setting.
• Oregon Senate Bill 1581 was passed in 2012 and requires that all of the state’s
education entities enter into annual achievement compacts with the OEIB beginning
with the 2012-13 school year. The OEIB distributed the templates for the
achievement compacts in April of 2012 with a due date of July 31, 2012. However,
nearly a third of all districts were required to resubmit their achievement compact due
to inadequate goals. Thus, the outcome of this study may be skewed as a result of the
limited timeframe principals had to implement strategies and professional
development to address the goals established in the achievement compacts.
Delimitations
The following delimitations are present in the study:
• This study was directed to schools at the elementary level that had been designated as
a “model” school in 2012. In order to be classified as a “model” school, the school
must receive Title I funding and be classified as a “high-poverty” school. According
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

18
to the Oregon Department of Education, to qualify as a Title I school, 40% of
students must qualify for free or reduced lunch per the income guidelines established
by the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs (ODE, 2013).
• Principals selected for this study were restricted to those who had been assigned to an
elementary school within the school and district report cards produced by the Oregon
Department of Education.
• The interviews conducted for this study were done with the site principal and the
district superintendent only.
Assumptions
The following assumptions are made in this study:
• The Next Generation Accountability Report created by the Oregon Department of
Education is assumed to contain accurate and complete information regarding
academic achievement, academic growth, and subgroup growth.
• Performance indicators such as academic achievement, academic growth, and
subgroup growth are accurate measures of student performance.
• The principals interviewed for this study were accurate and candid in their responses.
Definition of Terms
40/40/20 goal: Established by Oregon Senate Bill 253, it states that by 2025, 40 percent
of adult Oregonians have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, that 40 percent have earned an
associate’s degree or post-secondary credential, and that the remaining 20 percent or less have
earned a high school diploma or its equivalent (OEIB, 2011).
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

19
Achievement compact: Documents designed to set targets for defined outcome measures
that are indicative of student success. The compacts are intended to connect a district’s plan for
student achievement to the allocation of resources needed to accomplish its plan (OEIB, 2012).
Achievement gap: A difference in scores on student achievement tests between groups of
students.
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs): Prior to the approval of its ESEA Flexibility
Waiver, Oregon was required under the No Child Left Behind Act to make annual
determinations of whether schools and districts made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) toward
the goal of having all students meet rigorous state academic standards by the 2013-2014 school
year. For the 2011-2012 reports, Oregon has produced AMO reports in place of AYP reports
(ODE, 2013).
Common Outcome Measures for K-12 Compacts: The outcome measures in the
achievement compacts are identical and organized in the following categories:
• College and Career Ready
o Four-year and five-year cohort graduation rates;
o Five-year completion rate;
o Post-secondary enrollment; and,
o Earning nine or more college credits.
• Progression
o Ready for school, a kindergarten readiness assessment;
o Third grade proficiency in reading and math;
o Sixth grade on track, an attendance measure; and,
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

20
o Ninth grade on track, a compound measure of attendance and credits
completed.
• Equity
o Currently, schools on federal Title I school improvement lists; and,
o In future years, what Oregon Department of Education defines as priority and
focus schools, pursuant to the final terms of the Oregon NCLB waiver.
• Local priorities
o Three optional outcome measures that demonstrate the priorities of a local
community and district (OEIB, 2012).
Disadvantaged students: Referenced in Oregon Senate Bill 1581, are defined in OEIB
rule, consistent with federal law, to include K-12 students who are:
• Socioeconomically disadvantaged students;
• Limited English proficient students;
• Students with disabilities;
• Black students (not of Hispanic origin);
• Hispanic/Latino students;
• American Indian or Alaska Native students; and
• Pacific Islander students (OEIB, 2012).
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): Passed in 1965 as a part of President
Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty.” ESEA guarantees equal access to education and
establishes high standards and accountability. The law authorizes federally funded education
programs that are administered by the states. In 2002, Congress amended ESEA and reauthorized
it as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

21
English Language Learner: Indicates a person who has a first language other than
English and is in the process of learning English.
Education entity: Include K-12 school districts, education service districts, community
college districts, the Oregon University System (OUS), the seven public universities of OUS and
Oregon Health and Science University (OEIB, 2012).
Focus schools: The Oregon Department of Education has identified 60 Focus schools
which are in the bottom 15% of high poverty schools and have faced challenges with closing the
achievement gap and getting all students to achieve at high levels. These schools will also
receive additional supports from the state (ODE, 2012).
Model schools: The final category of schools identified are 30 Model schools. These high
poverty schools have been identified as examples of successful student outcomes and will serve
as models and mentors to other schools around the state. These schools will help share best
practices and guide other schools on the journey toward better student outcomes and our state’s
40-40-20 Goal.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): NCLB is the 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and increased the federal government’s focus on assessment,
accountability, and teacher quality. It also holds schools and education entities accountable for
increasing student achievement for all students including minorities, English learners, students
who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, and students with disabilities (EdSource, 2010).
Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB): The Oregon Education Investment Board,
chaired by the Governor of Oregon, is overseeing an effort to create a seamless, unified system
for investing in and delivering public education from early childhood through high school and
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

22
college so that all Oregonians are well prepared for careers in the Oregon economy (OEIB,
2011).
Outcome Measures: The elements in achievement compacts which require target testing.
Pursuant to SB 1581, the outcome measures established by the OEIB are limited to those which
capture: (1) completion rates for critical stages of learning; (2) validations of the quality of
knowledge and skills acquired by students; and (3) relevance of the knowledge and skills to the
workforce, the economy, and society (OEIB, 2012).
Priority schools: The Oregon Department of Education identified high poverty (Title I)
Priority schools for additional supports and interventions. These 17 schools represent the bottom
5% of high poverty schools in the state and have been identified as most in need of assistance in
turning around student achievement and growth (ODE, 2012).
Race to the Top (RTTT): This initiative offers incentives to states willing to spur systemic
reform to improve teaching and learning in America’s schools. According to the U.S.
Department of Education (2010a):
Race to the Top has ushered in significant change in our education system, particularly in
raising standards and aligning policies and structures to the goal of college and career
readiness. Race to the Top has helped drive states nationwide to pursue higher standards,
improve teacher effectiveness, use data effectively in the classroom, and adopt new
strategies to help struggling schools.
Senate Bill 253 (SB 253): Passed by the Oregon legislature in 2011, SB 253 established
the 40/40/20 goal to be completed by 2025.
Senate Bill 909 (SB 909): Passed by the Oregon legislature in 2011, SB 909 called for the
creation of the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) “for the purpose of ensuring that all
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

23
public school students in Oregon reach the education outcomes established for Oregon.” It
directed the OEIB to oversee a unified public education system from early childhood through
post-secondary education (P-20). It also created the position of Chief Education Officer who
would oversee the OEIB and recommend strategic investments to ensure that the public
education budget is integrated and targeted to achieve the education outcomes established for the
state (OEIB, 2012).
Senate Bill 1581 (SB 1581): Passed by the Oregon legislature in 2012, SB 1581 contains
two key recommendations of the OEIB related to the SB 253 and SB 909: (1) authorizes the
Chief Education Officer to direct other state education officials in the design and organization of
the state’s unified public education; and (2) requires that all of Oregon’s education entities enter
into annual achievement compacts with the OEIB beginning with the 2012-13 school year.
Socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED): A student neither of whose parents have
received a high school diploma, or a student who is eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch
program, also known as the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) (Office of Assessment and
Information Services [OAIS], 2012).
Title I: A federal program that provides financial assistance to education entities and
schools with high numbers and percentages of poor children to help all children meet state
adopted academic standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2010b).
Dissertation Organization
Chapter 1 of the study presented the introduction, statement of the problem, purpose of
the study, research questions, importance of the study, summary of the methodology used,
limitations, delimitations, assumptions, definition of terms, and the organization of the
dissertation.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

24
Chapter 2 of the study presents a review of the literature in the following areas: Oregon
school reform, the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB), principal leadership, principal
training, and professional development.
Chapter 3 of the study presents the research methodology used, the data collection
process, and the methods used to perform the data analyses.
Chapter 4 reports the findings from the study including a summary of the sample schools’
characteristics and performance, the role of the principal in creating achievement compacts, the
level of support principals are receiving to implement the compacts, and the resources and
professional development that principals will be providing to their staffs.
Chapter 5 provides a summary of the study, research conclusions, and implications from
the study.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

25
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the literature related to school reform and principal
leadership that looks at how principals are being prepared to implement the district goals created
through the achievement compact. The chapter includes five sections:
1. Oregon school reform — an overview of Oregon’s attempts at school reform with an
emphasis on four major events: (a) the voter-approval of Measure 5; (b) the passage
of the 1991 Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century; (c) the creation of the
Oregon Quality Education Model (OQEM); and (d) the passage of Oregon Senate
Bills 909, 253, and 1581.
2. The Oregon Education Investment Board — a summary of the role, responsibilities,
and recommendations made by the board responsible for advising the Oregon
Legislature and ensuring the achievement of the “40-40-20” goal: By the year 2025,
40% of Oregon’s population will have a degree from a four-year university; 40% will
have a degree from a community college; and 20% will have graduated from high
school.
3. Principal Leadership — a review of: (a) the role principals play in school
improvement; (b) successful principal practices and behaviors; and (c) the effects of
standards and accountability on principal leadership.
4. Principal Training — an overview of: (a) current models of principal training and
preparation; (b) the role districts play in supporting principals and holding them
accountable; and (c) proposed changes to current practices.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

26
5. Professional Development — an examination of the key characteristics of effective
professional development and the role of the principal in leading professional
development at the school site.
Oregon School Reform
The latter half of the 20th century was marked by frequent efforts at school reform and
improvement in the United States (Borman et al., 2003). With the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) which resulted in the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act, the federal government mandated the alignment of content standards with state
assessments and required a strict monitoring of student progress toward proficiency. Central to
NCLB legislation was the notion that states, districts and schools would be accountable for
student proficiency, especially among socioeconomically disadvantaged students, English
language learners, and minority students (McLaughlin & Shepard, 1995).
At times, states, districts and schools have struggled with how to effect large-scale
change and generate improvement in the performance of students. Coordinating programmatic
and/or bureaucratic mandates to strategies that positively effect student learning remains a
challenge (Berends, Bodilly, & Kirby, 2002). With NCLB, states and local districts labored to
find ways for policy to have a direct impact on student achievement. In addition, districts and
schools have the added challenge in addressing and closing the achievement gap between certain
white and Asian subgroups with Hispanic/Latino, African-American, English language learners,
and students with disabilities (Kim & Sunderman, 2005). With the advent of President Obama’s
initiative, Race to the Top (RTTT), states are encouraged to fund and implement research-based
strategies that have been successful in closing the achievement gap and improving student
learning.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

27
Even before NCLB and RTTT, certain states, like Oregon, have attempted to close the
achievement gap and address school reform. Louis et al. (2008) wrote, “educational groups in
Oregon have cooperated to produce a comprehensive and rationalized system of standards and
accountability that predates NCLB by a decade while still preserving a sense that education is
locally controlled” (p. 17). Although attempts at school reform were prevalent in Oregon in the
1970s and 1980s, the four most significant events that have changed the structure of the Oregon
education system over the past twenty years have been: the voter-approval of Measure 5 in 1990;
the passage of the Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century in 1991; the establishment of the
Oregon Quality Education Model in 2001; and the ratification of Oregon Senate Bills 253, 909,
and 1581.
Measure 5
Prior to 1990, Oregon had wide disparity in not only property values and tax rates but in
per-pupil spending as well. In the late 1980s, property values ranged from $98,000 to $450,000
per pupil, spending varied from approximately $2600 to $5800 per pupil, and tax rates varied
from $7 to $32 per thousand (Baylis, 1997). At the time, local taxes provided approximately 70%
of school funding and state revenue approximately 30% (Conley & Picus, 2003). Oregon's
method of approving and assessing property taxes exacerbated community frustration over
taxing and funding disparities. The individual school districts raised property taxes through a
“tax base and levy” system. Both the tax base and the levy had to be approved by the voters in
the school district (Baylis, 1997). In addition, the Oregon legislature cannot impose or pass a
new tax. Rather, any statewide tax increase must be subjected to a vote of the people through the
referendum process (Figlio, 1998).
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

28
Due to increasing state and federal mandates, the need for equalization in per-pupil
spending was imperative. In comparison to other states, Oregon dropped from 23rd to 30th in
graduation rates, ranked 39th in student-teacher ratio, and saw per-pupil expenditures drop from
6th to 13th (Baylis, 1997). In addition, only 11 of the 54 school districts in Oregon were able to
pass a local tax levy to fund state and federal mandates because property owners were frustrated
by continued increases in local property taxes (Figlio, 1998). Despite near-unanimous opposition
from every educational body in Oregon, it was this frustration that allowed the Oregon
Legislature to propose Measure 5 for the November ballot (Baylis, 1997). It passed by one
percent of the vote.
Measure 5 was meant to do two things: (1) cap the local property tax rate at $5 per $1000
of assessed valuation; and (2) equalize funding between high-property-value and low-property-
value districts. Once implemented, districts received anywhere from 5% to 90% of their funding
from the state (Conley & Picus, 2003). Implementation took place over a seven year period as
the state increased per-pupil funding in low-spending districts, consolidated districts, and held
high-spending districts in place (Baylis, 1997; Conley & Picus, 2003). Opponents to the measure
felt that funding for other government programs would be cut in order for the state to make up
the loss of school revenues during the phase-in period. In the years since its passage, Measure 5
has been blamed for increased budget cuts in public education and public safety as well as
budget crises in 2002 and 2003 (Louis et al., 2008).
The Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century
Around the same time as the voters of Oregon were approving Measure 5, the Oregon
Legislature, under the leadership of then-Speaker of the House, Vera Katz, was drafting the
Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century. This legislation focused on improving schools by
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

29
raising standards, encouraging local innovation and community partnerships, and focusing on
student performance outcomes (Baylis, 1997; Venezia & Kirst, 2006; Louis et al., 2008). The act
required among other things: (1) periodic review and revision of common curriculum goals; (2)
an “Oregon Report Card” submitted to district patrons and the legislature; (3) statewide
accountability procedures; and (4) a 220-day school year (Engel, 1992).
The central component of the Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century was the
requirement that schools shift from simply awarding diplomas when students have passed certain
classes to granting Certificates of Initial Mastery (CIM) and Advanced Mastery (CAM) as they
continue through high school (Baylis, 1997; Venezia & Kirst, 2006). The CIM was to be a set as
a high standard for basic education, whereas the CAM would be given in an area of
specialization of a student’s interest and was intended to be more career-oriented (Baylis, 1997).
Like the California Academic High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), the CIM has been
recommended as a requirement for graduation from high school, while only certain schools have
piloted the addition of the CAM (Venezia & Kirst, 2006).
Conley and Picus (2003) discuss that:
although the law has undergone a long and tortured implementation that included
significant amendments in 1995, statewide academic content standards and a
sophisticated assessment system were largely in place by 1997. The assessment system
would eventually test English, math, and science statewide in grades 3, 5, 8, and 10
(p. 593).
Baylis (1997) noted:
Standards like this represent a steep hurdle: 1996 scores suggest that more than half the
state’s 10th graders probably will not achieve the scores needed to earn a CIM on their
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

30
first try. But catering to what students can achieve easily is no longer de rigeur in
Oregon: reaching higher, and giving educators and students the tools to get there, is.
(p. 72)
The Oregon Quality Education Model (OQEM)
With Measure 5 and the Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century in place, it was
important for the Oregon legislature to connect the resources provided to schools with the
student learning outcomes that should result (Conley & Picus, 2003). Established in 1999 by
then-Governor John Kitzhaber, the OQEM was modeled after Governor Kitzhaber’s signature
legislative achievement, the Oregon Health Plan, a state health insurance for low-income
citizens. Kitzhaber, a former emergency room physician, created the Oregon Health Plan to not
only prioritize health care services but provide only those for which funding was appropriated
(Conley & Picus, 2003). His goal was to create a similar model for education where the state
would know how much money it needed to dispense to K-12 education and local districts would
determine which programs to fund and which programs to cut. Ultimately, the OQEM would
create “prototype” schools that would demonstrate first what schools were currently doing with
the funds they had currently and second, what phased and full implementation would cost for the
recommendations made by the OQEM (Conley & Picus, 2003; ODE, 2013).
The OQEM is defined by several key characteristics. First, it is derived from Oregon’s
definition of a quality education. The Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century was:
the most important single influence on the definition of a quality education…its stated
goal was to have the best educated citizen in the nation by the year 2000 and a workforce
equal to any in the world by the year 2010. (Conley & Picus, 2003)
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

31
In addition, the OQEM was designed around schools as the unit of analysis simply because
schools are the basic operating unit in K-12 education (Conley & Picus, 2003). Schools are used
as the measure for whether student performance is improving or declining, and evidence suggests
that the foundation for improvement with diverse student populations is school-based reform
(Farkas & Hall, 2000; Conley & Picus, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005). Finally, the OQEM
establishes a strong relationship between the resources allocated, programs implemented, and
expected learning results (Conley & Picus, 2003).
Conley and Picus (2003) suggest that the OQEM:
seeks to establish the state’s overall fiscal obligation by creating prototype schools that
hypothetically provide an adequate education while leaving local schools the option to
pursue the instructional programs of their choosing, so long as local programs are as
effective as the prototype schools are assumed to be. (p. 608)
Since its inception in 1999, the recommendations made by the OQEM have been used both the
governor and the legislature in developing every biennial education budget (OAIS, 2012; ODE,
2013). Conley and Picus (2003) make two points about the OQEM: (1) it set the stage for the
debate about educational priorities and resources that is rooted in data and grounded in sound
educational practice; and (2) it is going to be extremely difficult to connect state funding with
school-level learning outcomes in ways that allow continued discretion at the school-level.
Senate Bills 253, 909, and 1581
Although the OQEM has been vital in establishing the priorities for educational
budgeting, it does not guarantee adequate educational funding or improved educational
performance. In 2011, Governor John Kitzhaber looked to build on the both the Oregon
Educational Act for the 21st Century and the recommendations of the OQEM (OEIB, 2011). In
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

32
2011, the Oregon Legislature passed two Senate Bills that had been recommended by Governor
Kitzhaber: Senate Bill 253 and Senate Bill 909. The following year, Governor Kitzhaber signed
Senate Bill 1581 into law.
Senate Bill 253 (SB 253) defines the goal of Oregon’s education system is to ensure, by
2025, that: (1) 40 percent of all adult Oregonians have a bachelor’s degree or higher; (2) 40
percent have earned an associate’s degree or post-secondary credential; and (3) 20 percent have a
high school diploma or the equivalent (SB 253, 2011; OEIB, 2012). At the time of signing, only
29% of young Oregon adults ages 25-34 had earned a bachelor’s degree from a four-year
institution, 17% had an associate’s degree, and 13% had not graduated from high school or
earned its equivalent (OEIB, 2012).
In conjunction with SB 253, Senate Bill 909 (SB 909) created the Oregon Education
Investment Board (OEIB) with the express purpose of ensuring that all public school students in
Oregon reach the educational outcomes established by SB 253 (SB 909, 2011; OEIB, 2012). The
OEIB would accomplish this by coordinating funding for all levels of education, from Pre-K to
the universities, and like the OQEM, would tie education goals and outcomes to budgeting. In
addition, SB 909 expected the OEIB to develop an education investment strategy to improve
defined learning outcomes from early childhood through public schools, colleges and
universities. It would establish a statewide student database, from early childhood through higher
education, that encourages accountability for outcomes, and provide better information for
policy-makers, educators, students and their families to ensure progress along the entire
educational path (SB 909, 2011). Also, SB 909 required the hiring of a Chief Educational Officer
to oversee the unified public education system (OEIB, 2012). Finally, SB 909 required that the
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

33
OEIB report back to the Oregon Legislature by Dec. 15, 2011, on progress and potential
legislation for the 2012 legislative session (SB 909, 2011; OEIB, 2011; OEIB, 2012).
One of the key recommendations from the OEIB to the Oregon Legislature was the
creation of achievement compacts with every K-12 school district, education service district,
community college, and the university system. Senate Bill 1581 (SB 1581) accomplished that by
requiring annual achievement compacts beginning with the 2012-13 school year (SB 1581, 2012;
OEIB, 2012). According the OEIB (2012), the achievement compacts would “inform budget and
program decisions at the local level. They also will showcase best practices, creating
opportunities to bring schools and colleges together in meaningful collaborations” (p. 1). SB
1581 also allowed Governor Kitzhaber and the OEIB to apply for a waiver from NCLB and
design their own system for educational accountability and achievement. Ultimately, SB 1581, in
conjunction with SB 253 and SB 909, gives the Oregon Education Investment Board the
authority to design, organize, and implement a state-level P-20 system.
Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB)
Established by SB 909 in 2011, the Oregon Education Investment Board is chaired by the
governor and is charged with “overseeing an effort to create a seamless, unified system for
investing in and delivering public education from early childhood through high school and
college so that all Oregonians are well prepared for careers in our economy” (ODE, 2013). SB
253 defined the overarching goal for the OEIB: by 2025, 40% of adult Oregonians have earned a
bachelor’s degree or higher, that 40% have earned an associate’s degree or post-secondary
credential, and that the remaining 20% or less have earned a high school diploma or its
equivalent (40/40/20 goal). In order to accomplish this, SB 1581 mandated that local school
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

34
districts enter into achievement compacts with the OEIB, beginning with the 2012-13 school
year.
Overview
In an effort to duplicate the success of the premise behind the Oregon Health Plan,
Oregon governor, John Kitzhaber, sought to prioritize educational services and provide only
those for which funding was appropriated (Conley & Picus, 2003). Similar to the OQEM, the
OEIB was created to determine which educational priorities should receive significant funding
(OEIB, 2012; Oregon Education Association [OEA], 2012a). According the State of Oregon
website (2013), the specific obligations of the OEIB are as follows:
1. Develop an education investment strategy to improve defined learning outcomes from
early childhood through public schools, colleges and universities.
2. Hire a Chief Education Officer to oversee the unified public education system.
3. Establish a statewide student database, from early childhood through higher education
that encourages accountability for outcomes, and provides better information for
policy-makers, educators, students and their families to ensure progress along the
entire educational path.
4. Establish an Early Learning Council to streamline and strengthen early childhood
services to at-risk youth to ensure all children are ready to learn when they enter
kindergarten.
5. Report back to the Oregon Legislature, on progress and legislation to accomplish the
40-40-20 goal established by SB 253.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

35
Achievement Compacts
One of the components of Governor Kitzhaber’s efforts to “organize a system of
accountability and support to ensure student success from pre-K to college and career readiness”
was the creation of the achievement compact (OEIB, 2012; OEA, 2012b; OEIB, 2013). In
accordance with SB 1581, all K-12 districts were mandated to enter in annual achievement
compacts with the OEIB. The primary goal of the achievement compacts is to focus funding and
strategies at the state and local level on the achievement of the statewide education goals
(Nesbitt, 2012). In a letter to district superintendents and school boards, OEIB manager, Tim
Nesbitt, outlined the purpose of Achievement Compacts (Confederation of Oregon School
Administrators [COSA] et al., 2012; Nesbitt, 2012):
1. Align all sectors of our education system toward achievement of the 40/40/20 Goal
and college and career readiness;
2. Focus and inform state investment and local budget and program decisions to achieve
these outcomes;
3. Spotlight best practices and promote collaboration, so that successful districts,
colleges and universities can share their strategies with those that can benefit from
additional guidance and support; and,
4. In K-12 districts, replace provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act with a more
supportive and flexible accountability system.
In an effort to highlight connections across sectors and to encourage districts, colleges,
and universities to begin sharing responsibilities for the progress of students from one institution
or learning stage to another, achievement compacts identified outcome measures that are
identical for all K-12 districts (OEIB, 2012; Nesbitt, 2012; OEA, 2012a). The outcome measures
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

36
are organized into four categories: (1) “College and Career Ready: Are students completing high
school ready for college or career?”; (2) “Progression: Are students making sufficient progress
toward college and career readiness?”; (3) “Equity: Are students succeeding across all buildings
and populations?”; and (4) “Local priorities” (OEIB, 2012; Nesbitt, 2012; OEA, 2012a). Table
2.1 provides definitions and methodologies for each outcome measure in the achievement
compacts.
In addition to the preceding outcome measures, using the OQEM, each K-12 school
district’s compact will include a comparison of the funding it receives for the state versus the
funding required for 90 percent of students to reach state standards. The purpose of this is to help
the OEIB identify the school districts that are achieving better outcomes for roughly the same
amount of funding. The goals are to share the best practices to help students succeed and connect
state investment with student learning outcomes (COSA et al., 2012).
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

37
Table 2.1
Definitions and Methodologies for Outcome Measures in Achievement Compacts
Data Element Definition
Four-Year Graduation The number and percentage of regular high school
diplomas earned in four or fewer years for the cohort of
first-time 9th Graders in the stated year.
Five-Year Graduation The number and percentage of regular high school
diplomas earned in five or fewer years for the cohort of
first-time 9th Graders in the stated year.
Five-Year Completion The number and percentage of first-time 9th Graders in the
stated year that earned a regular high school diploma,
modified diploma, extended diploma, adult high school
diploma or GED within five years of entering 9th Grade.
Third Grade Reading Proficiency Number and percentage of students who met or exceeded
Oregon reading standards through their scores on statewide
assessments in the stated year. Includes only students who
were enrolled (resident) in the district on the first school
day in May and who were Full Academic Year at the
district. Includes as “met” those extended assessments that
met the alternate achievement standards, subject to the one
percent cap.
Third Grade Math Proficiency Number and percentage of students who met or exceeded
Oregon math standards through their scores on statewide
assessments in the stated year. Includes as “met” those
extended assessments that met the alternate achievement
standards, subject to the one percent cap.
Sixth Grade Students On-Track Number and percentage of students who were not absent
for more than 10 percent of their enrolled (resident) days in
the district in the stated year. Includes only those students
reported as 6th Grade in Spring Membership who were
also Full Academic Year in the district.
Note: Taken from Guidance for Completion of Achievement Compacts for 2012-13 by Nesbitt
(2012), p. 9. Copyright 2012 by Oregon Education Investment Board.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

38
Closing the Achievement Gap
One of the key components of the outcome measures is ensuring that all students are
succeeding across all buildings and populations (Nesbitt, 2012). Across the United States, data
collected over the past decade has shown a marked achievement gap for many disadvantaged
students (Farkas et al., 2000; No Child Left Behind Act [NCLB], 2001; Marzano et al., 2005;
Nesbitt, 2012). “Disadvantaged students,” referenced in SB 1581, are defined in OEIB rule,
consistent with federal law, to include K-12 students who are: (1) Economically disadvantaged
students; (2) Limited English proficient students; (3) Students with disabilities; (4) Black
students (not of Hispanic origin); (5) Hispanic/Latino students; (6) American Indian or Alaska
Native students; and (7) Pacific Islander students. Districts were informed that setting targets in
both the completion and progression categories of their compacts will not only require attention
to each student group mentioned above, but the use of data and strategies specific to each was
mandatory as well (Nesbitt, 2012). Nesbitt (2012) noted, “…the 40/40/20 goal must be achieved
equitably, with Oregon’s diversity — racial, ethnic, gender, native language, geographic,
socioeconomic, or disability status — equally well-represented in each level of attainment”
(p. 8).
Chief Education Officer
One of the major charges of SB 909 was the hiring of a Chief Education Officer to
oversee the unified public education system. In May, 2012, Governor Kitzhaber recommended
Dr. Rudy Crew as Oregon’s first Chief Education Officer (CEdO). As CedO, Dr. Crew was
tasked with several projects that included: (1) designing, organizing, and implementing a state-
level P-20 system; (2) developing an outcomes-based budget for education within the framework
of the governor’s statewide 10-year budget project; (3) oversee the implementation and advance
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

39
the use of Achievement Compacts for all public education entities in Oregon; and (4) ensure the
timely development of a longitudinal data base (OEIB, 2012).
As one of the primary projects for the OEIB and the CEdO is to oversee the
implementation and advance the use of Achievement Compacts for all public education entities
in Oregon, both will work with districts to ensure the targets set in the achievement compacts
establish the progress needed over time to achieve the state’s 40/40/20 goals (COSA et al., 2012;
OEIB, 2012; Nesbitt, 2012). To evaluate whether the targets set by a district are appropriate, two
criteria are used: (1) SB 1581 requires that targets reflect the “progress needed” to achieve the
40/40/20 goal; and (2) Oregon’s application for an NCLB waiver requires Annual Measurable
Objectives (AMOs) to be “ambitious but achievable” (COSA et al., 2012). Also, according to SB
1581, the CEdO has final authority on any disputes between the OEIB and local school districts.
Starting in April, 2012, the OEIB distributed compacts to all K-12 school districts with
the expectation that completed compacts would be submitted to the OEIB in July, 2012. School
superintendents and school boards were encouraged to establish advisory committees comprised
of school administrators, teachers, and education support professionals as well as parents and
other community members to create the targets for their individual district’s achievement
compacts. Although the OEIB acknowledged an accelerated timeline, they felt it was essential to
establish baseline information on students (OEIB, 2012).
The accelerated timeline for these first achievement compacts solicited concern and
conflict from a variety of groups. The Oregon Education Assessment felt that the achievement
compacts overemphasized standardized testing and were ambiguous on whether additional
funding would be provided to make necessary improvements to instruction (OEA, 2012a). In
July, 2012, nearly one-third of all districts submitted achievement compacts that anticipated
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

40
stagnant or declining outcome targets (Hammond, 2012). Because SB 1581 grants the CEdO the
authority to decline submitted compacts, Dr. Crew declared these plans unacceptable and
required them to resubmit compacts that were more aggressive and thoughtful (Hammond,
2012). Oregon’s Confederation of School Administrators (COSA) claimed that there goals were
modest because they had little time to set them and lacked reliable figures to know their current
performance levels, let alone how high they could reach next year (COSA et al., 2012;
Hammond, 2012). In addition, COSA asserted that tight budgets are the number one reason
districts set cautious goals (Hammond, 2012). In response to these concerns, Dr. Crew said:
I buy the notion that we need more resources, but the fact of the matter is, it is going to be
a measure of one’s leadership as to how well you are able to at least begin and start
moving in the right direction. You can move the needle. It can be done in Portland. It can
be done in Salem. It can be done in a lot of places. (Hammond, 2012; Crew, 2013)
Principal Leadership
With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, K-12 school districts
are mandated to develop and implement initiatives meant to not only increase student
achievement but decrease the persistent achievement gap that exists for students who are either
Hispanic, African-American, English language learners, special education, or socioeconomically
disadvantaged. Research on effective leadership suggests that ensuring student learning and
shrinking the achievement gap is predicated on the effectiveness of the principal’s leadership
practices (Leithwood et al., 2004; Furkas et al., 2003; National Association of Elementary
School Principals [NAESP], 2008). Nelson and Sassi (2005) went so far as to state that effective
principal leadership is the key to achieving teaching and learning excellence.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

41
The Role Principals Play in School Improvement
With the passing of NCLB, site leadership has been the focus of scrutiny as to the
practices that best characterize the quality of effective leadership and its relationship to student
success (Stronge, Richard, & Catano, 2008). In response to the importance of effective principal
leadership, Leithwood, Louis, Anderson and Wahlstrom (2004) affirm, “Leadership is second
only to classroom instruction among all school-related factors that contribute to what students
learn at school” (p. 7). Leithwood (1994) searched the literature on successful school
improvement and discovered four common core practices: (1) setting directions; (2) developing
people; (3) redesigning the organization; and (4) managing the instructional program.
Setting directions. Principals who establish a clear vision and set goals have a greater
likelihood of success despite some of the challenges they may face when they set high
expectations for all stakeholders in addressing the learning needs of all students (Cotton, 2003;
Leithwood et al., 2004). DuFour et al. (2009) assert that effective principals understand the
importance of guiding the development of the school’s vision and the significance of creating an
environment that allows teachers to take actions that result in ownership of that shared vision.
Fullan (2007) claims that effective leaders are able to assemble and create a vision with
contributions from all stakeholders. Fullan and Hargreaves (1998) assert, “The principal has to
be willing to share control, show vulnerability, and look for ways to involve the reticent or
opposed rather than a favorite few…When the right connections are made, the release of energy
can be powerful” (p. 91).
Developing people. Fullan (2000) states that the most important factor of successful
change is the improvement of relationships. While school improvement is the center focus of the
school’s mission, it frequently fails due to a failure to establish positive relationships between
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

42
adults in the school that are required for sustained successful reform (Whitaker, 2003). DuFour
(2004) claims:
We need leaders who will help schools establish specific, measurable, results-oriented
goals and who help each teacher and team understand how they contribute to these
goals…We need leaders who plan for small wins and who celebrate the successes of
individual teachers, teams of teachers, and the entire school in very public ways. (p. 2)
In School Leadership That Works (2005), Marzano, Waters and McNulty suggest that effective
principals make sure to inspire teachers to accomplish things that might be beyond their grasp
and portray a positive attitude about the ability of the staff to accomplish substantial things.
Redesigning the organization. Hallinger (2005) believes that principals are thought to
be the change agents by influencing the actions of teachers, which in turn impact student success.
Schools facing obstacles to improvement have been unable to change course without a principal
who is able to guide in the daunting task of changing a school’s culture (Fullan, 2007). Fullan
(2000) states that an effective leader must be willing to challenge the equilibrium of the school as
well as possibly disrupting the organization’s traditions and rituals. In addition, leaders must
understand the change process, connect new ideas with existing ones, share knowledge, and have
a clear understanding of the reasons for change (Fullan, 2000; DuFour, 2004; Fullan, 2007).
Marzano et al. (2005) note four specific leadership behaviors that were identified in their meta-
analysis: (1) consciously challenge the status quo; (2) being willing to lead change initiatives
with uncertain outcomes; (3) systematically considering new and better ways of doing things;
and (4) consistently attempt to operate at the edge versus the center of the school’s competence
(p. 45).
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

43
Managing the instructional program. Research confirms that due to NCLB, a principal
is required to be the instructional leader of the school (DuFour, 2004; Marzano et al., 2005;
Leithwood et al., 2004). The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement (2005)
points out that increased challenges from federal, state, and local governments have forced
principals to improve school effectiveness on student learning. Educational leaders must be able
to direct their schools through significant trials posed by accountability requirements, curriculum
standards, and policy directives from many sources (Fullan, 2000; Cotton, 2003). Cotton (2003)
ascertains that principals of high-achieving schools are not only knowledgeable about curriculum
and instruction, they also facilitate frequent discussions with teachers regarding issues and
practices related to instruction. Marzano et al. (2005) suggest that effective principals take it a
step further and ensure that teachers have necessary materials and equipment as well as the
necessary staff development opportunities directly enhance their teaching.
Successful Principal Practices and Behaviors
There are specific qualities and practices of great principals that elevate them above all
other principals (Whitaker, 2003; Cotton, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005). O’Donnell and White
(2005) suggested that effective principal leadership is the key to achieving teaching and learning
excellence. Whitaker (2003) stated, “The difference between more effective principals and their
less effective colleagues is not what they know. It is what they do” (p. 1). Marzano, Waters, and
McNulty (2005) indicate that principals can have a profound effect on the achievement of
students in their schools. Decades of research have consistently found positive relationships
between principal behavior and student academic achievement (Cotton, 2003). Three meta-
analyses that have contributed to the research on successful principals are: (1) Kathleen Cotton’s
Principals and Student Achievement: What the Research Says (2003); (2) Todd Whitaker’s What
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

44
Great Principals Do Differently: Eighteen Things That Matter Most (2003); and (3) Robert
Marzano, Timothy Waters, and Brian McNulty’s School Leadership That Works: From Research
to Results (2005).
Principals and Student Achievement: What the Research Says (2003). Published in 2003,
Principals and Student Achievement: What the Research Says examined over 81 studies over the
past fifteen years dealing with the effects of leadership and student achievement. Cotton
identified twenty-five areas in which principals of high-achieving schools were effective and
provided examples of behaviors that were associated with each area (see Table 2.2).
Cotton took these 25 leadership areas and divided them into five categories. The first is
establishing a clear focus on student learning, including having clear learning goals, a vision,
and high expectations for learning for all students. Second is interactions and relationships
which includes behaviors such as emotional/interpersonal support, visibility and accessibility,
communication and interaction, and parent/community outreach and involvement. The third is
school culture, which includes collaboration, continuous improvement, shared
leadership/decision making, and support of risk taking. The fourth is instruction, which includes
such behaviors as observing classrooms, discussing instructional issues, and giving feedback.
The fifth and final category is accountability, which includes monitoring student progress and
examining student data that drives program improvement.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

45
Table 2.2
Cotton’s Leadership Areas and Behavior Exemplars
Leadership Area Behavior Exemplars
1. Safe and orderly school
environment
• Set standards for student behavior.
• Communicate high expectations for student behavior.
• Apply rules consistently.
2. Vision and goals focused
on high levels of student
learning
• Establish vision of the ideal school.
• Establish clear goals related to the vision.
• Emphasize academic goals and the importance of learning.
3. High expectations for
student achievement
• Expect all students to reach their learning potential.
• Establish a belief in the students’ abilities.
4. Self-confidence,
responsibility, and
perseverance
• Hold themselves responsible for the schools success.
• Are persistent in pursuit of goals despite difficult obstacles.
5. Visibility and
accessibility
• Are visible to all stakeholders.
• Frequently visit classrooms and interact with the school community.
6. Positive and supportive
school climate
• Communicate of school-wide interests.
• Set caring environment on campus.
7. Communication and
interaction
• Good communicator that solicits information from all stakeholders.
• Involves all stakeholders in communication.
• Build positive relationships.
8. Emotional/ Interpersonal
Support
• Capable and caring communicators.
• Support staff/students personal needs.
9. Parent/community
outreach and involvement
• Conducts vigorous outreach to parents and community.
• Engages with traditionally under-represented groups.
10. Rituals, ceremonies, and
other symbolic actions
• Use of ceremonies and rituals to honor traditions.
• Instill pride, recognizes excellence, and strengthens affiliation with the
school.
11. Shared
leadership/decision making
and staff empowerment
• Engage staff and constituents in decision-making.
• Involve everyone in training and provides information needed for
productivity.
12. Collaboration • Activities are routinely collaborative.
• Staffs learn, plan, and work together to improve the school.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

46
Table 2.2, continued
Leadership Area Behavior Exemplars
13. Importance of
instructional leadership
• Actively involved in curriculum and instruction.
14. High levels of student
learning
• Make decisions in light of impact on student learning.
15. Norm of continuous
improvement
• Continually push for improvement.
• Improvement process is part of school life.
16. Discussion of
instructional issues
• Facilitate staff discussion of curriculum and instruction.
• Participate in discussions of curriculum and instruction.
17. Classroom observation
and feedback to teachers
• Visit classrooms frequently.
• Observe and provide feedback to teachers regularly.
18. Teacher autonomy • Respect teachers’ judgment and skills.
• Allow autonomy in organizing and managing their rooms.
• Limit excessive intrusions to the learning environment.
19. Support risk taking • Take calculated risks to improve learning.
• Encourage teachers to be innovative and experiment in the classroom.
20. Professional
development opportunities
and resources
• Offer more and varied professional development.
• Are creative in securing resources needed to improve school.
21. Instructional time • Value instructional time by limiting interruptions.
• Arrange for additional learning time outside the traditional school day.
22. Monitoring student
progress and share findings
• Ensure there is a systematic procedure for monitoring student progress.
• Use and disaggregate data.
• Communicate data to stakeholders.
23. Use of data for program
improvement
• Know how to interpret data.
• Use data to plan curricular and instructional improvement.
24. Recognition of student
and staff achievement
• Make a point of recognizing achievements of students and staff.
25. Role modeling • Exemplify the outlook and behavior they expect from others.
• Work as a part of the school community.
Note: Adapted from Principals and Student Achievement: What the Research Says, by Kathleen
Cotton (2003), Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

47
What Great Principals Do Differently: Eighteen Things That Matter Most (2003).
Whitaker (2003) ascertained that striving to understand what the best principals do, obtaining
insight into how the most successful principals are as leaders, and refining the skills principals
have will produce significant effects on principal leadership. He blended over 40 studies with his
experience training and coaching hundreds of principals every year. He identified eighteen
specific qualities and practices that effective principals display over their non-effective
counterparts (See Table 2.3). The purpose was to establish a framework that sustains the work of
all great principals. Whitaker concludes, “Every principal has an impact. Great principals make a
difference” (p. 164).

Table 2.3
Whitaker’s Eighteen Things That Matter Most
Things That Great Principals Do
Differently Description
1. It’s People, Not Programs Great principals never forget that it is people, not programs,
who determine the quality of a school
2. Who is the Variable? Great principals take responsibility for their own performance
and for all aspects of their school
3. Develop an Accurate Sense of Self Great principals have clarity about who they are, what they do,
and how others perceive them
4. Treat Everyone with Respect,
Every Day, All the Time
Great principals create a positive atmosphere in their schools.
5. Be the Filter Consistently filter out the negatives that don’t matter.
6. Teach the Teachers Deliberately apply a range of strategies to improve teacher
performance.
7. Hire great teachers Take every opportunity to hire and retain the very best teachers
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

48

Table 2.3, continued
Things That Great Principals Do
Differently Description
8. Understand the Dynamics of
Change
Great principals understand the dynamics of change
9. Standardized Testing Keep standardized testing in perspective and focus on the real
issue of student learning.
10. Focus on Behavior, Then Focus
on Beliefs
Know when to focus on behavior before beliefs.
11. Loyal to Whom? Great principals are loyal to their students, to their teachers, and
to the school.
12. Base Every Decision on Your
Best Teachers
Ask one central question, “What will my best teachers think of
this?”
13. In Every Situation, Ask Who Is
Most Comfortable and Who Is Least
Comfortable
Great principals treat everyone as if they were good.
14. Understand the High Achievers Understand high achievers, be sensitive to the best teachers’
needs, and make the most of this valuable resource
15. Make It Cool to Care Great principals understand that behavior and beliefs are tied to
emotions.
16. Don’t Need to Repair — Always
Do Repair
Great principals work hard to keep their relationships in good
repair.
17. Deal with Negative or Ineffective
Staff Members
Take steps to improve or remove negative and ineffective staff
members.
18. Set Expectations at the Start of
the Year
Establish clear expectations at the start of the year and follow
them consistently as the year progresses.
Note: Adapted from What Great Principals Do Differently: Eighteen Things That Matter Most,
by Todd Whitaker (2003). Eye On Education, Inc., Larchmont, NY.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

49
School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results (2005). Marzano et al. (2005)
claim “that the research over the last 35 years provides strong guidance on specific leadership
behaviors for school administrators and that those behaviors have well-documented effects on
student achievement” (p. 7). By conducting a meta-analysis of over sixty studies involving over
2800 schools, Marzano, Waters, and McNulty identified twenty one leadership responsibilities
that are effective in bringing about school reform (See Table 2.4).

Table 2.4
Marzano et al.’s Leadership Responsibilities and Behavior Exemplars
Leadership Responsibility Behavior Exemplar
1. Affirmation Recognizes and celebrates accomplishments and acknowledges
failures.
2. Change agent Willingness to challenge the status quo.
3. Contingent rewards Recognizes and rewards individual accomplishments.
4. Communication Establishes strong lines of communication with staff and students.
5. Culture Fosters shared beliefs and a sense of community and cooperation.
6. Discipline Protects teachers from issues and influences that would detract from
their teaching time.
7. Flexibility Adapts leadership behaviors to the needs of the current situation and
is comfortable with dissent.
8. Focus Establishes clear goals and keeps those goals in the forefront of the
school’s attention.
9. Ideals/Beliefs Communicates and operates from a strong ideals and beliefs about
schooling.
10. Input Involves teachers in the design and implementation of important
decisions and policy.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

50

Table 2.4, continued
Leadership Responsibility Behavior Exemplar
11. Intellectual stimulation Ensures faculty and staff are aware of the most current theories and
practices.
12. Involvement in curriculum,
instruction, and assessment
Is directly involved in the design and implementation of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment.
13. Knowledge of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction, and
assessment practices.
14. Monitoring/evaluation Monitors the effectiveness of school practices and their impact on
student learning.
15. Optimizer Inspires and leads new and challenging innovations.
16. Order Establishes a set of standard operating procedures and routines.
17. Outreach Is an advocate and spokesperson for the school to all stakeholders.
18. Relationships Demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of teachers and
staff.
19. Resources Provides teachers with materials and professional development
necessary for the successful execution of their jobs.
20. Situational awareness Is aware of the details and undercurrents in the running of the
school.
Uses information to address current and potential problems.
21. Visibility Has quality contact and interactions with teachers and students.
Note: Adapted from School Leadership that Works: From Research to Results, by Robert
Marzano, Timothy Waters, and Brian McNulty (2005). Copyright by Mid-Continent Research
for Education and Learning (McREL), Denver, CO.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

51
While Marzano et al. assert that all twenty-one responsibilities are important in bringing
about change, they determined that certain responsibilities are more effective in bringing about
what they define as first-order change. First-order change is incremental and can be thought of as
the next most obvious step to take in a school or district. Incremental change fine tunes the
system through a series of small steps that do not depart radically from the past. Examples of
responsibilities that bring about first order change include monitoring/evaluating, focus, and
discipline. According to Marzano et al., first order change can be likened to the day-to-day
operations of the school.
However, true school reform requires “deep change that alters the system in fundamental
ways, offering a dramatic shift in direction and requiring new ways of thinking and acting”
(p. 66). Marzano et al. refer to this as second-order change. It involves dramatic departures from
the expected, both in defining the problem and discovering a solution. Second-order change is
complex and can negatively impact the school’s culture, communication, and order. Because it is
so uncomfortable, second-order change is rarely attempted. Marzano et al. assert that this is the
reason prevalent problems like the achievement gap have been unsolved. They also found that
seven of the twenty-one responsibilities are instrumental in bringing about second-order change:
(1) Knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment; (2) Optimizer; (3) Intellectual
Stimulation; (4) Change Agent; (5) Monitoring/Evaluation; (6) Flexibility; and (7) Ideals/Beliefs
(p. 70).
The Effects of Standards and Accountability on Principal Leadership
In January 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act of 2001. Designed to bring universal change and require state and local officials to
make decisions required to reinvent the education system, NCLB applied external pressure to
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

52
change what was perceived as a failing education system (Hess & Petrilli, 2004). NCLB rested
on the idea that only strong, external accountability measures focused on both student
achievement and closing the achievement gap would fix a local educational system believed to
be inherently broken (Hess & Petrilli, 2004; CEP, 2007).
Over the last twenty years, but especially with the advent of NCLB, the creation of
standards and heightened accountability has dramatically changed the role of the principal
(Tirozzi, 2001; Cooley & Shen, 2003; Hallinger, 2005). Prior to this, principals were viewed
primarily as managers of schools whose primary role was to be accountable for personnel as well
as budgetary issues (Tirozzi, 2001; Copland, 2001). Now, principals are primarily responsible for
the creation, implementation, and oversight of the instructional program. This instructional
leadership includes all activities that affect student learning and achievement (O’Donnell &
White, 2005). Hallinger (2005) suggested, “Principals again find themselves at the nexus of
accountability and school improvement with an increasingly explicit expectation that they will
function as ‘instructional leaders’” (p. 1).
As accountability of educators has increased over the last two decades, principals find
themselves confronted with a variety of school reform programs. Cooley and Shen (2003)
reiterate this when they state, “Principals find themselves in the ‘eye of the storm’ as society
conditioned by instant gratification and change expects immediate results from the latest reform
efforts” (p. 13). Newspapers and other news outlets publish standardized test scores and rank
schools on their effectiveness in increasing student achievement. State Departments of Education
put out school and district scores while at the same time issue comparative rankings which
heightens the pressures on principals and other school leaders (Copland, 2001; Tirozzi, 2001;
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

53
Hallinger, 2005). Ediger (2001) posits that principals’ reputations are forever linked with the
public report cards on their school’s performance.
Olson (2004) discusses that the push for standards-based reform-and the pressure on
schools to deliver in terms of academic performance-have raised the demands and pressures on
principals and brought an unprecedented level of public scrutiny to their job performance. This
scrutiny has placed a significant emphasis on standardized, high-stakes tests. Several districts
across the country are tying principal contracts and job security to the test scores on these
statewide standardized tests (Cooley & Shen, 2003). This presses principals to rush toward
immediate gains in student achievement often resulting in the compromise of long-term success
for higher test scores (Lashway, 2003).
Although accountability continues to increase, few school leaders have seen many
opportunities to impact educational policy. Coffey and Lashway (2002) comment on this when
they state, “School leaders face the challenge of implementing a system in which they have little
direct control of the key components such as the content of the standards, the makeup of the
tests, and the consequences for performance” (p. 5).
Despite these concerns, the focus on standards and accountability has encouraged school
leaders to gather, analyze, and monitor school data with teachers and staff (Cotton, 2003).
Marzano et al. (2005) showed that the use of assessment data is essential in the examination of
student progress toward instructional standards and is considered a mark of successful schools.
When principals collaborate with classroom teachers in the implementation of common
formative assessments and then use the data to drive instruction, teachers are likely to develop
interventions that have a direct focus on meeting the needs of individual students (DuFour,
2004).
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

54
DuFour et al. (2009) discuss the importance of principals searching for meaningful data,
ensuring that the data is analyzed critically, and using the data to make informed decisions that
drive instruction. In addition, using data to assess student learning is necessary in evaluating
school improvement initiatives and providing students with greater opportunities for learning and
being successful in the future (McEwan, 2003; Whitaker, 2003). Leithwood et al. (2004) assert
that by monitoring the impact of school programs on student learning on a continuous basis, both
principals and teachers are accountable for increasing student learning and decreasing the
achievement gap.
Summary
Cotton (2003), Whitaker (2003), and Marzano et al. (2005) indicate that specific
leadership behaviors can have an effect on student achievement. In short, effective school
leadership is an essential part of an effective school. With NCLB, an effective school is defined
as one that allocates the time and resources necessary for students to succeed and meet the
achievement targets established under the legislation. Stronge et al. (2008), Leithwood et al.
(2004) and DuFour et al. (2009) believe that while it is imperative that principals have the skills,
knowledge, and leadership practices necessary in leading efforts to improve student
achievement, it is also essential to prepare and mentor principals to take on this massive
undertaking.
Principal Training
Peterson (2002) and Darling-Hammond (2010) assert that one area largely overlooked in
many reform movements is site-leadership development. Additionally, principals are now
regarded as key to building of schools that support powerful teaching as well as learning for all
students, rather than simply maintaining the status quo (Center for Comprehensive School
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

55
Reform and Improvement, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2010). Several studies have identified the
vital role that principals play in recruiting, developing, and retaining teachers; creating a culture
of learning in the school; and supporting initiatives that improve student learning (Lashway,
2003; Leithwood et al., 2004; Hallinger, 2005). In one study identifying school leadership as a
vital factor in schools that outperform others with similar student demographics, researchers
found that achievement was higher in schools where principals cultivate a shared vision for the
school, act as managers of school improvement, lead the reform process, and use student data to
drive instructional practice and provide additional time and support to struggling students
(Knapp et al., 2003).
Darling-Hammond (2010) points out, “Knowing that these leadership practices matter is
one thing, but developing them on a wide scale is another” (p. 5). In this section, the focus will
be on: (a) current models of principal training and preparation; (b) the role districts play in
supporting principals and holding them accountable; and (c) proposed changes to current
practices.
Current Models of Principal Training and Preparation
Peterson and Kelley (2002) report that while it is estimated that there will be a substantial
increase in the number of principal vacancies nationally over the next five years, many school
districts are reporting shortages in qualified candidates to fill them. There are three problems
contributing to this shortage. First, traditional administrative preparation programs have not
attracted adequate numbers of high-potential candidates who are committed to leadership roles in
the places where they are needed (Hallinger, 2005). Second, the working conditions of schools
with high percentages of socioeconomically disadvantaged students, coupled with lack of
advancement opportunities, make it challenging to retain strong site leaders (Peterson, 2002;
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

56
Whitaker, 2003). Finally, principals are too often ill-prepared and inadequately supported to take
on the work of challenging school reform (Knapp et al. 2003; Hallinger, 2005; Darling-
Hammond, 2010). To counter this, it is imperative to recruit the right people, prepare them
thoroughly, and support them as they lead schools in implementing reform in schools aimed at
fostering student’s abilities (Peterson & Kelley, 2002; Darling-Hammond, 2010).
Traditionally in the United States, initial preparation programs for site-leaders have been
an assortment of courses focused primarily on management principles, school laws, and
administrative protocol (Elmore, 1999-2000; Marsh, 2000). Additionally, these programs often
fail to link theory with practice and are frequently out of touch with the demands of school
leadership (Elmore, 1999-2000; Peterson, 2002). Darling-Hammond (2010) asserts that often
missing from the curriculum are topics related to the design of instruction, effective instructional
practices, and the requirements of building communities across diverse school stakeholders.
Also, field-based practicum experiences often do not provide real-world opportunities to grapple
with the demands of school leadership while under the direction of a highly qualified mentor
(O’Donnell & White, 2005). Too often, practicum hours are disconnected from the hands-on
trials and tribulations of a principal’s job and are instead focused on writing papers or
completing group projects conducted while a candidate is still teaching full-time (Olson, 2004;
O’Donnell & White, 2005).
Peterson (2002) and Darling-Hammond (2010) point out that it is not only many pre-
service programs that inadequately prepare principals; frequently, in-service training provided by
districts also does not go far enough to develop principals once they have obtained a site-
leadership position. Although district induction programs are becoming more wide-spread, few
districts offer mentoring for beginning principals to “help them learn how to make sense of this
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

57
complex job, prioritizing and juggling its many demands and developing skills in managing other
adults” (Darling-Hammond, 2010, p. 11). Many districts continue to spend significant resources
on one or two-day workshops instead of emphasizing ongoing support that would align school
activities with best practices (Reeves, 2004).
Despite some districts doing little to support professional development for principals and
others offering disjointed programs, several districts are viewing ongoing, multi-faceted
professional development as a significant part of an integrated, district-based reform strategy
(Darling-Hammond, 2010). Recent examples of successful programs include San Diego City
Schools, Hartford (Connecticut) School District, Jefferson County (Kentucky) Public Schools,
and Region 1 in New York City (Darling-Hammond, 2010). While varied in their approaches,
each of these programs made significant steps to overhaul their systems of preparation and in-
service development for principals, making sustained, systemic investments.
The Role Districts Play in Supporting Principals and Holding Them Accountable
Like many other districts throughout the country, these four districts allocated resources
for various school improvement measures like additional time and support for struggling
students, professional development for teachers focused on instructional design and lesson
development, and current educational technologies (Peterson, 2002). While other districts also
had principal development programs of varying degrees, the school districts in San Diego, CA;
Hartford, CT; Jefferson County, KY; and Region 1 of New York City had three similar
conditions that were present in their principal training programs: dedicated program advocates
and leaders, strong university-district partnerships, and significant financial support (Darling-
Hammond, 2010).
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

58
Louis et al. (2008) and Darling-Hammond (2010) indicated that each of these programs
had a core of dedicated individuals who acted as champions and leaders for their respective
programs. These people worked tirelessly to create curriculum, coordinate schedules, and secure
resources. While many district officials were instrumental in implementation and design, district
superintendents were key to leading these programs. They frequently coordinated with college
deans as well as university and district program directors.
Another key distinction was that all four districts worked in partnership with local
universities to develop strong school leadership programs. Universities provided district-based
professional development, tuition waivers, and coaches for new principals (Darling-Hammond,
2010). Districts helped develop applicable and relevant university-based curriculum while
providing incentives for attending and completing these programs. University program advisors
worked with districts to identify and recruit strong teacher leaders who would make strong
principals (Knapp et al., 2003).
District financial support was also an important component of all of these successful
programs. Leithwood et al. (2004) and Hoy et al. (2006) point out that implementation of a high-
quality principal training program can be a costly venture. While all four districts used both
public and private funding, district commitment to the training program was a key defining
factor (Leithwood et al., 2004). Also, because of the coordination between local universities and
school districts, funding was possible through university subsidy.
Even with strong district leadership, district-university collaboration, and financial
backing, it is also important that districts establish an infrastructure that assures principal
accountability (Peterson, 2002; Marzano et al., 2005). All four of these districts adopted the
usage of the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards for school
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

59
administrators. These professional standards were used not only in accreditation of principals but
also in performance assessments of both new and veteran principals (Knapp et al., 2003).
Proposed Changes to Current Practices
Leithwood et al. (2004), Marzano et al. (2005), and Darling-Hammond (2010) suggest
that it is feasible to craft pre-service and in-service programs that develop principals who can
engage successfully in several of the practices that are associated with school success: leading
instructional improvement, cultivating a shared vision, managing change, and developing
organizational capacity. Districts like San Diego, CA, Hartford, CT, Jefferson County, KY, and
New York City crafted programs that included stronger internship designs, specific curricular
emphases, more intensive mentoring, and more pervasive professional learning opportunities
(Darling-Hammond, 2010).
One of the key components of these district programs was the partnering with local
universities to craft engaging and relevant pre-service programs. For example, San Diego City
Schools partnered with the University of San Diego’s Educational Leadership Development
Academy (ELDA) and the University of Connecticut’s Administrator Preparation Program
(UCAPP) collaborated with the Hartford School District. Darling-Hammond (2010) found that
all of these pre-service programs held common elements that included:
1. A comprehensive and coherent curriculum aligned to state and professional standards;
2. A program philosophy and curriculum that emphasize leadership of instruction and
school improvement;
3. Active, student-centered instruction employing pedagogies that facilitate the
integration of theory and practice while stimulating reflection of practice;
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

60
4. Faculty who are knowledgeable in their subject areas, including practitioners who
have experience in K-12 teaching and school administration;
5. Formalized mentoring and advisement from expert principals; and
6. Well-designed and supervised administrative internships that provide opportunities
for candidates to engage in leadership responsibilities for significant periods of time
under the tutelage of expert veterans (pp. 181-182).
In addition, rather than waiting to see who would enroll, all of these programs worked
with districts to identify and recruit strong potential candidates who were excellent teachers with
strong leadership potential. This increased the likelihood that program graduates would have
significant and relevant instructional leadership experience (Peterson, 2002; Darling-Hammond,
2010).
Similarly, districts like Jefferson County, KY and Region 1 of New York City developed
exemplary in-service programs committed to strengthening principal effectiveness through a
continuous learning program aimed at development and implementation of specific practices
required of instructional leaders (Leithwood et al., 2004; Hoy et al., 2006; Darling-Hammond,
2010). Three features characterized these districts’ efforts:
1. A learning continuum operating systematically from pre-service preparation through
induction and throughout the career, involving mature and retired principals in
mentoring others;
2. Leadership grounded in practice, including analyses of classroom practice,
supervision, and professional development using on-the-job observations connected
to readings and discussion and organized around a model of leadership; and
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

61
3. Collegial learning networks, such as principal networks, that create communities of
practice and sources of ongoing support for problem solving (Darling-Hammond,
2010, p. 183).
In addition, principals participated in district-supported professional development that
encouraged peer observations and visits to other schools. These districts engaged principals in
guided walk-throughs of schools to look at specific practices in classrooms and then discussed
how to evaluate and improve instructional practice and lesson design (Peterson, 2002; Hoy et al.,
2006).
Summary
Peterson and Kelley (2002); Leithwood et al. (2004); Hoy et al. (2006); and Darling-
Hammond (2010) suggest that there are significant implications for districts attempting to design
effective principal training programs. First, recruitment and selection are key components of the
program design. Second, it is important that programs are aligned with state and professional
standards. Third, lasting partnerships between districts and universities allow for the
development and implementation of a coherent and consistent program of professional
development. Finally, effective programs require considerable resources, both human and
financial, to support learning that is embedded in practice. As Darling-Hammond (2010)
emphasizes:
The collaborative effort needed to create such a system is made worthwhile by the
importance of developing a generation of strong, savvy leaders who can create schools
that provide expert teaching for all students in setting in which they can succeed. (p. 192)
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

62
Professional Development
With the passing of NCLB, the federal government has mandated that states, districts,
and school implement change initiatives to address achievement gaps in student learning
(Borman et al., 2003; Hess & Petrilli, 2004; Marzano et al., 2005). After over a decade since
NCLB’s passage, the level of student academic achievement across the nation has not shown
significant improvement (Fullan, 2007; DuFour et al. 2009). Reeves (2010) points out that good
intentions are insufficient to bring about meaningful change in student achievement and teacher
efficacy. Rather, it is important that the principal, in conjunction with his or her teachers, provide
meaningful and focused professional development opportunities that increase teacher
effectiveness in lesson design and instructional practice (Smith & Andrews, 1989; Marzano et al.
2005). Schmoker (2012) contends, “Professional development must be devoted exclusively to
proven or research-based methods to ensure student success” (p. 68). When done purposefully
and with focus, professional development of teachers will have a deep and lasting impact on
student achievement (DuFour et al., 2009).
The Key Characteristics of Effective Professional Development
Butler (1992) and Desimone (2011) identify three desired potential outcomes of staff
development. The first is information transfer where participants receive information about new
approaches, requirements, techniques, etc. The next possible outcome is skill acquisition where
participants are taught a particular way of doing something. Finally, behavior change is where
new information and/or skills are taught with the expectation that participants will apply the new
learning and change their behaviors. While behavior change has the most lasting impact on
students learning, the potential for upsetting school culture and teacher practice makes it the
most challenging (Marzano et al., 2005)
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

63
Because of the impact of the change, Lindstrom and Speck (2004) and the Educational
Resources Information Center (Educational Resources Information Center [ERIC], 1998)
indicate that there are several key components of high quality professional development (PD)
that include: (1) PD centers on learning and sustaining student learning; (2) it nurtures
collaboration and collegiality among teachers, other staff, and the principal; (3) PD deepens
teachers’ teaching practices and content knowledge; (4) it materializes from student data and the
desire to improve student results; (5) it focuses on the adult learner through learning styles,
options, and job-embedded work; (6) PD utilizes shared leadership, support systems both inside
and outside the school, and other resources; (7) PD centers on research with a foundation in
student learning and accountability; (8) it emphasizes the usage of student data to drive lesson
design and instructional practice; and (9) PD involves ongoing practice, reflection, and
observation.
Garet et al. (2001); Desimone (2011); DuFour and Marzano (2011); and Schmoker
(2012) believe that of this list the four most important characteristics include:
1. Focusing on core content and modeling of teaching strategies and data-driven
decision making;
2. Opportunities for embedded active learning of new teaching strategies;
3. Opportunities for collaboration among teachers; and
4. Inclusion of embedded follow-up and continuous feedback.
They also contend that the most effective way for these characteristics to be implemented in
through the implementation of the professional learning community (PLC). DuFour and Marzano
(2011) believe that creating PLCs within the school is a significant component of school
improvement efforts on student learning. Schmoker (2012) asserts:
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

64
(PLCs) help teachers understand their proper role and focus: to work in teams to
continuously clarify, reinforce, monitor, and improve the implementation of curriculum
focused on essential standards, strong lesson design, and effective instructional practice
by using assessment data to ensure that increasing percentages of students learn essential
knowledge and intellectual skills. (p. 69)
DuFour (2004) stresses that PLCs allow for schools to capitalize on internal expertise rather than
external staff development. In addition, school leaders who create professional learning
communities in their schools allow staff members to focus on shared commitments and values
that emphasize student learning rather than focusing solely on teaching (Fullan, 2000; DuFour,
2004; Schmoker, 2012).
The Role of the Principal in Leading Professional Development at the School Site
Blasé and Kirby (2000) and Stronge et al. (2008) highlight that one of the most important
duties of instructional leaders is to organize the professional learning opportunities within their
schools. In addition, it is imperative that principals be aware of the connection between learning
and professional development (Stronge et al., 2008). Fullan and Stiegelbauer (1991) expand
upon this when they say, “Sustained improvements in schools will not occur without changes in
the quality of learning experiences on the part of those who run the schools” (p. 344).
In School Leadership the Works: From Research to Results (2005), Marzano, Waters,
and McNulty emphasize specific roles and responsibilities that a principal must take in order to
effectively implement successful professional development. The principal is the center of any
change movement (Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991; Marzano et al., 2005). Thus, Marzano et al.
(2005) suggest that the most important role of the principal in leading professional development
is to understand the role as a change agent. Because the purpose of staff development is to elicit
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

65
change or improvement, principals must be willing to challenge the status quo, consider new and
better ways of doing things, and be willing to lead change initiatives with uncertain outcomes
(Butler, 1992; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1998; Marzano et al., 2005). Fullan and Stiegelbauer (1991)
suggest that principals must enjoy a clear purpose of the change, share knowledge, possess
strong relationships, comprehend the change process, and unite new ideas with existing ones.
As with any change initiative or professional development opportunity, Blasé and Kirby
(2000) point out that shared decisions are usually better than individual ones. Butler (1992)
points to several studies that found that professional development participants appreciated being
involved in the planning, development, and presentation of the training program. In addition,
teachers emphasized the need that professional development was planned in response to the
assessed needs of the participants and content matches the current development of the
participants (Butler, 1992; Garet et al., 2001; Reeves, 2004; Desimone, 2011). Marzano et al.
(2005) emphasize that this can be accomplished when principals seek input for staff by providing
opportunities for staff to be involved in developing school policies and seeking their input on
important decisions, like staff development.
Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) suggest that it is important that principals have
knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices. In many high-achieving schools,
principals are knowledgeable of effective and research-based practices in lesson design,
instructional practice, and assessment (Cotton, 2003). Garet et al. (2001) and Desimone (2011)
found that effective principals facilitated frequent discussions with teachers about issues related
to instruction and used the evidence of student assessments to determine teaching strategies that
would improve student performance.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

66
Finally, principals who are knowledgeable of the curriculum, practitioners of shared
decision making, and are willing to be change agents will not have successful professional
development opportunities if they do not provide the resources necessary for success (Marzano
et al., 2005; Desimone, 2011). DuFour (2004) and Reeves (2010) emphasize that teachers must
have the time built into the weekly schedule to meet with their colleagues to discuss data on
student achievement, their students’ work, and lesson planning. In an effort for teachers to
practice what they have learned in their classrooms, observe other teachers, or conduct
demonstration lessons, principals must provide release time and substitute coverage (Garet et al.,
2001; Desimone, 2011). Garet et al. (2001) illustrate that this allows teachers to engage in
collaborative teaching and provides opportunities for embedded active learning of new strategies.
Schmoker (2012) notes that professional development, especially peer-to-peer collaboration is an
invaluable resource and improved teacher satisfaction.
Summary
One of the primary functions of the school principal is to ensure that teachers have the
necessary staff development opportunities to directly enhance their teaching (Marzano et al.,
2005). It is important that site principals involve their teachers in the process of determining
appropriate staff development. Garet et al. (2001) ascertain that leaders ensure that all
professional development opportunities are sustained, intensive, and classroom-focused in order
to have a positive and lasting impact on classroom instruction and teacher’s performance in the
classroom.
Summary
In preparation for this study, the review of literature in this chapter included an overview
of Oregon’s efforts at K-12 educational reform, the roles, responsibilities, and efforts of the
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

67
Oregon Education Investment Board, the impact of principal leadership on school reform, the
current and future models of principal training, and the components of professional development
and the role of the principal in leading it. The purpose of this study is to: (1) understand the role
Oregon elementary principals played in the creation of the goals established by the achievement
compacts mandated by Oregon Senate Bill 1581; (2) what in-service training opportunities are
being provided by district officials to support site principals and hold them accountable; and
(3) identify how site principals intend to implement these goals at their individual sites. The
following chapter will summarize the methodology that will be used in conducting this study.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

68
CHAPTER 3
METHODS
Introduction
In 2011, the Oregon Legislature and Governor John Kitzhaber passed into law SB 253.
This law established the “40/40/20” goal for Oregon education. SB 909 established the Oregon
Education Investment Board (OEIB) with the express purpose of ensuring that all public school
students in Oregon reach the educational outcomes established by SB 253. In 2012, SB 1581 was
signed into law mandating that all districts enter into achievement compacts with the OEIB to
establish goals towards closing the achievement gap and making progress towards the
“40/40/20” goal. In addition, SB 1581 allowed the OEIB to seek a waiver from the constraints of
No Child Left Behind.
In conjunction with Oregon’s ESEA waiver, in 2012, the Oregon Department of
Education through the Office of Assessment and Information Services was:
required to develop and implement a system of differentiated recognition, accountability,
and support for all local educational agencies (LEAs) in the State and for all Title I
schools in these LEAs. One of the requirements of this system was that it identify certain
Title I schools as Priority, Focus, and Model schools. (ODE, 2013, p. 5)
Elementary schools are rated in the following three areas:
• Academic Achievement — percent meeting or exceeding standard in reading and
mathematics.
• Growth — individual student gains in reading and math.
• Subgroup Growth — individual student gains for historically underserved subgroups.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

69
The ratings in each category are combined into an overall rating that is one of five levels,
with Level 5 being the highest rating, and Level 1 being the lowest rating. This rating is used to
identify priority, focus, and model schools as follows:
• Priority Schools: Title I schools rated as Level 1 and all schools currently served by
a federal School Improvement Grant.
• Focus Schools: Title I schools rated as Level 2 and that have an achievement gap.
• Model Schools: Title I schools rated as Level 5 (ODE, 2013).
This study investigated how principals of “model” schools are: (1) successful in leading
reform movements that addressed the achievement gap at their schools both before and after the
implementation of the achievement compacts; (2) involved in the creation of the achievement
compacts for their districts; (3) spearheading and developing staff development in the
implementation of the achievement compacts at their respective sites; and (4) supporting other
Title I school principals, especially those who are leading schools classified as “priority” or
“focus” schools. In addition, this study researched how superintendents and the district office
are: (1) preparing and supporting principals in the implementation of the compacts, and (2) using
model schools to support other principals in the district. The methodology that was used
throughout this study was collecting qualitative data from four “model” schools located within
three districts in Oregon.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study are:
• Prior to the implementation of the achievement compacts, what leadership practices,
strategies, and protocols were individual principals at “model” schools implementing
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

70
at their sites to address the needs of SED, ELL, and underserved minorities? Were
there any similarities in leadership practices, strategies, or protocols?
• What role did individual principals of “model” schools play in the development of the
new achievement compacts mandated by Senate Bill 1581?
• What changes, if any, will “model” schools have to make to meet the achievement
compact?
• How are individual principals of “model” schools preparing/supporting their staffs in
the implementation of the compacts?
• How is the district preparing/supporting site principals in the implementation of the
compacts and how will they use “model” schools to drive reform?
Purposeful Sample and Population
This study focused on high-poverty schools that had been designated as model schools
for the state of Oregon. To be classified as a model elementary school, schools must receive Title
I funding from the federal government and be in the top 5% of all Title One schools in the state.
As part of new accountability measures established by Oregon’s ESEA waiver, each elementary
school is assigned a rating based on three performance indicators: (1) the percent of students
meeting or exceeding standards in reading mathematics; (2) individual student gains in reading
and math; and (3) individual student gains for historically underserved subgroups. These three
indicators are weighted and combined to give each school an overall achievement level. Levels
are calculated using the percentage of points earned out of the total points eligible. For schools
with data on all indicators, the total points possible are 25 for Academic Achievement, 50 for
Academic Growth, and 25 for Subgroup Growth. The total score is matched to the scoring guide
in Table 3.1 to determine the school’s rating.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

71
Table 3.1
Overall Level Assignments: Oregon’s Next Generation Accountability Policy
Level Assignment Weighted Percent
Level 5 87.0 or higher
Level 4 70.0 to 86.9
Level 3 47.0 to 69.9
Level 2 26.5 to 46.9
Level 1 Less than 26.5
Note: Taken from 2011-12 Next Generation Accountability Policy and Technical Manual by
Office of Assessment and Information Services (2012), p. 30. Copyright 2012 by Oregon
Department of Education.

The first performance indicator used to determine overall levels is academic achievement,
which reflects the percent of students meeting or exceeding on the state math and reading tests.
The rating system assigns schools a rating in both reading and mathematics on a five-point scale
for each test. To do this, the Oregon Department of Education looks at the combined percent of
all students in the school who met or exceeded the state standards on the Oregon Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills (OAKS). It is then compared to Table 3.2 to determine the number of
points earned in each subject.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

72
Table 3.2
Elementary School Academic Level Cutoffs
Points Reading Math
5 91.4 82.1
4 79.2 63.0
3 67.9 50.0
2 59.5 39.5
1 <59.5 <39.5
Note: Taken from 2011-12 Next Generation Accountability Policy and Technical Manual by
Office of Assessment and Information Services (2012), p. 9. Copyright 2012 by Oregon
Department of Education.

The cutoffs for the various levels are determined as follows:
• 5 points: schools at this level are in the top 10 percent of all schools in the state for
the percent met in reading or mathematics.
• 4 points: schools at this level are above the average of all schools in the state, but not
in the top 10 percent.
• 3 points: school that are below the state average in percent met, but also not in the
lowest 15 percent of schools.
• 2 points: schools that are in the lowest 15 percent of schools in terms of percent met,
but not in the lowest 5 percent.
• 1 point: schools that are in the lowest 5 percent of all schools in the state for percent
met in reading or mathematics (OAIS, 2012).
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

73
To calculate the achievement rating, the points earned in reading and mathematics are
added together and then compared to Table 3.3 to assign a level score for Academic
Achievement. While the rating system uses points to determine a level, it is the percent of points
earned in each category that is incorporated into the overall rating calculation. Thus, the percent
of points earned is not equivalent to the percent met.

Table 3.3
Achievement Level Cutoffs
Rating Points Percent of Points Earned
Level 5 9 or 10 90% or 100%
Level 4 7 or 8 70% or 80%
Level 3 5 or 6 50% or 60%
Level 2 3 or 4 30% or 40%
Level 1 2 20%
Note: Taken from 2011-12 Next Generation Accountability Policy and Technical Manual by
Office of Assessment and Information Services (2012), p. 10. Copyright 2012 by Oregon
Department of Education.

The second and third performance indicators used to determine a school’s overall level
are academic growth and subgroup growth. Academic growth indicates the level of student
progress on the reading and math tests. The indicator reflects: (1) median growth: how the
growth of a typical student at the school compared to other students statewide; and (2) target
growth: the level of growth sufficient for the typical student to meet or exceed state standards
within three years (OAIS, 2012). Subgroup growth measures the growth of historically
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

74
underserved student subgroups. It disaggregates the academic growth indicator and reflects the
median and target growth for economically disadvantaged, limited English proficient, students
with disabilities, and historically underserved races/ethnicities (OAIS, 2012). In essence, the
Oregon Department of Education (ODE) is using a student growth percentile (SGP) to determine
how much a student has learned compared to his or her academic peers who have similar
standardized test scores. The SGP allows educators to see whether a student has progressed
similar to, greater than, or less than comparable students (OAIS, 2012). Growth percentiles are
reported on a normative scale from 1 to 99 with higher percentiles indicating greater growth. In
Oregon, schools were given points based on a median growth percentile. Schools received 5
points if the average student improved more between two grade levels than 60 percent of
students with a similar OAKS score the previous year. Table 3.4 shows the point values for each
cutoff.

Table 3.4
Median Growth Percentile Points Cutoffs (Academic and Subgroup)
Points Median Growth Percentile
5 60
4 45
3 35
2 30
1 <30
Note: Taken from 2011-12 Next Generation Accountability Policy and Technical Manual by
Office of Assessment and Information Services (2012), p. 17. Copyright 2012 by Oregon
Department of Education.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

75
To calculate both the academic growth and subgroup growth scores, like with the
Academic Achievement rating, the points earned in reading and mathematics are added together
and then compared to Table 3.5 to assign a level score for Academic Growth. The same process
is then used for Subgroup growth. While the rating system uses points to determine a level, it is
the percent of points earned in each category that is incorporated into the overall rating
calculation. Thus, the percent of points earned is not equivalent to the percent of students
meeting their growth targets.

Table 3.5
Academic and Subgroup Growth Level Cutoffs
Rating Points Percent of Points Earned
Level 5 9 or 10 90% or 100%
Level 4 7 or 8 70% or 80%
Level 3 5 or 6 50% or 60%
Level 2 3 or 4 30% or 40%
Level 1 2 20%
Note: Taken from 2011-12 Next Generation Accountability Policy and Technical Manual by
Office of Assessment and Information Services (2012), p. 10. Copyright 2012 by Oregon
Department of Education.

Identifying Schools
In 2012, 26 elementary schools located within 21 different districts in Oregon were
classified as model schools and were given an overall performance rating of five. For the purpose
of this study, one model school from at least three different districts was chosen. As mentioned
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

76
previously, in order to be considered a model Title I school, each of the schools must have at
least 40% of the students qualify for the free or reduced lunch program and are identified
socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED). Additionally, to see how these model schools were
closing the achievement gap with Hispanic/Latino, African-American, or English language
learner subgroups, schools chosen had either 20% of students classified as “underserved
races/ethnicities” and/or 20% designated as English language learners as referenced in SB 1581.
Table 3.6 includes a summary of the student demographics for the schools that were selected for
this study.

Table 3.6
Percentages of Students Classified as EL, SED, or Underserved Minority
School % ELL % SED % Underserved
Douglas 13% 45% 21%
Hamilton 23% 42% 38%
Burr 27% 48% 44%
Carter <5% 53% 21%
Source: Oregon Department of Education (2013)

Because a significant portion of Oregon’s ESEA waiver addresses the closing of the
achievement gap, only model schools that achieved a Level Five rating in the Academic Growth
and at least a four in Subgroup Growth performance indicators were considered. Table 3.7
includes each school’s points earned in overall academic growth and subgroup growth for the
2011-12 school year.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

77

Table 3.7
Points Earned in Academic Growth and Subgroup Growth
School Subgroup
2011-12
Reading
2011-12
Math
Total Points
Earned Level
Douglas Academic Growth 4 5 9 5
SED 4 5 9 5
Underserved 3 4 7 4
ELL 4 4 8 4
Hamilton Academic Growth 5 5 10 5
SED 4 4 8 4
Underserved 4 5 9 5
ELL 4 3 7 4
Burr Academic Growth 4 5 9 5
SED 4 4 8 4
Underserved 4 4 8 4
ELL 4 4 8 4
Carter Academic Growth 5 5 10 5
SED 5 4 9 5
Underserved 4 4 8 4
ELL 4 4 8 4
Source: Oregon Department of Education (2012)
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

78
Also, to gauge the impact of principal leadership on a school both before and after the
implementation of the achievement compact, principals of the sites selected were administrators
at their sites for at least three years.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
A purposeful sample of schools was used during this study and included both qualitative
and quantitative methods of data collection and analysis. Whitaker’s (2003) Eighteen Things
That Matter Most for Successful Principals and Marzano et al.’s (2005) Twenty-One
Responsibilities of the School Leader was used as a conceptual framework for analyzing the
leadership practices, strategies, and protocols individual principals at “model” schools
implemented at their sites.
Site principals and district superintendents were contacted via certified letter, including a
follow-up phone call, to introduce the study and determine their willingness to participate in the
study. Interviews were conducted in late August and September, 2013. As stated earlier, all of
the schools that were selected were classified as “model” schools, which designated each school
as a top performing school whose student populations were a combination of socioeconomically
disadvantaged students, underserved minorities and/or English language learners. Thus, in
addition to interviews, principals were asked for site improvement plans, professional
development plans, as well as mission and vision statements. Superintendents were asked about
district allocation of resources to the sites (i.e., professional development opportunities funded
by the district, instructional coaches, additional staffing, etc.) and the district’s improvement
plans for the last two years. Interviews with district superintendents were conducted over the
phone and were recorded so that the researcher could review transcripts at a later time. These
interviews focused on: (1) the process used to create the achievement compact; (2) the role
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

79
model schools played in the creation of the achievement compact; (3) how the district intended
on using “model” schools to support other elementary schools in the district; and (4) what level
of support and training was provided to site principals as they implemented the achievement
compacts.
Interviews with site principals were conducted following superintendent interviews.
These were also completed over the phone and recorded. The emphasis of these interviews was
on: (1) what leadership practices, protocols, and strategies were implemented to close the
achievement gap at individual sites prior to the achievement compact; (2) the role site principals
played in the creation of the achievement compact for their individual district; (3) how the
achievement compact had impacted their individual site; (4) what support the district had
provided both before and after the implementation of the achievement compact; and (5) how they
determined what support and/or professional development their site needed to continue to make
progress.
In preparation for this study, a thorough analysis of student demographic and
achievement data was conducted for each site using the Oregon Department of Education’s
database (ODE, 2012). This analysis of quantitative data included three years of Next-Gen
Accountability reports for each school, student demographics, school and district improvement
plans, and district achievement compacts.
Data Analysis
Data analysis occurred immediately after each interview. All data for each school and
each district was verified for accuracy and described in a detailed case study. If necessary, an
additional phone interview was conducted if clarification was warranted or additional
information was needed.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

80
Each interview included an analysis of the leadership practices implemented at the
individual school sites both before and after the creation and implementation of the achievement
compact. An essential component of this study was to see if there were similarities in the
strategies and practices successful principals are employing at model schools. Additionally, the
role of the “model” school in the creation of the district’s achievement compact and the function
it played in the implementation of the achievement compact was also examined. Specifically, the
researcher was attempting to determine if model schools and their principals were being used to
improve principal effectiveness at other lower-level elementary schools in the district and the
state. The results are discussed in chapter four, and a summary including final recommendations
are included in Chapter 5.
Summary
With the implementation of a new accountability reporting system, Oregon has
established a method for determining which schools in Oregon are best meeting the needs of
under-served students and closing the achievement gap. These model schools have the potential
for impacting student learning, program implementation, and principal effectiveness. The
information gathered from this study will hopefully provide policymakers, practitioners, and
researchers with a better understanding of how model schools can be implemented to influence
significant gains in student learning. The following chapter will provide a summary as well as
significant details from each interview as well as an analysis to the five research questions used
in this study.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

81
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
Introduction
In this chapter, the findings of the study are presented beginning with an overview of the
characteristics and performance data of the three sample districts and the corresponding sample
model schools found within their respective borders. The research questions were used as a
framework to review the findings from the schools and reveal the following: (1) the role
principals of “model” schools played in the creation of the achievement compacts for their
respective districts; (2) the leadership practices, strategies, and professional development
opportunities principals of “model” schools utilized prior to the implementation of these
achievement compacts and which ones they implemented after; and (3) the role “model” schools
and their principals had in helping other schools close their achievement gaps.
In the 2011-12 school year, twenty-one districts in Oregon had at least one model school
with eight of the twenty-one having at least two model schools. For this study, five of those eight
districts were initially approached to participate in the study. Of the five original requests, three
superintendents agreed to participate. District superintendents were interviewed prior to
approaching model schools. Once the superintendent had been interviewed and permission
granted, model school principals were invited to participate in the study. Of the seven model
schools that were contacted, four site principals agreed to participate in this study (two model
schools from one district assented to be interviewed).
As mentioned in Chapter 3, there were a total of thirty elementary schools that met the
criteria established by the state to qualify as a model school. To be granted model school status, a
school must not only have at least forty percent of its student population classified as
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

82
socioeconomically disadvantaged and qualified for the federal free-or-reduced lunch program. In
addition, these Title I model schools have the highest absolute performance for the “all students”
subgroup and for all subgroups. Finally, a model school must be making adequate yearly
progress (AYP) for all subgroups in the school and must not have significant achievement gaps
(ODE, 2012).
The following section shows a comparison of the three districts chosen as well as the
profiles of the four model schools that were selected.
Summary of Sample Districts’ Characteristics and Performance
The three districts in this study are located within a fifty-mile radius from Portland,
Oregon. District average daily attendance (ADA) ranges from 6320 to 12,380. Of that
enrollment, districts saw ranges of 34%-59% of their population qualify as socioeconomically
disadvantaged (SED), which guaranteed these students free or reduced lunch as part of the Title I
program established the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). In addition, 12%-
26% of the students within these districts served students who were English language learners
(ELL).
As a key component of the achievement compacts, districts are to address issues
regarding disadvantaged students as referenced in Oregon Senate Bill 1581 to include K-12
students who are: socioeconomically disadvantaged students, limited English proficient students,
African-American students (not of Hispanic origin), Hispanic/Latino students, American Indian
or Alaska Native students, and Pacific Islander students (OEIB, 2012). The total percentages of
these particular ethnicities represents the category of underserved minorities that must be
addressed in district achievement compacts to close the achievement gap between these
minorities and white and Asian populations. Of their total student populations, Reagan School
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

83
District has 24% classified as underserved minorities while Jefferson and Lincoln School
Districts have 32% and 35% of their students having this classification respectively. Table 4.1 is
a summary of the sample districts’ enrollment and the percentages of students who were
classified as either an English language learner (ELL), socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED),
and/or an underserved minority.

Table 4.1
Summary of Total Enrollment and Percentages of Students Classified as ELL, SED, or
Underserved Minority
District Enrollment % ELL % SED % Underserved
Lincoln 6403 26% 59% 35%
Jefferson 12380 21% 36% 32%
Reagan 6320 12% 34% 24%
Source: Oregon Department of Education (2013)

The ethnic breakdown of all three districts was also similar. All three had over 60% of
their populations classified as white. The Hispanic population was second in all three districts
with percentages ranging from 14%-32%. Asian populations ranged from 6% in both the
Jefferson and Reagan school districts to only 1% in Lincoln School District. Black/African-
American students made up no more than 2% of any of the three school districts’ enrollments.
Table 4.2 is a summary of the ethnic composition of the sample districts.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

84
Table 4.2
Percentages of Ethnic Breakdown for Sample Districts
District % White
% Hispanic/
Latino
% Black/
African-
American % Asian % Other/Multi
Lincoln 64% 32% 1% 1% 2%
Jefferson 62% 23% 2% 6% 7%
Reagan 70% 14% 1% 6% 9%
Source: Oregon Department of Education (2013)

With regard to student achievement data, all three districts are above the state average in
the percentages of all students who are proficient or above on the Oregon Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills (OAKS) in English/language arts, mathematics, and science. Lincoln
School District had over 80% of its students proficient or advanced on all three tests. While
Jefferson School District had only 71.4% of its student proficient or above in math, it was still
nearly ten points higher than all elementary students in Oregon and six points higher than like-
district averages. Reagan School District had the highest percentage of students proficient or
above in English/language arts of the three districts with 84.6%. Table 4.3 shows the percentages
of elementary school students who were proficient or above on the three OAKS tests as well as
the comparison to all Oregon elementary students. Because all but one of the model schools in
Oregon were elementary schools, and because the focus of this study is on elementary model
schools, only the achievement data of district elementary students was included.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

85
Table 4.3
Proficiency Rates for Elementary Students in Sample Districts in Comparison to Statewide
Results
District/State % Prof — Reading % Prof — Math % Prof — Science
Lincoln 80.2% 82.4% 84.4%
Jefferson 81.1% 71.4% 73.8%
Reagan 84.6% 74.9% 76.3%
Oregon — statewide 71.0% 62.1% 68.1%
Source: Oregon Department of Education (2013)

Summary of Sample Schools’ Characteristics and Performance
The state’s differentiated accountability system determines Model school status through
the use of an overall rating system. According to Oregon’s ESEA waiver, model schools are
Title I schools with highest absolute performance for all students and for all subgroups. A model
school must be making annual yearly progress (AYP) for all subgroups in the school and must
not have significant achievement gaps (ODE, 2013).
As with their districts, all four model schools are located within a fifty-mile radius of
Portland, Oregon. School enrollment ranges from a low of 279 students at Carter Elementary in
the Reagan School District to a high of 624 students at Burr Elementary in the Jefferson School
District. Table 4.4 shows the enrollment numbers, the grade levels served, and the districts they
are associated with for each of the four model schools that participated in this study.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

86
Table 4.4
Summary of Four Schools that Participated in This Study
School Grades Enrollment District
Douglas K-5 497 Lincoln
Hamilton K-5 544 Jefferson
Burr K-5 624 Jefferson
Carter K-5 279 Reagan
Source: Oregon Department of Education (2013)

One of the greatest similarities between the four schools is the high percentage of
students who are classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) while the percentages of
ELL students are significantly lower. Hamilton Elementary in the Jefferson School District had
the lowest percentage with 42% while Carter Elementary in the Reagan School District had the
highest with 53%. While it has the highest percentage of students who are SED, Carter
Elementary has the lowest number of students classified as ELL students with under 5%. Burr
Elementary in the Jefferson School District was highest with 27% of its students being ELL
students. The percentage of students who are underserved according the Oregon Department of
Education ranges from 21% in both Carter and Douglas Elementary schools with Hamilton and
Burr Elementary schools having 38% and 44% respectively. Table 4.5 summarizes the
percentages of students who are classified as ELL, SED, and/or an underserved minority for the
four schools in this study.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

87
Table 4.5
Percentages of Students Classified as EL, SED, or Underserved Minority
School % ELL % SED % Underserved
Douglas 13% 45% 21%
Hamilton 23% 42% 38%
Burr 27% 48% 44%
Carter <5% 53% 21%
Source: Oregon Department of Education (2013)

Like their districts, all four schools serve predominantly white students with the second
largest percentage being Hispanic students. Both Douglas and Carter Elementary schools’
populations are 78% White while Burr Elementary is at the low end of the spectrum with 55% of
its student population being White. Hispanic/Latino made up the next largest group of students
with Burr Elementary having the highest percentage with 34% while Carter Elementary only had
9%. Table 4.6 illustrates the total ethnic breakdown for each school.

Table 4.6
Ethnic Breakdown for Each of the Four Model Schools
School % White % Hispanic % Black % Asian % Other
Douglas 78% 18% 1% 1% 2%
Hamilton 58% 27% 1% 4% 10%
Burr 55% 34% 2% 1% 8%
Carter 78% 9% 2% 2% 10%
Source: Oregon Department of Education (2013)
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

88
Finally, one of the key components of why these four schools received “model”
designation is due to their success in helping students of all subgroups show academic growth in
English/language arts, math, and science as evidenced by results on the OAKS. All four schools
had over 80% proficiency in language arts and science and above 70% proficiency in math. In
comparison to the statewide average, all four schools had higher proficiency rates by double-
digit percentages, especially with underrepresented minorities. For example, Douglas Elementary
was 37.6 points higher in math proficiency for SED students in comparison to students statewide.
In fact, with SED students, all four schools had higher proficiency rates in reading and science
than similar students across the state. Only one school (Hamilton Elementary) was under the
state average (by 1.3 points). Tables 4.7-4.9 illustrate the total proficiency rates for all schools
for five significant subgroups: all students, White Students, SED students, ELL students, and
Hispanic/Latino students.

Table 4.7
Total School Proficiency — Reading
School/State All White SED ELL Hispanic
Douglas 89.5% 93.2% 81.0% 67.6% 72.5%
Hamilton 84.4% 92.1% 69.9% 61.7% 70.0%
Burr 80.7% 84.5% 71.4% 65.5% 69.8%
Carter 84.1% 83.9% 76.9% 62.1% 83.3%
Oregon — Statewide 71.0% 77.7% 60.2% 46.5% 52.1%
Source: Oregon Department of Education (2013)
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

89

Table 4.8
Total School Proficiency — Math
School/State All White SED ELL Hispanic
Douglas 92.6% 94.1% 87.9% 91.2% 87.5%
Hamilton 73.5% 84.2% 49.0% 42.6% 52.1%
Burr 74.1% 82.0% 60.9% 55.2% 57.3%
Carter 70.3% 72.3% 58.5% 57.2% 56.7%
Oregon — Statewide 62.1% 68.0% 50.3% 43.3% 45.2%
Source: Oregon Department of Education (2013)

Table 4.9
Total School Proficiency — Science
School/State All White SED ELL Hispanic
Douglas 88.2% 92.0% 73.8% 57.1% 63.6%
Hamilton 84.8% 95.0% 63.6% 42.9% 64.3%
Burr 85.7% 95.0% 70.2% 57.1% 62.5%
Carter 83.7% 86.0% 72.7% 49.3% 63.5%
Oregon — Statewide 68.1% 76.5% 55.5% 39.6% 45.3%
Source: Oregon Department of Education (2013)
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

90
In addition, these four schools have had consistent success on statewide testing for the
last several years. In fact, with all of the schools in this study, the schools’ percentages of
students who are proficient or above has been consistently higher than the statewide average
starting as far back as the 2010-11 school year. Table 4.10 shows the consistency in proficiency
levels for the four schools in the study. It is important to note that to qualify for Title I funding
through the federal government, a school must have at least 40% of its population classified as
socioeconomically disadvantaged and qualify for the federal free-or-reduced lunch program. As
mentioned previously, of the four schools in this study, Hamilton Elementary has the lowest
percentage of SED students with 42% while Carter Elementary has 53% of its population
qualifying for the free-or-reduced lunch program. In addition, while statewide scores have
continued to decline, scores at the four model schools in this study have largely remained
consistent. Tables 4.10-4.13 summarize the total percentages in school proficiency for the four
schools in comparison to the statewide average from the 2010-11 school year through the 2012-
13 school year.

Table 4.10
Total School Proficiency — Douglas Elementary (2010-11 – 2012-13)
Subject
2010-11
%
Oregon
Performance
% (2010-11)
2011-12
%
Oregon
Performance
% (2011-12)
2012-13
%
Oregon
Performance
% (2012-13)
Reading 92.9 82.7 89.3 73.1 89.5 71.0
Math 89.4 62.8 90.4 63.6 92.6 62.1
Science 90.7 75.0 89.4 70.0 88.2 68.1
Source: Oregon Department of Education (2013)
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

91

Table 4.11
Total School Proficiency — Hamilton Elementary (2010-11 – 2012-13)
Subject
2010-11
%
Oregon
Performance
% (2010-11)
2011-12
%
Oregon
Performance
% (2011-12)
2012-13
%
Oregon
Performance
% (2012-13)
Reading 91.5 82.7 93.5 73.1 84.4 71.0
Math 68.3 62.8 85.1 63.6 73.5 62.1
Science 75.3 75.0 74,2 70.0 84.8 68.1
Source: Oregon Department of Education (2013)

Table 4.12
Total School Proficiency — Burr Elementary (2010-11 – 2012-13)
Subject
2010-11
%
Oregon
Performance
% (2010-11)
2011-12
%
Oregon
Performance
% (2011-12)
2012-13
%
Oregon
Performance
% (2012-13)
Reading 90.1 82.7 77.7 73.1 80.7 71.0
Math 74.9 62.8 71.0 63.6 74.1 62.1
Science 94.6 75.0 73.0 70.0 85.7 68.1
Source: Oregon Department of Education (2013)
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

92
Table 4.13
Total School Proficiency — Carter Elementary (2010-11 – 2012-13)
Subject
2010-11
%
Oregon
Performance
% (2010-11)
2011-12
%
Oregon
Performance
% (2011-12)
2012-13
%
Oregon
Performance
% (2012-13)
Reading 92.5 82.7 80.0 73.1 84.1 71.0
Math 69.9 62.8 65.6 63.6 70.3 62.1
Science 90.0 75.0 82.8 70.0 83.7 68.1
Source: Oregon Department of Education (2013)

Research Questions
Question 1 — Prior to the implementation of the achievement compacts, what leadership
practices, strategies, and protocols were individual principals at “model” schools
implementing at their sites to address the needs of SED, ELL, and underserved minorities?
Were there any similarities in leadership practices, strategies, or protocols?
Mendels (2012) and Leithwood et al. (2004) point out that principal and site leadership is
second only to teacher quality among school-related factors in its impact on student learning. In
addition, educational reform needs leadership, especially at the site level and the impact of
leadership tends to be greatest in schools where the learning needs of students are most acute
(Knapp et al., 2003; Leithwood et al., 2004; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Dufour & Marzano,
2011). During interviews, site principals of the four model schools shared a variety of strategies
that were employed at their sites both prior to the implementation of the achievement compacts
as well as following the compacts’ institution. Many of these strategies, protocols, and practices
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

93
can be found in the works of Whitaker (2003), Cotton (2003), and Marzano et al. (2005)
regarding successful leadership practices in site principals.
Marzano et al. (2005) reiterate that true school reform requires “deep change that alters
the system in fundamental ways, offering a dramatic shift in direction and requiring new ways of
thinking and acting” (p. 66). One of the key attributes to bring about this change is an emphasis
on culture. This fosters shared beliefs and a sense of community and cooperation (Cotton, 2003;
Marzano et al., 2005). All four schools emphasized that this focus on culture was an instrumental
reason for success. For example, the principal at Reagan Elementary said, “Our school culture
focuses on the notion that all of our students belong to all of us.” The site leadership team at
Douglas Elementary emphasizes that they (both teachers and parents) set high expectations for
all students and do what it takes to get there. The superintendents of their respective districts
reiterated both of these notions. The superintendent of the Jefferson School District discussed
how the culture of the schools was about instruction and what they do for kids. Reagan School
District’s superintendent stressed how her principals as well as the parents and staff of the
schools “knows they can make a difference with a can-do attitude.” In addition, she felt that there
was a “relentless passion” to do what is best for students, even if it meant calling out those who
have a negative attitude towards any student.
Cotton (2003), Whitaker (2003), and Marzano et al. (2005) all stress that site principals
ensure faculty and staff are aware of the most current educational theories and instructional
practices. Marzano et al. (2005) refer to this as “intellectual stimulation,” while Cotton (2003)
relates this to the importance of instructional leadership. Both Burr Elementary and Carter
Elementary implement a practice where teachers spend time observing their colleagues in a non-
evaluative setting with an emphasis on collecting qualitative data on things like student
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

94
engagement and frequency of checking for understanding. In addition to collecting data to
present a school-wide picture, these 15-20 minute observations present an opportunity to share
best practices and are advocated by many as a way to share best practices (Fullan, 2000; Garet et
al., 2001; Cooley & Shen, 2003; DuFour et al., 2009; Darling-Hammond, 2010).
In addition to classroom observations, several of the districts emphasize what Whitaker
(2003) refers to as the “teacher of the teacher” model. In short, specific people are trained in a
particular strategy or procedure with the expectation that they will then train others at their site.
Both the Reagan and Lincoln School Districts emphasize the importance of this model and
stressed how it was instrumental in the gains at their schools, especially with underserved groups
like SED, ELL, and Hispanic/Latino students. For example, in the Lincoln School District, there
was an emphasis on math instruction and the importance of including English learners in general
education mathematics classes as quickly as possible because of the belief that math is critically
important regardless of ethnicity. Principals were trained extensively in instructional practices
and trained their staffs in these practices through a combination of coaching, observations, and
continual conversations and dialogue. Early adopters of the instructional practice were coached
into helping their colleagues who were struggling. This led to sophistication and confidence for
site principals and exemplary teachers to provide feedback, input, and coaching to improve the
instructional practices of all teachers. This emphasis on math instruction and the incorporation of
ELL students was clearly evident in statewide testing. In 2012, Lincoln School District had
82.4% of its elementary students proficient in math, which was 20.3% higher than all students in
Oregon. One of its model schools, Douglas Elementary, had 92.6% of its student proficient in
math in comparison to 62.1% of all Oregon elementary students. In addition, 91.2% of Douglas’s
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

95
ELL students were proficient in math, which is nearly 48% higher than all ELL students
statewide.
Cotton (2003) stresses that effective principals employ a shared leadership model at their
sites. Marzano et al. (2005) found “input” or involving teachers in the design and implementation
of important decisions and policy to be one of the 21 essential leadership behaviors of effective
principals. All of the model schools in this study employed site leadership teams to help run the
school. Douglas Elementary was so proud of its site-leadership team that the members of the
team were interviewed alongside the principal for this study. Burr Elementary and Carter
Elementary stressed that site leadership teams were instrumental in determining the professional
development that each site implemented at its staff meetings. In addition, Hamilton Elementary
emphasized that the site leadership team shaped and communicated the strong ideals and beliefs
about the instructional practices and educational policies that the school implemented.
In addition to a focus on school culture, site-based decision-making, and an emphasis on
practical professional development, there existed several similarities in practices amongst the
four schools. One of the chief among them was the usage of data driven decision-making. Cotton
(2003), Marzano et al. (2005), and DuFour et al. (2009) stress the importance of using data to
monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of a program or practice. Using the data to not only
determine what students have learned and not learned but how it drives instruction is one of the
chief tenets of the professional learning community (DuFour et al., 2009).
All four schools attributed their emphasis on data as one of the key reasons for their
success as a model school. Douglas Elementary uses the data to provide timely interventions for
students who are struggling. They go so far as to track data for each individual student to identify
where each child is academically and determine the steps that need to be taken to reach the goal
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

96
that every child gains a year of growth regardless of starting point. Hamilton Elementary,
through qualitative data collected through its team classroom observations, noted that several
students groups, especially ELL and Hispanic/Latino students were not actively participating in
lessons. Thus, there was a drive to increase the number of students who have to answer and have
to participate. In addition to using data, several of the sites saw the need to be trained in the
usage of formative assessments. Both Carter Elementary and Douglas Elementary spent
significant time ensuring that teachers were well versed in the importance of frequent formative
assessment and how those results would drive instructions (McEwan, 2003; Reeves, 2004;
Marzano et al., 2005; Stronge et al., 2008; DuFour et al., 2009; Reeves, 2010).
As mentioned before, many of the school ascribed to the tenets of the professional
learning community. However, DuFour et al. (2009) highlight that it is also imperative that
successful PLC schools build time within the school day for teachers to meet to evaluate data,
share best practices, and plan instruction. Both Hamilton Elementary and Carter Elementary have
as much as much as eighty to ninety minutes of release time for teachers built into the course of
the school week. Hamilton Elementary uses a part of this time to focus on specific reading,
language arts, and writing instructional strategies that will benefit all students in all subjects.
Their mantra has become, “We are all English teachers.” Thus, they use PLC time during the
week to look at their students and determine ways that struggling students (especially those who
are SED or ELL) can improve academic vocabulary and writing proficiency in all subjects.
Carter Elementary uses its PLC time for teams to observe each other in an effort to share best
practices.
Finally, tying into their professional learning communities, one of the biggest similarities
in practice that was found in all four model schools was the incorporation of the response to
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

97
intervention (RtI) model. Originally a special education practice, RtI has expanded to ensure the
time and support for all students to succeed at high levels (DuFour et al., 2009; Reeves, 2010;
Buffum et al., 2010). Through RtI, schools not only provide universal access to programs for all
students, but they provide targeted and systematic interventions to all students as soon as they
demonstrate need (Buffum et al., 2010). For many of the model schools, one of the first steps
was to shift the view that RtI was only a special education referral system. For both Hamilton
Elementary and Carter Elementary, this proved to be a multi-year process as additional training
and support was provided to the teachers to ensure they were teaching the lowest achieving
students as well as the higher ones. The principal of Carter Elementary said this was a
tremendous shift in culture as teachers accepted the paradigm that “all of our students belong to
all of us.” To accomplish this, the principal and the teachers crafted ninety minutes a day for
reading: sixty minutes were set aside for core instruction for all students with an additional thirty
minutes of intervention support. Again, diagnostic data determined not only which students
needed additional time and support, but which reading intervention should be applied.
Douglas Elementary, Hamilton Elementary, and Burr Elementary also adopted the notion
that the students were not “my students” but “our students. Like Carter Elementary, Douglas
Elementary pulled resources to ensure success regardless of a student’s classroom. All teachers,
including those physical education, art, special education, and music took part in the intervention
process. Both Hamilton and Burr Elementary schools saw the need to provide additional
professional development in response to intervention and how to implement it. For Burr
Elementary, that meant a school-wide focus on writing across the curriculum. The principal at
Hamilton Elementary provided training and coaching in the impact of RtI on SED and ELL
students. This led to an emphasis on increasing the opportunities for the usage of academic
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

98
language in all subjects through sentence frames. The physical education teacher at Douglas
Elementary summed up the importance of RtI to each school’s success, “Our instruction is
purposeful by focusing on core standards with same goal in mind…success breeds success.”
Question 2 — What role did individual principals of “model” schools play in the
development of the new achievement compacts mandated by Senate Bill 1581?
For each of the three districts, there was a desire to include as many voices as possible in
order to give the conversations regarding the achievement compact perspective. As such,
Lincoln, Jefferson, and Reagan School Districts all set up advisory committees to determine the
courses of action necessary to implement the district’s achievement compact. Included on the
committees were district office officials, site principals at all levels, teachers, parents, and board
members. While the principals of the four model elementary schools in this study were not on
any of the district committees, model schools were represented on the committees of all three
districts.
While each of the three districts looked at the creation and implementation of the
compact differently, all three districts used existing district and school improvement plans to
drive the committee’s dialogue and purpose. For example, the Reagan School District felt that
the achievement compact was as useful a tool as one could make it. Thus, they inputted the data
and had the committee look for trends. As the superintendent described, the hope was that the
achievement compact would align with the district and school improvement plans and remind all
stakeholders of what must be focused on: socioeconomically disadvantaged children, students
who are English language learners, students in special education, and students who come from
underrepresented minorities. For the Jefferson School District, the committee served as a
representative of the district’s entire leadership team. The committee frequently went back to the
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

99
team for feedback and then used the feedback to refine the targets to meet needs. In the Lincoln
School District, the committee found that the committee’s conversations were more important
and valued than the document itself, but that it did focus on the priorities found in both school
and district improvement plans.
When asked about any struggles the committee encountered in creating and/or
implementing the achievement compacts, all three of the districts experienced little difficulty
with the implementation, but had varying degrees of problems with its creation. All three
superintendents emphasized that school improvement plans really drive school improvement
because, as the superintendent of Jefferson Schools said, “the closer we get to the classroom
(data-wise), the better we are at meeting the needs of our students.” He emphasized that district
goals are established by the classroom data at the school sites. The Reagan School District
superintendent reiterated this when she pointed out that school improvement plans are more
personalized and thus able to provide interventions for a specific group of students, something
that the achievement compacts cannot do. For her, the school improvement plans drive the
district goals and determine the funding necessary to close the achievement and opportunity gaps
at each of the specific sites.
In addition, all three of the districts mentioned the difficulty in using timely data to set
achievable goals. Two of the superintendents mentioned that due to what they felt were
unrealistic timelines initially established by the OEIB, districts did not have the data to fill in
appropriate cells on spreadsheets because statewide reports on current student achievement data
did not come out until that following August. Thus, while the original compacts were due in
June, the data needed to fill in the spreadsheets was not available until two months later. Finally,
the superintendent of Jefferson School District commented that the compact represented an
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

100
additional layer that the schools and the district were having difficulty trying to incorporate into
its current model.
Even at the sites, the achievement compact has had little impact on the instructional
practices at the schools. The principals at both Hamilton Elementary and Carter Elementary
indicated that there has been little in the way of conversations about the achievement compacts
because they feel the compacts have not changed what they are doing at the elementary level. All
four model schools emphasized that their school improvement plan drives their instructional
focuses, priorities, and staff development. The principal at Carter Elementary indicated that the
compact gave the district “umbrella” issues that do not necessarily translate to individual school
sites.
This does not mean that the districts and school sites did not see positive impacts of the
achievement compacts. For example, the superintendent of the Lincoln School District felt that
the compact allowed for reflection on incremental changes and that the committee brought in
various voices from different levels and interest groups. In addition, the compacts show promise
of expanding the conversations between early childhood and K-12 educators as well as those
between K-12 and community colleges and four year universities. Reagan School District’s
superintendent felt the compacts had a greater impact for secondary education, especially with
the enacting of alternative pathways to high school diplomas and the possibilities of earning
college credit while still in high school. She also highlighted that the achievement compacts have
focused the conversations at the district level to equity funding in efforts to close what she
referred to as the “opportunity gap.” Title 1 Elementary schools are the pilot programs for that
district’s iPad program and dual-immersion program. Additionally, the superintendent of the
Jefferson School District saw the achievement compact as a positive way to align resource
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

101
allocation for schools to access professional development to meet the needs of their struggling
subgroups. Finally, all three superintendents felt that the compacts allowed the district the
opportunity to celebrate successes of both students and school sites.
Question 3 — What changes, if any, will “model” schools have to make to meet the
achievement compact?
As mentioned before, for the model schools participating in this study, there was very
little that the school felt it had to change in order to implement the achievement compacts. Their
state-wide assessment data and common formative assessments impacted their individual school
improvement plans more than the achievement compact did. For these schools, the achievement
compact confirmed that the site was focusing on the right things. Prior to the compact, Oregon
state standards and the Oregon Aptitude, Knowledge, and Skills (OAKS) test focused site
direction on achieving percentage of proficiency. The principal of Douglas Elementary added to
that when she noted the compact reinforced “all of the things we were currently doing…just
maybe worded differently.”
As the achievement compacts confirmed current school improvement plans for the four
schools in the study, the compacts also highlighted the areas of growth for each of the four
schools that still need to be addressed. For Douglas Elementary, significant ethnic subgroups
have grown in numbers dramatically over the last ten years, which has led to struggles providing
social, academic, and emotional differentiation for these students. Challenges working with
growing Hispanic and Pacific-Islander populations have been the focus at Hamilton Elementary.
For Burr Elementary, the struggle has been the constant presence of an achievement gap despite
efforts to close it. Finally, for Carter Elementary, they noticed that not only were students
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

102
classified as SED not ready for school academically or behaviorally, but traditionally high-
achieving students were showing limited, if any, growth from year to year.
As mentioned previously, inclusion of RtI and PLCs has had a significant impact on the
success of model schools. Another similarity found at all four model schools has been the
emphasis of ongoing professional development, specifically at staff meetings. Research indicates
site-specific, ongoing, systematic professional development is essential for student learning and
teacher growth (McEwan, 2003; Reeves, 2004; Marzano et al., 2005; Stronge et al., 2008;
DuFour et al., 2009; Reeves, 2010). Both Burr Elementary and Carter Elementary organized
walk-throughs where teachers watched their colleagues teach. The data collected at these walk-
throughs then influenced the type of professional development provided at staff meetings.
Hamilton Elementary emphasized the need for “bite-sized,” in-house professional development
so that teachers could implement a strategy immediately, talk about it with their colleagues
during PLC time and then reflect on how they could make it better for next time. Both Douglas
Elementary and Carter Elementary saw lasting impact by using teacher-coaches to lead
discussion and mentoring in essential standards, data collection, formative assessments, and
research-based instructional strategies. These coaches planned lessons, observed colleagues, and
provided feedback in a non-evaluative structure.
One key change that came with the achievement compacts was the revamping of the
teacher evaluation system. In 2009, President Barack Obama announced the Race to the Top
(RTTT) initiative, which looked to fund innovations and reform movements in K-12 education at
the state and local district level (U.S. Department of Education, 2010a). RTTT also included a
provision which allowed states the opportunity to seek a waiver from NCLB compliance
provided the state demonstrated an actionable plan to address the achievement gap through
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

103
accountability and high standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2010b). States could submit an
application that would waive them from the requirement that 100% of all students be proficient
in language arts and mathematics by 2014. One key provision of the waiver is that states revamp
their teacher evaluation protocols (U.S. Department of Education, 2010a). Due to this provision,
districts began training their principals in these new procedures.
All three superintendents spoke about the importance of the new teacher evaluation
model that principals would be using and felt that the new rubrics and evaluative model will have
a positive impact on teaching. The Reagan School District is organizing teams of principals to do
walkthroughs at each other’s sites to collaborate the new rubrics. Professional development for
site-principals includes topics on conducting observations using the new rubrics, giving
constructive and timely feedback, implementing coaching and mentoring to struggling teachers.
In both the Lincoln and Jefferson School Districts, site principals are organized into PLCs as
well. Continual conversations and dialogue as well as a sharing of best practices has led to a
sophistication and confidence in providing feedback, input, and coaching.
Question 4 — How are individual principals of “model” schools preparing/supporting their
staffs in the implementation of the compacts?
Many of the things that site principals of the four model schools are doing to prepare for
the implementation of the achievement compacts are similar to the things they were doing prior
to implementation. As mentioned before, all four schools have implemented a response to
instruction model (RtI) to ensure that struggling students are getting the additional time and
support they need in order to be successful. Both Hamilton Elementary and Carter Elementary
have incorporated professional learning community (PLC) time into the course of the workweek,
which has allowed their teachers to collaborate on best instructional practices as well as analyze
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

104
data from formative assessments. School leaders who create professional learning communities
in their schools allow staff members to focus on shared commitments and values that emphasize
student learning rather than focusing solely on teaching (Fullan, 2000; DuFour, 2004; Schmoker,
2012).
Because the achievement compacts are data-driven, all four principals reiterated the
importance of using data to drive instruction. The focus on standards and accountability has
encouraged school leaders to gather, analyze, and monitor school data with teachers and staff
(Cotton, 2003). Marzano et al. (2005) showed that the use of assessment data is essential in the
examination of student progress toward instructional standards and is considered a mark of
successful schools. In addition, all four principals found it imperative to provide staff training in
how to collect and interpret data, and then provide substitute teachers so that classroom teachers
could be released to analyze the data and determine appropriate responses. Both Carter
Elementary and Douglas Elementary have taken this a step further in providing professional
development in not only the creation of formative assessments but also the usage of the results to
determine instructional focus for upcoming lessons, interventions for struggling students, and
areas of growth for teacher instructional practice. When principals collaborate with classroom
teachers in the implementation of common formative assessments and then use the data to drive
instruction, teachers are likely to develop interventions that have a direct focus on meeting the
needs of individual students (DuFour, 2004).
In addition to professional development in data collection and analysis, several principals
discussed how all professional development is ongoing, focused, and purposeful. Blasé and
Kirby (2000) and Stronge et al. (2008) highlight that one of the most important duties of
instructional leaders is to organize the professional learning opportunities within their schools.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

105
For example, at Burr Elementary, Hamilton Elementary, and Douglas Elementary, staff meetings
are reserved for professional development as opposed to administrative issues that could be
handled via email. In an effort to make their professional development workable and applicable,
the principal and her leadership team present “bite-sized” professional development that can be
implemented immediately. Jefferson School District, where Hamilton Elementary is located, also
uses this model when training its principals to implement new programs and procedures.
A focus on core curriculum and its impact on students traditionally underserved is one
final area that site principals are addressing in preparing their staffs for the implementation of the
achievement compacts. For Douglas Elementary, there is an emphasis on scaffolding instruction
specifically in reading and math. Each classroom teacher uses diagnostic data to determine each
child’s current placement, and then determines what steps need to be taken to ensure student
success on a particular essential skill or standard. This practice is applied to all students, but
additional emphasis is placed on SED and ELL students. Hamilton Elementary is focusing its
professional development at the expansion of academic language in core subjects. Teachers use
sentence frames in all subjects so that students (especially ELL and SED students) become
comfortable using the subject-specific academic vocabulary and how to use it correctly. The
principal at Carter Elementary highlighted their usage of teacher coaches in specific core
subjects. Classroom teachers can work with the core-subject coach on lesson design or
instructional practice and receive timely feedback as well as additional coaching or mentoring.
Finally, at Burr Elementary, after looking at data trends in both their summative and formative
data, it became necessary to implement a writing program that extended across the curriculum in
all core subjects. By using a common writing program, ELL and SED students were able to
practice proper writing skills. In addition, all four site principals commented on their need to
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

106
ensure that all students were presented with frequent opportunities to develop higher order
thinking skills. The principal at Douglas Elementary emphasized that it was “imperative to set
high expectations and do what it takes to ensure that students get there.”
Question 5 — How is the district preparing/supporting site principals in the
implementation of the compacts and how will they use “model” schools to drive reform?
For all four of the schools studied, the principals mentioned a symbiotic relationship
between the sites and the district office. While the districts provided professional development
opportunities and timely data to the sites, they largely allowed the sites the freedom to determine
yearly goals and benchmarks. The principals at both Douglas and Burr Elementary schools
stressed how their respective districts do not micromanage the sites, but rather stay of their way,
providing support only when needed. Carter Elementary school’s principal discussed how her
superintendent gives her the freedom to do what is best for her site but provides the opportunity
for Carter Elementary to pilot an iPad program.
All four site principals noted that the district gives them a voice when it comes to
determining site and district priorities for the school year. The superintendents of the three
districts that participated in this study corroborated this when they described how they determine
district improvement plans based off of the school improvement plans. For example, the
superintendent of the Jefferson School District reiterated that principals from each level sit on the
district committee to determine goals for the year. The committee takes the goals to the entire
leadership team for feedback and then uses that feedback to refine the targets to meet the needs.
A similar committee model is used in the Lincoln School District to determine site as well as
district needs. The superintendent as well as the principal of Douglas Elementary highlighted that
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

107
this approach allows voices from different levels to be heard and gives perspective when
establishing targets for the sites as well as the district.
This same framework is used now with the implementation of the achievement compacts.
The Jefferson and Reagan School District superintendents emphasized that their goals start with
the classrooms. Classroom and school targets are set first to influence the district improvement
plan, which in turn, influences the targets for the achievement compacts.
For all of the districts, there has been a focus on training principals in instructional
practices, finding areas of growth, and addressing it through professional development that
focuses on core skills. For example, in the Lincoln School District, there is an emphasis on what
they refer to as “Powerful Strategies, Effective Teaching.” Principals are trained in these
strategies and then, in an effort to showcase them as instructional leaders at their respective sites,
have the principals instruct the teachers in the strategy. For the Jefferson School District, the
superintendent believed in imbedding professional development on an ongoing basis. For his
principal meetings, a professional development schedule is mapped out for the year with brief,
manageable 20-30 minute individual segments that focus on one specific topic or strategy. The
goal is that the principal will be able to take the strategy and implement it at his or her site. In
addition, there is an emphasis in the Jefferson School District in providing the necessary funding
for principals to attend conferences and trainings. Principals are not only given $1000 for their
own professional development each year, but they are given the opportunity to attend national
PLC conferences every other year. In an effort to ensure that her principals were prepared to be
instructional leaders, the superintendent of the Reagan School District implemented the
“Breakthrough Coaching” program, a program that since 1998 has worked with over 40,000
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

108
administrators nationally to increase the amount of time principals spend in classrooms,
observing and mentoring teachers.
Another key support system being implemented in the three districts in this study was the
creation of principal PLCs similar to the staff PLCs at the individual school sites. The
superintendent of the Lincoln School District commented that in the early days, PLCs were little
more than book clubs. Now, in her district, principal PLCs are “data teams” that focus on both
data-driven instruction and data-driven decision making. For her principal PLC teams, the
emphasis is on the sharing of best practices to support an “I win, you win” culture. For the
Reagan School District, principals engage in walkthroughs of each other’s sites and then work
with their PLC to share best practices and collaborate together. Although admitting to “being a
little late to the PLC game,” the superintendent of the Jefferson School District has organized his
site-principals into leveled groups (elementary and secondary), and then presents articles and
professional development pertinent to each group.
Adversely, although the superintendents of the three districts celebrated their model
schools, several made the point that model schools were not singled out in either professional
development or principal PLCs. The superintendents of both the Jefferson and Lincoln school
districts felt that it was important to show the best practices of all the schools rather than
focusing on model schools. For the Lincoln School District, doing so would suggest an “I win,
you lose” atmosphere. Of the three districts, only the Reagan School District used its model
schools as examples of exemplary programs, especially using one school during principal
walkthroughs and observations as a model RtI school. In addition, in alignment with the district
goal to close the “opportunity gap,” another model school was chosen as the 1:1 iPad pilot
school.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

109
At the four model schools, site principals spoke positively of the support they are
receiving from their district leadership. The principals at Burr Elementary and Hamilton
Elementary reiterated that their district leadership is providing professional development
opportunities for both principals and teacher-leaders, especially in the areas of RtI, closing the
achievement gap, and increasing student achievement. The site leadership team at Douglas
Elementary emphasized that their district has continued to provide opportunities for teachers and
principals to learn, grow, and train others in key initiatives like RtI and math instruction.
For the principal of Carter Elementary, she noted that her superintendent had given more
support than providing professional development opportunities or principal PLCs. In addition to
these things, she believed the superintendent was instrumental in getting the community to
understand the importance of focusing on the educational needs of all students, a process that
took nearly three years. Also, rather than “living off the laurels of successful schools in the
district,” district leadership provided additional financial support to Title I schools, especially
with the implementation of a one-to-one iPad program at one Title I school and the introduction
of a dual immersion program at another Title I school.
Conclusion
There are many things that can be attributed to the success of the model schools in this
study. At the site level, principals are employing shared decision making with their leadership
teams and are using data to drive that instruction. There is an emphasis on professional learning
communities to not only analyze data but also share best practices and collaborate on essential
learning. All of the four schools are paying particular attention to the success of their
underserved subgroups and are searching for ways to close the ever-present achievement gap.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

110
The leadership practices that each of the site principals is implementing is also making an
impact. Not only are principals obtaining input from stakeholders, there is an emphasis on
providing timely and specific professional development opportunities for their respective staffs.
Each is focusing on the culture of the school and the notion that each student is not one teacher’s
student but the entire school’s student.
The superintendents of each district implement a PLC model and professional
development program similar to the ones found in the model schools. As the superintendent of
Jefferson School District commented, “It all starts with the principals.” He noted that each has
gained the respect of their staff and has emphasized that the school is about instruction. In
addition, principals are highly skilled in instructional strategies and pedagogue, and they are
collaborative, positive, and visible. The superintendent of Lincoln School District commented
that her model school principals were successful because they understood the need for constant
improvement. They say what needed to be tweaked in order to get students to succeed. Finally,
Reagan School District’s superintendent believed that her model schools and their principals had
a “can-do attitude.” In short, not only did they truly have an understanding of research-based
strategies, but also their “relentless passion to make a difference” has made the difference.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

111
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Background
This final chapter presents a brief overview of the study, a summary of the findings,
limitations of the study, and recommendations for future research.
Overview of the Study
This study used a purposeful sample of four elementary schools with similar
demographics and characteristics from across three different districts. All four elementary
schools have been classified as model schools by the Oregon Department of Education. The
state’s differentiated accountability system determines Model school status through the use of an
overall rating system. According to Oregon’s ESEA waiver, model schools are Title I schools
with highest absolute performance for all students and for all subgroups. A model school must be
making annual yearly progress (AYP) for all subgroups in the school and must not have
significant achievement gaps (ODE, 2013). Each of the four elementary schools had at least 40%
of their student population classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged and thus qualified for
the federal Title I free-or-reduced lunch program.
The purpose of this study was to determine how model schools were being effective in
addressing the achievement gap. First, it was necessary to establish the leadership practices being
implemented by site principals as well as the strategies and protocols instituted both prior to and
after the execution of the state-mandated achievement compacts. In addition, interviews were
conducted to understand the role individual principals had in the creation of district compacts,
how principals were preparing their sites for the implementation of the compacts, and how
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

112
districts were supporting and training principals in meeting the targets established by the
compact.
Summary of Findings
The research questions for this study are:
• Prior to the implementation of the achievement compacts, what leadership practices,
strategies, and protocols were individual principals at “model” schools implementing
at their sites to address the needs of SED, ELL, and underserved minorities? Were
there any similarities in leadership practices, strategies, or protocols?
• What role did individual principals of “model” schools play in the development of the
new achievement compacts mandated by Senate Bill 1581?
• What changes, if any, will “model” schools have to make to meet the achievement
compact?
• How are individual principals of “model” schools preparing/supporting their staffs in
the implementation of the compacts?
• How is the district preparing/supporting site principals in the implementation of the
compacts and how will they use “model” schools to drive reform?
In reviewing the standardized testing data from the four model elementary schools in this
study, it became apparent that all four schools have had a pattern of high achievement for several
years, even before the implementation of the achievement compacts. Each of these schools has
had significantly higher test scores in all subgroups in comparison to similar students across the
state going back to the 2009-10 school year. In comparison to the statewide average, all four
schools had higher proficiency rates by double-digit percentages in almost all subjects, especially
with underrepresented minorities for the last four years. In addition, all four schools had over
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

113
80% proficiency in language arts and science and above 70% proficiency in math for the 2012-
13 school year.
Leadership Strategies, Protocols, and Practices
During interviews, site principals of the four model schools shared a variety of strategies
that were employed at their sites both prior to the implementation of the achievement compacts
as well as following the compacts’ institution. Many of these strategies, protocols, and practices
can be found in the works of Whitaker (2003), Cotton (2003), and Marzano et al. (2005)
regarding successful leadership practices in site principals.
For many of these schools, change has been incremental, purposeful, and at times, far-
reaching. Marzano et al. (2005) depict this as second-order change and describe it as “dramatic
departures from the expected, both in defining the given problem and in finding a solution”
(p. 66). Among the key behaviors related to second-order change, they include (a) knowledge of
curriculum, instruction, and assessment; (b) monitoring the effectiveness of school practices and
their impact on student learning; (c) ensuring faculty and staff are aware of the most current
theories and practices; (d) communicating and operating from a strong ideals and beliefs about
schooling; and (e) inspiring and leading new and challenging innovations. As evidenced by their
test scores as well as the practices and protocols they implemented, all four of the principals in
this study demonstrated these behaviors in the course of improving their schools.
One of the key attributes to bring about this change is an emphasis on culture. This
fosters shared beliefs and a sense of community and cooperation (Cotton, 2003; Marzano et al.,
2005). All four schools emphasized that this focus on culture was an instrumental reason for
success. Several of the sites emphasized that they (meaning both teachers and parents) set high
expectations for all students and do what it takes to get there. Douglas Elementary, Hamilton
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

114
Elementary, and Burr Elementary also adopted the notion that the students were not “my
students” but “our students.” The principal of Carter Elementary said this was a tremendous shift
in culture as teachers accepted the paradigm that “all of our students belong to all of us.” To
accomplish this, the principal and the teachers crafted ninety minutes a day for reading: sixty
minutes were set aside for core instruction for all students with an additional thirty minutes of
intervention support. Like Carter Elementary, Douglas Elementary pulled resources to ensure
success regardless of a student’s classroom.
This emphasis on culture can also be evidenced by the implementation of professional
learning communities at their respective sites. Both Hamilton Elementary and Carter Elementary
have incorporated professional learning community (PLC) time into the course of the workweek,
which has allowed their teachers to collaborate on best instructional practices as well as analyze
data from formative assessments. School leaders who create professional learning communities
in their schools allow staff members to focus on shared commitments and values that emphasize
student learning rather than focusing solely on teaching (Fullan, 2000; DuFour, 2004; Schmoker,
2012).
Tying into their professional learning communities, one of the biggest similarities in
practice that was found in all four model schools was the incorporation of the response to
intervention (RtI) model. For many of the model schools, one of the first steps was to shift the
view that RtI was only a special education referral system. For both Hamilton Elementary and
Carter Elementary, this proved to be a multi-year process as additional training and support was
provided to the teachers to ensure they were teaching the lowest achieving students as well as the
higher ones. Both Hamilton and Burr Elementary schools saw the need to provide additional
professional development in response to intervention and how to implement it. For Burr
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

115
Elementary, that meant a school-wide focus on writing across the curriculum. The principal at
Hamilton Elementary provided training and coaching in the impact of RtI on SED and El
students. This led to an emphasis on increasing the opportunities for the usage of academic
language in all subjects through sentence frames.
Another similarity found at all four model schools has been the emphasis of ongoing
professional development, specifically at staff meetings. Research indicates site-specific,
ongoing, systematic professional development is essential for student learning and teacher
growth (McEwan, 2003; Reeves, 2004; Marzano et al., 2005; Stronge et al., 2008; DuFour et al.,
2009; Reeves, 2010). Both Douglas Elementary and Carter Elementary saw lasting impact by
using teacher-coaches to lead discussion and mentoring in essential standards, data collection,
formative assessments, and research-based instructional strategies. These coaches planned
lessons, observed colleagues, and provided feedback in a non-evaluative structure. In addition, in
an effort to make their professional development workable and applicable, several of the sites
present “bite-sized” professional development that can be implemented immediately.
Finally, all four principals reiterated the importance of using data to drive instruction.
The focus on standards and accountability has encouraged school leaders to gather, analyze, and
monitor school data with teachers and staff (Cotton, 2003). Also, they found it imperative to
provide staff training in how to collect and interpret data, and then provide substitute teachers so
that classroom teachers could be released to analyze the data and determine appropriate
responses.
Impact of the Achievement Compacts on Districts and Sites
In preparation for the interviews with the site principals and the district superintendents,
the researcher spent time reviewing the websites of each school site and each district. After a
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

116
thorough examination, it was apparent that the achievement compacts were not mentioned on
any of the websites. There was no link to the achievement compact or even a mention of the
process. According to the superintendents as well as the principals in this study, this is because
the achievement compact has had little impact on the instructional practices at the schools. The
principals at both Hamilton Elementary and Carter Elementary indicated that there has been little
in the way of conversations about the achievement compacts because they feel the compacts
have not changed what they are doing at the elementary level. All three superintendents
emphasized that school improvement plans really drive school improvement. In addition, they
mentioned the difficulty in using timely data to set achievable goals. Two of the superintendents
mentioned that due to what they felt were unrealistic timelines initially established by the OEIB,
districts did not have the data to fill in appropriate cells on spreadsheets because statewide
reports on current student achievement data did not come out until that following August. Thus,
while the original compacts were due in June, the data needed to fill in the spreadsheets was not
available until two months later.
The achievement compacts have made positive strides in a number of areas. The
compacts show promise of expanding the conversations between early childhood and K-12
educators as well as those between K-12 and community colleges and four year universities.
Additionally, the superintendent of the Jefferson School District saw the achievement compact as
a positive way to align resource allocation for schools to access professional development to
meet the needs of their struggling subgroups. Finally, all three superintendents felt that the
compacts allowed the district the opportunity to celebrate successes of both students and school
sites.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

117
Another area that has been impacted by the completion of the achievement compact was
the revamping of the teacher evaluation system. All three superintendents spoke about the
importance of the new teacher evaluation model that principals would be using and felt that the
new rubrics and evaluative model will have a positive impact on teaching. Professional
development for site-principals includes topics on conducting observations using the new
rubrics, giving constructive and timely feedback, implementing coaching and mentoring to
struggling teachers. In both the Lincoln and Jefferson School Districts, site principals are
organized into PLCs as well. Continual conversations and dialogue as well as a sharing of best
practices has led to a sophistication and confidence in providing feedback, input, and coaching.
Site and District Preparation for the Implementation of the Compacts
Because the achievement compacts are data-driven, all four principals reiterated the
importance of using data to drive instruction. Marzano et al. (2005) showed that the use of
assessment data is essential in the examination of student progress toward instructional standards
and is considered a mark of successful schools. In addition, all four principals found it
imperative to provide staff training in how to collect and interpret data, and then provide
substitute teachers so that classroom teachers could be released to analyze the data and determine
appropriate responses. When principals collaborate with classroom teachers in the
implementation of common formative assessments and then use the data to drive instruction,
teachers are likely to develop interventions that have a direct focus on meeting the needs of
individual students (DuFour, 2004).
A focus on core curriculum and its impact on students traditionally underserved is one
important area that site principals are addressing in preparing their staffs for the implementation
of the achievement compacts. As mentioned before, all four schools have implemented a
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

118
response to instruction model (RtI) to ensure that struggling students are getting the additional
time and support they need in order to be successful. Through the interviews, it became apparent
that many of the things that site principals of the four model schools are doing to prepare for the
implementation of the achievement compacts are similar to the things they were doing prior to
implementation.
For all four of the schools studied, the principals mentioned a symbiotic relationship
between the sites and the district office. All four site principals noted that the district gives them
a voice when it comes to determining site and district priorities for the school year. The
superintendents of the three districts that participated in this study corroborated this when they
described how they determine district improvement plans based off of the school improvement
plans. For all of the districts, there has been a focus on training principals in instructional
practices, finding areas of growth, and addressing it through professional development that
focuses on core skills.
Another key support system being implemented in the three districts in this study was the
creation of principal PLCs similar to the staff PLCs at the individual school sites. In several
cases, principals engage in walkthroughs of each other’s sites and then work with their PLC to
share best practices and collaborate together. However, it is important to note that each of the
superintendents in this study made the point that model schools were not singled out in either
professional development or principal PLCs. The superintendents of both the Jefferson and
Lincoln school districts felt that it was important to show the best practices of all the schools
rather than focusing on model schools. As the superintendent of the Lincoln School District put
it, “the emphasis is on the sharing of best practices to support an ‘I win, you win’ culture.”
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

119
Limitations
The following limitations were present in the study:
• The method of data collection was based upon a structured and semi structured
interview process, with the possibility that the results were subjective.
• The information gathered from the interviews was derived from the perceptions of the
three superintendents and four principals surveyed and who might not have
constituted a representative sample of all other superintendents and principals.
• The elementary schools and districts were not chosen in a random manner and were
limited by the willingness of the principals and superintendents to participate in the
study; therefore, the data that was obtained may not be generalized to other settings,
particularly secondary schools.
• In 2012, the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 1581 which required that all of
Oregon’s education entities enter into annual achievement compacts with the OEIB
beginning with the 2012-13 school year. Thus, there has been little time to determine
the impact the achievement compacts have had on districts, school site, or student
learning.
• Of the four principals interviewed for this study, the principal at Burr Elementary had
the shortest tenure as the site principal with three years at his current site, while the
other three principals had at least seven years in their current assignment. Thus, none
of the principals were new to their respective sites.
• The superintendent of the Jefferson School District was only recently appointed to the
position the summer of 2013, although he had been with the district in a variety of
leadership roles prior to his appointment as superintendent.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

120
Recommendations for Future Research
This study supplements the body of research on both the importance of site leadership
and the implementation of effective instructional practices like professional learning
communities and response to instruction, among others. The focus was to compare how four
Title I elementary schools that had achieved the distinction of “model” school were achieving
high levels of success with underserved populations. This study included three specific school
districts in Oregon that had multiple model schools within each of their respective boundaries.
Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made regarding future
research in this area:
• Because almost all of the model schools in Oregon are elementary schools, it would
be advantageous to study if these similar practices are being utilized at the secondary
level. If so, what struggles are they experiencing that are unique to secondary schools.
If not, what are the implications of implementing them at secondary school sites.
• In 2012, the Oregon Department of Education made a presentation entitled, ESEA
Flexibility: The Role of Model Schools — Supporting Improvement through Modeling
(ODE, 2012). This presentation details how model schools could be used in
improving similar schools in-district as well as out of district. It would be beneficial
to study how the state works with districts as well as model schools to improve
instruction across Oregon.
• Finally, this study focused solely on model Title I elementary schools. It will be
helpful to study the comparison between practices of model schools (the top 5% of
Title I schools) with focus schools (the bottom 15% of Title I schools) and priority
elementary schools (the bottom 5% of all Title I schools).
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

121
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was based on the premise that in recent years, principals have
been called upon to serve as instructional leaders who must not only positively impact
standardized test scores but also, more importantly, increase student achievement. Kelley,
Thornton, and Daugherty (2005) described the site leader as possibly the most important single
factor of an effectual learning environment and relate effective school leadership to significant
increases in student achievement. Cotton (2003) expands upon this when he writes, “It would be
difficult to find an educational researcher or practitioner who does not believe that school
principals are critically important to school success…decades of research have consistently
found positive relationships between principal behavior and academic achievement” (p. 1). All
four of the principals in this study have found and implemented systematic, effective, and proven
strategies that influence student learning and have made significant inroads in closing the
achievement gap between white, non-SED students and other underserved populations.
There are a variety of strategies that all four schools employ. First, the principals have
ensured that teachers and staff have been trained not only in the usage and reading of student
data, but they use those data to drive their instructional practices. Through the implementation of
professional learning communities, educators use a variety of resources to determine students
who need additional time and support through the integration of a response to intervention
program. In addition, each of the principals has been purposeful and systematic with the
professional development opportunities given to teachers. Each has found that small, “bite-sized”
professional development that takes place during staff meetings is more effective in changing
instructional practice. In addition, each of the sites is focused on small steps to improving student
achievement, so the professional development is also ongoing, incremental, and focused.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

122
This same emphasis on data-driven decision-making, professional learning communities,
and purposeful professional development can also be found in the district’s approach to training
and supporting its site principals. Each of the superintendents spoke of the importance of
professional development that emphasizes sharing of best practices, mentoring, walk-throughs,
and constructive feedback. Not only do they train their principals in these strategies, but they
also use it in ongoing leadership development of their site leadership teams. Principals have the
chance to visit each other’s sites and learn from each other. It is a powerful model that is making
a significant impact in the districts studied. All three districts have multiple model schools within
their boundaries. In addition, none of them have any elementary schools that are below the 50th
percentile in comparison to other Title I elementary schools.
In the summer of 2012, the Oregon Department of Education laid out a proposal to use
model schools to drive reform across the state. Through the course of the interviews with both
the superintendents and site principals, it became evident that this proposal had not yet been
implemented. It is the recommendation of the researcher that the Department of Education use
model schools and model districts to drive reform in other parts of Oregon. For example, around
each of the districts that have model schools, there are neighboring districts that have struggling
schools. Similar to the PLC model being implemented with principals as well as at the sites,
superintendents could benefit from a Superintendents PLC. The superintendent of the Reagan
School District found that her participation in the National Superintendents’ Academy has given
her insight and strategies learning from superintendents from different areas who are
experiencing the same struggles.
With regard to the achievement compacts, it seems that for many of these successful
districts and school sites, it is a struggle to incorporate the compact into their site and district
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

123
improvement plans. All three superintendents described the compact as an additional document
and procedure that did not guide their improvement plan. Instead, it was the improvement plan
that influenced the creation of the district’s compact. In this regard, it is important that the OEIB
work with school districts to create a compact that is purposeful and useful. Since district
improvement plans use much of the same data as achievement compacts, it is the
recommendation of the researcher that a district’s improvement plan serve as the achievement
compact document submitted to the state. This way, districts are not doing additional work to
incorporate a state-mandated achievement compact that is having little influence on their
practice. Rather, the OEIB could make recommendations to districts’ improvement plans that are
in-line with the goals of the Department of Education, the Oregon Legislature, and the governor.
National education reform efforts such as No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top
have sought to improve teaching and learning across the country. The overarching purpose of
these two initiatives was to close the ever-present achievement gap that has existed in this
country. Through the passage of Oregon Senate Bills 909, 253, and 1581, Oregon has looked to
take the ideals these national initiatives were based on and find ways to meet the needs of the
underserved students within the state. With the introduction of the achievement compacts,
Oregon has sought to ensure that all districts are making progress toward the “40/40/20” goal
established by Senate Bill 253. Although there have been struggles with the implementation of
the achievement compacts, it has opened the dialogue between early childhood providers, K-12
schools, and the state’s community college and four-year university system. It is the opinion of
the researcher that the model schools are a key component in the improvement of educational
practices across the state. By studying the practices of the site leadership and the programs that
are being implemented at the model school sites, other districts and school sites have the unique
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

124
opportunity to make a lasting impact on the lives of the Oregon school children entrusted to
them.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

125
REFERENCES
Baylis, E. (1997). The Oregon model: Education reform by public mandate. Journal of Law and
Education, 26(2), 47-100.
Berends, M. B., Bodilly, S., & Kirby, S. N. (2002). Looking back over the decade of whole-
school reform: The experience of new American schools. The Phi Delta Kappan, 84(2),
168-175.
Blasé, J., & Kirby, P. C. (2000). Bringing out the best in teachers: What effective principals do
best. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school
reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73, 125-230.
Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Weber, C. (2010). The why behind RTI. Educational Leadership,
68(2), 10-16.
Butler, J. (1992, March). Staff development. School Improvement Research Series. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. (2005). The role of principal
leadership in improving student achievement. Washington, D.C.: Center for
Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. Retrieved from
http://www.centerforcsri.org
Center on Education Policy. (2007). Answering the question that matters most: Has student
achievement increased since no child left behind? Washington, D.C.: Center on
Education Policy.
Coffey, E., & Lashway, L. (2002). School reform: Trends and issues. Eugene, OR: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

126
Confederation of Oregon School Administrators, Oregon Education Association, & Oregon
Schools Boards Association. (2012). Achievement Compact Steering Committee: Critical
questions. Salem, OR: Oregon Education Investment Board.
Conley, D. T., & Picus, L. O. (2003). Oregon’s quality education model: Linking adequacy and
outcomes. Educational Policy, 17(5), 586-612.
Cooley, V. E., & Shen, J. (2003). School accountability and professional job responsibilities: A
perspective from secondary principals. NASSP Bulletin, 87(634), 10-25.
Copland, M. A. (2001, March). The myth of the superprincipal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 528-
533.
Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Crew, R. (2013). Overview of OEIB. Lecture conducted from University of Southern California,
Irvine, CA.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Preparing principals for a changing world: Lessons from effective
school leadership programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Desimone, L. (2011). Outcomes: Content-focused learning improves teacher practice and student
results. Journal of Staff Development, 32(4), 63.
DuFour, R. (2004). Leading edge: Leadership is an affair of the heart. Journal of Staff
Development, 25(1), 66-67.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2009). Raising the bar and closing the gap:
Whatever it takes. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. (2011). Leaders of learning: How district, school, and classroom
leaders improve student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

127
Ediger, M. (2001). Assessment of school principal achievement. Retrieved from ERIC database.
(ED452235).
EdSource. (2008). How California Compares – Demographics, Resources, and Student
Achievement. Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2010). Glossary of Terms. Mountain View, CA: Author.
Educational Resources Information Center (U.S.). (1998). Promising practices: New ways to
improve teacher quality. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center.
Elmore, R. F. (1999-2000, Winter). Building a new structure for school leadership. American
Educator, 23(4), 6-13.
Engel, J. (1992, April 20-24). Oregon Education Act for the 21st century: Implications for the
profession and administrator training. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Farkas, G., & Hall, L. S. (2000). Can Title I attain its goal? In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings
papers on education policy, 2000 (pp. 59–123). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Figlio, D. (1998). Short-term effects of a 1990s-era property tax limit: Panel evidence on
Oregon’s Measure 5. National Tax Journal, 51(1), 55-71.
Fullan, M. (2000). Leadership in the twenty-first century: Breaking the bonds of dependency.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1998). What’s worth fighting for in your schools? New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

128
Fullan, M. (with Stiegelbauer, S.). (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.).
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Furkas, S., Johnson, J., & Duffett, A. (with Syat, B., & Vine, J.) (2003). Rolling up their sleeves:
Superintendents and principals talk about what’s needed to fix public schools. New York,
NY: Public Agenda, for The Wallace Foundation. Retrieved from
http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/rolling_up_their_sleeves.pdf
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that
refuses to fade away. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221-239.
Hammond, B. (2012, August 7). Oregon school officials set low goals, angering education chief
Rudy Crew. The Oregonian.
Hess, F. M., & Petrilli, M. J. (2004). The politics of No Child Left Behind: Will the coalition
hold? Journal of Education, 185(3), 13-25.
Hoy, W. K., Tarter, J. C., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force
for student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 425-446.
Kelley, R. C., Thornton, B., & Daugherty, R. (2005). Relationships between measures of
leadership and school climate. Mobile: Project Innovation, Inc.
Kim, J. S., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child
Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 3-
12.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

129
Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., & Talbert, J. E. (2003). Leading for learning: Reflective tools for
school and district leaders. Seattle: University of Washington.
Lashway, L. (2003). Role of the school leader. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, College of
Education, Clearinghouse on Educational Policy and Management. Retrieved from
http://eric.uoregon.edu/trends_issues/rolelead/index.html
Leithwood, K. A. (1994, November). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences
student learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation. Retrieved from
http://www.wallacefoundation.org
Lindstrom, P. H., & Speck, M. (2004). The principal as professional development leader.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Louis, K. S., Thomas, E., Gordon, M., & Febey, K. (2008). State leadership for school
improvement: An analysis of three states. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4),
562-592.
Marsh, D. (2000). Educational leadership for the twenty-first century: Integrating three essential
perspectives. In M. Fullan (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership (pp.
26-145). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to
results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum and Development.
McEwan, E. K. (2003). Ten traits of highly effective principals: From good to great
performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

130
McLaughlin, M. W., & Shepard, L. A. (1995). Improving education through standards-based
reform. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.
Mendels, P. (2012). The effective principal: 5 pivotal practices that shape instructional
leadership. Journal of Staff Development, 33(1), 54.
National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2008). Leading learning communities:
Standards for what principals should know and be able to do — Executive summary (2nd
ed.). Alexandria, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals.
Nelson, B. S., & Sassi, A. (2005). The effective principal: Instructional leadership for high-
quality learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Nesbitt, T. (2012). Guidance for completion of achievement compacts for 2012-13. Salem, OR:
Oregon Education Investment Board.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2001). NCLB.gov. Retrieved March 5, 2013, from
http://www.nclb.gov
O’Donnell, R. J., & White, G. P. (2005). Within the accountability era: Principals’ instructional
leadership behaviors and student achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89(645), 56-71.
Office of Assessment and Information Services. (2012). 2011-12 next generation accountability
policy and technical manual. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Education.
Olson, L. (2004). Experts debate high schools leadership needs. Education Week, 24(7), 10.
Oregon Department of Education. (2012). Oregon Department of Education website. Retrieved
March 10, 2013, from http://www.ode.state.or.us
Oregon Department of Education. (2013). Oregon Department of Education website. Retrieved
March 8, 2013, from http://www.ode.state.or.us
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

131
Oregon Education Association. (2012a). Oregon Education Investment Board and achievement
compacts. OEA review and recommendations. Portland, OR: Oregon Education
Association.
Oregon Education Association. (2012b). Oregon’s request for NCLB waiver. In G. Rasmussen &
A. Vaandering (Eds.), Letter to Senators Wyden and Merkley. Portland, OR: Oregon
Education Association.
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2011). Oregon learns: Executive summary. Report to the
Legislature from the Oregon Education Investment Board. Salem, OR: Oregon Education
Investment Board.
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2012). Achievement compacts: Questions and answers.
Salem, OR: Oregon Education Investment Board.
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2013). Oregon Education Investment Board website.
Retrieved March 5, 2013, from http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/Pages/oeib/
OregonEducationInvestmentBoard.aspx
Oregon Senate Bill 253 (2011). SB 253, 76th Cong., General Sess.
Oregon Senate Bill 909 (2011). SB 909, 76th Cong., General Sess.
Oregon Senate Bill 1581 (2012). SB 1581, 76th Cong., General Sess.
Peterson, K. D. (2002). The professional development of principals: Innovations and
opportunities. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 213-232.
Peterson, K. D., & Kelley, C. J. (2002). Principal in-service programs: A portrait of diversity and
promise. In M. S. Tucker & J. B Codding (Eds.), The principal challenge (pp. 313-346).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

132
Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability for learning: How teachers and school leaders can take
charge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Reeves, D. B. (2010). Transforming professional development into student results. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schmoker, M. (2012). Refocus professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 68.
Smith, W. F., & Andrews, R. L. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals make a
difference. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Stronge, J., Richard, H., & Catano, N. (2008). Qualities of effective principals. Washington D.C.:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tirozzi, G. N. (2001). The artistry of leadership: The evolving role of the secondary school
principal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 434.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010a). A blueprint for reform. Author. Retrieved April 14,
2013, from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/publicationtoc.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2010b). Improving basic programs operated by local education
agencies (Title I, Part A). Author. Retrieved March 6, 2013, from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html
Venezia, A., & Kirst, M. W. (2006). The governance divide: The Oregon case study. San Jose,
CA: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
Whitaker, T. (2003). What great principals do differently: Fifteen things that matter most.
Columbus, OH: Eye on Education.
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

133
APPENDIX A
LETTER INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE — SUPERINTENDENTS
Initial Letter:
Dear------------,
My name is Todd Schmidt, and I am the Principal at Harbor View Elementary for the Newport-
Mesa Unified School District in Southern California. Currently, I am completing my doctorate at
University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. The reason for this email is to
ask you to participate in my thematic study/dissertation on the impact of both principal
leadership and model schools on statewide school reform. My dissertation chair is Dr. Larry
Picus, and we will be conducting a mixed methods study using both qualitative and quantitative
data. In short, I am looking at what role model Title I schools and principal leadership have in
closing the achievement gap, both within the site as well as the district as part of the achievement
compacts established by the Governor and the OEIB.

Your district was selected as one of three districts that have at least one model school within
their respective boundaries. I am only studying districts that have model elementary schools, and
I would greatly appreciate your participation in my study. Every school and district used will be
kept completely confidential and pseudo-names will be used to adhere to the strict confidential
rules stipulated by USC. Only I will know the actual names of the schools, districts, principals,
and superintendents that participated. The only thing I would need from you to be able to make
this work is an hour-long interview with you at some point in the future (preferably late summer
or early fall).

Currently, I have finished chapters 1-3 of my dissertation, and I have passed my qualifying exam
this past May. I have also been given clearance through the Independent Review Board to begin
collecting my data. Please note that once I have your approval to be interviewed, I will need to
contact one of your model schools to interview the principal as well.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Todd Schmidt
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

134
APPENDIX B
LETTER INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE — PRINCIPALS
Initial Letter:
Dear -------,
My name is Todd Schmidt, and I am the Principal at Harbor View Elementary for the Newport-
Mesa Unified School District in Southern California. Currently, I am completing my doctorate at
the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. The reason for this letter is
to ask you to participate in my thematic study/dissertation. My dissertation chair is Dr. Larry
Picus, and we will be conducting a qualitative study on the impact of both principal leadership
and model schools on statewide school reform. In short, I am looking at what role model Title I
schools and principal leadership have in closing the achievement gap, both within the site as well
as the district as part of the achievement compacts established by the Governor and the OEIB.

I am only studying model elementary schools, and I would greatly appreciate your participation
in my study. Every school used will be kept completely confidential and pseudo-names will be
used to adhere to the strict confidential rules stipulated by USC. Only I will know the actual
names of the schools and principals that participated. The only thing I would need from you to be
able to make this work is a 30—45 minute phone interview with you at some point in the future
(preferably late September to early October).

Currently, I have finished chapters 1-3 of my dissertation, and I have passed my qualifying exam
this past May. I have also been given clearance through the Institutional Review Board to begin
my interviews. In addition, I have already interviewed and discussed this with your
Superintendent. Your school has proven to be successful in closing the achievement gap, and I
would very much like to learn more on how you and your staff are achieving that!

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Todd Schmidt
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

135
APPENDIX C
DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT INTERVIEW DATES

District 1 Lincoln School District September 19, 2013
District 2 Jefferson School District September 11, 2013
District 3 Reagan School District September 18, 2013
THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND MODEL SCHOOLS

136
APPENDIX D
SITE PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW DATES

School 1 Burr Elementary October 8, 2013
School 2 Hamilton Elementary September 27, 2013
School 3 Douglas Elementary October 2, 2013
School 4 Carter Elementary October 3, 2013

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study selected a purposeful sample of a total of four Title I elementary schools within three different districts in Oregon. Each of the elementary schools has been ranked in the top ten percent of all Title I schools in Oregon and has been granted “Model” status. This qualitative study interviewed the three district superintendents and the four site principals of these model schools. The purpose was three-fold: (1) to determine the programs, practices, and instructional strategies that are being implemented in these elementary schools

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

School accountability and reform in Oregon: effecting system change with Achievement Compacts

PDF

Oregon education policy implementation: a case study of the achievement compacts information dissemination of the Oregon Education Investment Board

PDF

An examination of Oregon’s implementation of literacy and common core state standards: preparing students to be college and career ready

PDF

An examination of Oregon's achievement compacts as it relates to special education

PDF

An examination of Oregon’s special education accountability, goal setting, and reform

PDF

An examination of the Oregon state college and career education investment and the Eastern Promise program

PDF

An examination of Oregon's achievement compacts as it relates to disadvantaged students

PDF

Analysis of STEM programs in Oregon public high schools

PDF

The formation and implementation of a regional achievement collaborative

PDF

Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal crisis: case study of elementary schools in a California school district

PDF

Reallocating human resources to maximize student achievement: a critical case study of a southern California school district

PDF

Educational resource allocation at the elementary level: a case study of one elementary school district in California

PDF

Evidence-based resource allocation model to improve student achievement: Case study analysis of three high schools

PDF

Allocating human capital resources for high performance in schools: a case study of a large, urban school district

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation practices in start-up charter schools in relation to identified school reform strategies

PDF

A gap analysis study of one southern California unified school district's allocation of resources in a time of fiscal constraints

PDF

Reallocating resources to reform schools: a case study of successful school turnarounds in five Los Angeles charter schools

PDF

Influences on principals' leadership practice

PDF

Educational resource allocation at the high school level: a case study of high schools in one California district

Asset Metadata

Creator Schmidt, Todd Steven (author)

Core Title The impact of principal leadership and model schools on state‐wide school reform: case studies of four Oregon elementary model schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/28/2014

Defense Date 12/16/2013

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,principal leadership,principal training,professional development,school reform,Title I

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Crew, Rudolph (committee member), Seelig, Michael (committee member)

Creator Email tschmidt@nmusd.us,tsschmid@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-366379

Unique identifier UC11288312

Identifier etd-SchmidtTod-2275.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-366379 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SchmidtTod-2275.pdf

Dmrecord 366379

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Schmidt, Todd Steven

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA