University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP PRACTICES USED BY MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS
IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE

by

Kristen Shultz

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

December 2014

2
PREFACE

Some of the chapters of this dissertation were coauthored and have been identified as
such. While jointly coauthored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a
collaborative effort is reflective of real-world practitioners. To meet their objective of developing
highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School
and the USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our inquiry team to carry out this
shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project with two doctoral candidates—Melissa
Kistler and Kristen Shultz. We met at USC’s Rossier School of Education doctoral program,
working together in various classes. We decided that, given our shared interests as researchers
and practitioners, we would investigate the leadership practices of principals used for the
implementation of instructional change at the school site. After completing chapters 1-3 together,
each of us ventured on to examine our own site level of interest—elementary school and middle
school. As Melissa’s background is primarily in elementary education, she opted to study
elementary schools. As a former seventh and eighth grade teacher and consultant for middle
schools, Kristen chose to study middle schools. As a result, the two dissertations produced by our
inquiry team collectively address the change process for K-8 schools (see Kistler, 2014).

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank all those who provided me support, encouragement and intellectual
challenge throughout my journey in the Ed.D. program as well as throughout the dissertation
process at the Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California. Thank you to Dr.
Rudy Castruita, my dissertation chair, and my committee members, Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr.
Michael Escalante, who provided instrumental feedback, guidance and direction. Their
knowledge, leadership, trust and reassurance served as invaluable assets throughout this process.
A big thank you to Dr. Castruita for calming my nerves, appreciating my baked goods and
making me feel capable. And, thank you to all my professors at the Rossier School of
Education—who shaped my thinking, encouraged me and helped me become a better educator
and leader.
Thank you to all the superintendents, principals and friends who helped Melissa and I
find participants for this study and supported our endeavor. Thank you to Joann Merrick for
making this dissertation possible with her contacts in the education world. She opened doors for
us that would otherwise be closed. Thank you to Kimberley Clark, editor extraordinaire! Thank
you to the principals who participated in this study, allowing me access and insights into their
experiences implementing the Common Core State Standards. I cannot express enough gratitude
to everyone who generously gave time, information and support to this dissertation. I learned so
much about the principalship and leadership, and I feel lucky to know such talented educators.
Thank you to Melissa Kistler, my writing partner, who labored alongside me day in and
day out. She has been there since day one of this program—part of the original “Thursday Night
Crew.” She has taught me to be a better writer, learner and leader. I cannot express how much
you mean to me as a colleague and friend. From our afternoons at The Lab, to early morning

4
texts and evening Google Hangouts, we somehow made it work and wrote something of which
we can both be proud. I could not ask for a better person with whom to go on this journey.
On a personal note, I want to thank my friends and family who have supported me on this
adventure. Thank you to my parents, John and Susie Shultz, my sister, Kellie and my brother,
Danny, for their constant love and reassurance. And thank you, Dad, for printing out every
article for every class for two years. Thank you to my wonderful fiancé, Mark Thompson, who
endured many rants, tears, and cheers. I have the best friends and family in the world; I promise
this is the last degree. Now let’s plan a wedding.
Fight on!

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface

Acknowledgements

List of Tables

Abstract

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Introduction
Background of the Problem
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Research Questions
Importance of the Study
Summary of the Methodology
Assumptions
Limitations
Delimitations
Definition of Terms
Organization of the Study

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Introduction
Leadership in Theory and Practice
A Historic Perspective of the Principalship
Organizations and the Change Process
(1) Establishing a Sense of Urgency
(2) Creating the Guiding Coalition
(3) Developing a Vision and Strategy
(4) Communicating the Change Vision
(5) Empowering Broad-Based Action
(6) Generating Short-Term Wins
(7) Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change
(8) Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture
Building Internal Capacity
The Common Core State Standards Initiative
Conclusion

Chapter Three: Methodology
Introduction
Purpose of the Study
Research Questions
Rationale for Mixed Methods Study Design
2
3
8
9
11
11
13
15
16
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
23

25
25
26
27
32
36
37
38
40
41
42
43
44
45
50
54

55
55
56
56
57

6
Quantitative Research Methods
Qualitative Research Methods
Research Design
Sample and Population
Instrumentation
Quantitative Instrumentation
Qualitative Instrumentation
Pilot Study
Data Collection
Quantitative Data Collection
Qualitative Date Collection
Data Analysis
Quantitative Data Collection
Qualitative Date Collection
Conclusion

Chapter Four: Results
Introduction
Purpose of the Study
Response Rate
Quantitative Demographic Data
Qualitative Demographic Data
Middle School Principal and School Site Information
Leadership Beliefs
Duties as Instructional Leader
Building capacity: People and environment
Evaluation
Research Question One
Knowledge: Building Professional Capital
Levels of knowledge
Sources of knowledge
A Plan for Change: District and Site Plans
Committees and Teams: Getting the Right People on the Bus
Training: Ongoing Principal and Teacher Preparation
Discussion
Research Question Two
Communication of the Vision and Plan: Distilling the District Message
Coordination
Bridging the Gap
Using prior knowledge and experience
Trust
Experimentation: “Just try it”
Principal Presence
Discussion
Research Question Three
Resources: Time and Funding
57
57
59
59
60
61
62
62
63
63
63
64
64
65
67

68
68
69
70
72
80
81
84
86
87
89
90
91
91
93
97
99
102
108
109
110
112
114
114
117
118
120
121
124
125

7
Fear of Failure and Resistance to Change
Discussion
Summary

Chapter Five: Conclusions
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Research Questions
Review of the Literature
Methodology
Findings
Research Question 1
Research Question 2
Research Question 3
Implications
Recommendations for Future Study
Conclusions

References

Appendices
Appendix A: Recruitment Letter
Appendix B: Study Information/Fact Sheet
Appendix C: Survey Instrument
Appendix D: Interview Protocol

127
129
129

133
133
133
135
136
136
138
140
140
141
142
143
145
146

148

161
161
162
164
168

8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Methods Choices for Each Research Question

Table 2: Quantitative Survey: School Sites Served

Table 3: Quantitative Survey: Degrees Obtained

Table 4: Quantitative Survey: Credentials Obtained

Table 5: Quantitative Survey: Professional Background

Table 6: Quantitative Survey: Most Recent Position in Education

Table 7: Quantitative Survey: Years as Principal

Table 8: Quantitative Survey: Years in Current Position

Table 9: Qualitative Interview: Characteristics of Middle School Principals

Table 10: Qualitative Interview: Characteristics of Middle School Sites

Table 11: Middle School Principal Responses to Levels of CCSS Knowledge

Table 12: Principals’ Sources of CCSS Knowledge

Table 13: School-wide Plan for Middle Schools

Table 14: Training for CCSS

Table 15: Types of Training

Table 16: Communication of the Plan for Change

Table 17: Middle School Principal Classroom Observation

Table 18: Availability of Materials and Resources

Table 19: Availability of Funds
58

71

73

75

76

77

78

79

82

84

92

94

97

103

105

110

121

125

126

9
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to identify and examine the effective strategies used by
middle school principals to implement instructional change. More specifically, the study sought
to determine various facets of instructional change implementation including the (1) planning
and program design, (2) context-specific leadership practices and (3) the organizational barriers
encountered. Using the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) as a vehicle to explore
instructional change, this study delved into the organizational change process at the site level,
integrating John Kotter’s eight stages of change as a framework to understand the arc of change
as experienced by middle school principals. The current literature on instructional change—
including the research on CCSS—is not inclusive of the role of the principal. Instead, CCSS
research focuses on the standards, the role of the district, and teacher learning. The role of the
principal is, therefore, undefined despite the fact that research indicates principals have a
significant influence on student achievement. This study used a mixed-methods approach in
which 59 elementary and middle school principals completed a survey, included 14 middle
school principals. This was followed by semi-structured interviews with five of the surveyed
middle school principals as well as analysis of relevant site and district documents. Through the
process of triangulation, the study’s findings indicate that middle school principals facilitated the
change process at their site through direct and indirect instructional leadership practices. Middle
school principals worked with the district office to build the internal capacity of their staff,
increasing the knowledge and skills of teachers through the creation of CCSS and leadership
teams as well as district and site professional development opportunities. They also implemented
change through ongoing communication, coordination, trust, experimentation, presence, and
support of their teachers. However, the transition to CCSS was not without barriers as middle

10
school principals felt they lacked time and funding to implement fully the district directives. This
study hopes to guide and inform middle school principals as they take on a more active
instructional leadership role when implementing such change.

11
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Authors: Melissa Kistler and Kristen Shultz
1

Introduction
The process of creating change from within any organization can be difficult and may be
hampered by both internal and external forces or directives within the accountability systems that
shape and influence education (Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 2012). Federal or state standards-based
reform efforts such as the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act - No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) and, more recently, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) seek
to bring performance- and assessment-based accountability to K-12 schools. With CCSS, the
standards move away from the individual state sets to a shared set of “higher and deeper”
standards rooted in inquiry and critical thinking (Kirst, 2013, p.1). However, the shift to a
common set of standards from individual state standards requires alignment across federal, state
and local agencies responsible for implementation. Enacting change from top-down directives
and policies requires organizational capacity building and sustainment, funding, and guidance
from leadership (Fullan, 2012; Kirst, 2013).
Under NCLB and CCSS, instructional quality is aligned with student performance on
annual measurements therefore underscoring the critical nature of the principal as instructional
leader (Kirst, 2013; NCLB, 2001). In an assessment-driven educational culture, there has been a
history of teaching to the test rather than teaching for learning; high-stakes accountability tied to
student performance has increased pressure on principals and other site leaders to create effective
instructional change based on those top-down directives (Causey-Bush, 2005; Linn, 2005).

1
Chapters 1, 2 and 3 were jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this project. The
authors are listed alphabetically and contributed equally.

12
Educational change often generates a push and pull between teachers and administrators who
both seek an improvement in student achievement yet disagree as to the methods or strategies
used to implement such change (Fullan, 2012). Thus a cycle of stymied change is established,
hampering both teacher learning and instructional change. Consequently, instructional and
curricular changes speak not only to leadership but also to the idea of organizational change and
a cultural shift; effectively, a “reculturation” must occur in order for significant change to take
root (Dowd, 2005; Fullan, 2012; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2008, p. 46; Gallucci, 2008;
Ramaley, 2002). The role of a leader, in this case the principal, is to mobilize others and create a
convergence of values so as to allow others to accept the change that is to occur in order for the
reculturation to take hold (Battilana, Gilmartin, Sengul, Pache, & Alexander, 2010).
Research suggests that the impetus is on school leadership to promote a continued effort
toward teacher education and implementation of instructional strategies that lend themselves to
improved student learning and student achievement under federal and state policies such as
NCLB and CCSS (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003; Harpell & Andrews, 2010; Smit & Humpert,
2012). Site administrators—notably principals at all levels in K-12 education—must develop and
support reculturation as well as build the capacity of all teachers in order to implement curricular
and instructional changes presented through federal, state and local policies. Sergiovanni (2009)
and Youngs and King (2002) argue that since principals represent the instructional leaders at
school sites, they are increasingly more accountable for the practices that improve student
achievement. Moreover, as performance standards have increased under NCLB and will continue
increasing under CCSS, schools have faced—and will continue to face—a variety of
consequences should they fail to meet their goals or identified annual accountability measures
such as Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) (Kirst, 2013; Linn, 2005; NCLB, 2001). These

13
“corrective action” measures include Program Improvement (PI), in which schools and districts
identified as Title I have failed to meet their AYP for two years in a row in the same content area
and therefore must implement various interventions in order to improve student learning and
increase test scores (CDE, 2012). PI—and the pressure to avoid the consequences meted out to
PI schools—has placed increased pressure on school leaders to build such internal capacity and
improve student achievement (CDE, 2012; Elmore, 2002; Linn, 2005).
Furthermore, leadership has the potential to cultivate increased student achievement
through an involvement with curriculum and assessment, intellectual stimulation of a school’s
faculty, and a commitment to school culture (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). These
qualities speak to a strong internal system dedicated to building internal capacity (Dowd, 2005;
Elmore, 2002; Norton Grubb & Badway, 2005). Thus, as principals focus on practices to bring
about successful and enduring change through developing the instructional practices, skills, and
knowledge of teachers, a cultural shift and a commitment to the ideals of CCSS will be brought
to fruition (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Dowd, 2005;
Elmore, 2002; Marzano et al., 2005). Consequently, CCSS represents both an opportunity for
schools and districts to improve instruction, yet the lack of practical guidance and policy
alignments also present a plethora of potential challenges for leadership.
Background of the Problem
With CCSS, the demands and parameters of student achievement will shift from the
curriculum under NCLB. Marzano, Yanoski, Hoegh, and Simms (2013) report that under NCLB,
content was too thin and could not be effectively integrated or implemented in K-12 education.
A concrete example of this point is found in Kendall and Marzano (2000) wherein they identified
200 standards in 14 content areas in districts across the nation. It proves impossible to align

14
efforts nationally or to teach effectively with so many standards and variations among them.
Further, multiple dimensions of learning were often mixed within one single standard forcing
assessment of knowledge or skills that were nebulous or difficult for the teacher to ascertain
(Marzano et al., 2013). The standards and their related instruction and assessments led to
unwieldy implementation and a lack of deep and meaningful learning structures that impact a
wide swath of learning or reach an equally wide range of learners (Marzano et al., 2013).
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) express concern over the “decontextualization” and
oversimplification of teaching and learning under NCLB. A vast amount of teachers were
trained as required under NCLB and lack the depth of teaching practices and learning pedagogy
that consider the day-to-day complexities inherent in teaching deep structures in various cultural
contexts and communities (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 22; NCLB, 2001).
In addition to teachers being trained and acculturated under NCLB, many principals
focused instruction and curriculum only on the requirements measured by NCLB, leading to
narrow perspectives on instruction in order to avoiding negative outcomes—such as Program
Improvement (PI)—with prescriptive simplified solutions that manipulate a narrow band of
variables to improve scores (Linn, 2005; NCLB, 2001; Ravitch, 2010). These same principals
may be further hampered because they may not have had the adequate time within the classroom
as teachers themselves before becoming the instructional leader at the site. Therefore, their
ability to provide adequate leadership and feedback to teachers may have limitations (Ravitch,
2010).
Currently, education is facing large-scale changes as part of CCSS and the instruction
based on them. A significant number of teachers and administrators have been acculturated and
conditioned under NCLB and are required to shift into CCSS which focuses more closely on a

15
differentiated curriculum that seeks to teach higher levels of skills and knowledge in order to
ensure the success of future generations (CDE, 2010; Hochschild & Scovronik, 2003; Kirst,
2013; Linn, 2005). Since these standards focus on analytical thinking and justifying reasoning,
teaching practices and the leadership oversight of them will require significant overhaul (Causey-
Bush, 2005; Dee & Jacob, 2011; Kirst, 2013; Linn, 2005). As California transitions to CCSS,
many schools have and will institute curricular and instructional changes in order to prepare
teachers for these new demands. Research on the effectiveness of both the content standards and
leadership practices that lend themselves to success within Common Core will shed light on the
path toward not only academic proficiency but also instructional best practices. Focus on not
simply “the what” of curriculum but also on the “the how” will assist instructional leaders in
providing effective training in instructional techniques that lend themselves to success for all
students (Causey-Bush, 2005).
Site principals are in a unique role to support the transition through thoughtful
implementation of CCSS and the knowledge and skills required to support teaching and learning
within the K-12 continuum of education. Policy and accountability are inherent in education and
the implementation of them is expected at all levels—federal, state, district, and local school site.
The danger, however, is the assumption that effective implementation will successfully occur to
affect instructional and curricular change at the site level by the local site leadership—the
principal (Fowler, 2009). It is essential that the concern of implementing this new policy at the
site level be addressed.
Statement of the Problem
The process of implementing successful change from within an organization can be
difficult for leaders and is affected by a variety of internal and external forces (Stecher & Kirby,

16
2004). While research on school reform under policies such as NCLB as it relates to student
achievement is widespread, there is little research on how CCSS has and will influence school
leadership implementation of the instructional changes required under CCSS. Funding, learning
opportunities, and professional development have been provided to schools for the transition to
CCSS, but how that change is to be implemented remains unclear and unknown within the
research and practitioner community (Kirst, 2013; Tienken, 2011).
Current research and documentation on CCSS focuses on the standards themselves and
their alignment to current standards and the purpose of education (Jenkins & Agamba, 2013;
Kirst, 2013; Tienken, 2011). Like NCLB before it—or any instructional and curricular policy
change—CCSS will influence accountability systems, leadership, school culture, and teacher
learning, yet has not been fully studied as CCSS is in its nascent implementation phase (Jenkins
& Agamba, 2013; Kirst, 2013; Linn, 2005; Tienken, 2011). An examination of the successful
strategies of principals in the K-12 continuum is needed as education sits at the crossroads of
change between the policy requirements of NCLB and the standards presented by CCSS.
Therefore, the discussion concerning how to plan, implement, and sustain the site-level changes
brought about by CCSS has been cursory at best.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify strategies principals in the K-12 continuum
have found to be effective while implementing curricular changes set forth by district, state and
federal policies such as NCLB and CCSS. Using CCSS as the vehicle to illustrate and ground a
discussion on instructional change in education, this study examined how change is implemented
at the site level and the leadership necessary for successful planning, implementation and
sustainment of that change. By examining the processes for implementing successful change, this

17
study illuminated the choices and beliefs regarding the strategies used by school leaders as they
deal with internal and external factors brought about by curricular change.
Research Questions
The following research questions were explored for this study:
(1) What planning and program design do principals use during the implementation of
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?
(2) What context-specific leadership practices are necessary for the implementation of
instructional changes?
(3) What are the organizational barriers that principals encounter when implementing
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?
Importance of the Study
This study will contribute to the growing body of literature on the implementation of
instructional change. By critically examining the perspectives and choices made by principals in
the implementation of instructional change, this study will guide and inform the practices of
principals—as instructional leaders—toward successful organizational change. Therefore, this
study has the potential to inform the practices of principals in the K-12 continuum at local school
sites and influence the practices of instructional leaders elsewhere. Finally, in a more widespread
context, this study can link the lessons learned from instructional and curricular policies such as
NCLB with the transition to CCSS as well as contribute to the standardization of change
implementation. As educational reform continues to prescribe instructional and curricular
changes, the lessons learned in implementation can support leaders and teachers through any
transition, not just the transition from NCLB to CCSS.

18
Summary of the Methodology
Mixed methods were used for this study. Quantitative measures such as surveys were
coupled with qualitative measures including semi-structured interviews and document analysis
demonstrating the practices of leaders as they implemented change. Triangulated with the
supporting literature, all methods and measures support one another in order to provide a greater
understanding to the issue of implementing change as it pertains to instruction and curriculum.
Methods are furthered discussed in Chapter 3 of the study.
Assumptions
The study assumed the following:
(1) The principal acts as instructional leader.
(2) Principals will be able to identify and communicate practices used to implement
instructional change.
(3) The information gathered will sufficiently address the research questions.
Limitations
The limitations of the study were:
(1) The validity of the data is based on the choice of instrumentation.
(2) The ability and/or willingness of participants to provide accurate responses.
(3) The ability and/or willingness of school leaders to participate fully and grant access to
instances in which curricular change is communicated such as Professional
Development.
(4) Challenges in identifying and narrowing the practices used during the implementation
of policies such as CCSS.

19
Delimitations
The delimitations of the study were:
(1) Data collection was limited to urban elementary and middle school principals of
California schools who are in the process of planning and implementing CCSS.
(2) Interviews were limited to five principals who have been in their position for at least
two years.
(3) The principals had some training (formal and/or informal) in preparation for CCSS.
(4) Training for principals, teachers and staff has occurred in preparation for CCSS.
Definition of Terms
The following is a list of terms used throughout this study.
Academic Performance Index (API): An accountability measurement of academic
performance of individual schools and district (NCLB, 2001).
Accountability: The “contractual” or obligational relationships between a provider of a
service and a director (Stecher & Kirby, 2004, p. 1). In education, it is the practice of “holding
educational systems responsible for the quality of their products—students’ knowledge, skills,
and behaviors” (Hentschke & Wohlsetter, 2004, p. 17).
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP): An accountability measurement mandated under the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) that requires states to measure academic progress of
students as they meet or exceed “proficiency” targets on yearly standardized tests in
Mathematics and English Language Arts (Kirst, 2013; Linn, 2005; NCLB, 2001).
Capacity Building: The development and leveraging of expertise, knowledge, skills, and
other assets—for groups and individuals—through continued learning and improvement.
(Elmore, 2002; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012).

20
Common Core State Standards (CCSS): A internationally benchmarked, research-based
nationally created and state led initiative to create a single set of content standards of what
students need to know in order to promote career and college readiness for all students in the K-
12 continuum (Kirst, 2013; NGA & CCSSO, 2010a; NGA & CCSSO, 2010b; Porter, McMaken,
Hwang, & Yang, 2011).
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO): Together with the National Governors
Association, this nonprofit organization consisting of public officials in charge of departments of
K-12 education served as framers for the Common Core State Standards Initiative (NGA &
CCSSO, 2010al NGA & CCSSO, 2010b).
Decision Capital: The sum total of practice and expertise within an organization geared
toward making quality decisions and judgments to achieve the goals of that organization
(Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012).
Direct Leadership: Leadership practices that target teacher learning and practice
including goal setting, ensuring teacher quality and leading teacher learning (Bendikson,
Robinson, & Hattie, 2012; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008).
District Office: The district is a local governing body of K-12 schools in a particular
region headed by school board appointed superintendent while the district office consists of the
personnel charged with overseeing all facets of student achievement including school
accountability, academic programs, instruction, curriculum, human resources, facilities and the
like (Childress et al., 2006).
First-Order Change: Change that is incremental and related to the daily life of a school
(Marzano et al, 2005).

21
Human Capital: The shared talent and skills of individuals and the group within an
organization that can be leveraged to accomplish goals of that organization (Hargreaves &
Fullan, 2012).
Indirect Leadership: Leadership practices that establish the conditions and support for
teacher quality and school management (Bendikson, et al. 2012; Robinson et al., 2008).
Instructional Leadership: Leadership theory that focuses on student achievement and
student outcomes through teacher practice and learning as well as the conditions that support
instructional quality (Bendikson et al., 2012; Hallinger, 2005; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach,
1999; Marks & Printy, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005; Robinson et al., 2008).
Instructional Leader: The person, such as the principal, who occupies a position of
leadership and demonstrates instructional leadership competencies tied to promoting student
achievement (Battilana et al., 2010; Sergiovanni, 2009).
Internal Capacity: The expertise, knowledge, skills, and other assets within an
organization (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Kotter & Cohen, 2008).
Middle School: Also known as Junior High. It is a school site that typically serves grades
sixth through eighth or grades seventh and eighth (Elmore, 2000; Sanzo, Sherman, & Clayton,
2011).
National Governors Association for Best Practices (NGA): The group of state governors
that works to develop public policy solutions. Together with Chief Council of State School
Officers (CCSSO), this group served as the framers for the Common Core State Standards
Initiative (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a; NGA & CCSSO, 2010b).

22
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): The reauthorization of Elementary and
Secondary Education Act that created federal accountability measures for education (NCLB,
2001).
Organizational Change: Change and reform efforts that occur due to external or internal
directives and/or policies. It requires focused goals, strong leadership, and a commitment to the
vision and values promoted by the change (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Gilley et al., 2009a; Kotter,
2008; Kotter & Cohen, 2012; Lewin, 1951).
Principal/Principalship: The K-12 school site administrator, leader, and manager who
oversees school site academic programs, instructional support, personnel, finances, and other
related school site functions (Kafka, 2009; Rousmaniere, 2007).
Professional Capital: The sum total and interaction of human capital, social capital, and
decision capital that is used to accomplish an organization’s goals (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012).
Professional Development (PD): School-based knowledge and skill building learning,
activities and training that increase the capacity of in-service teachers, administrators, and other
educational stakeholders in response to external and internal demands or changes and that seek to
engage participants in the continuous improvement of practice and performance (Abdal-Haqq,
1994; Elmore, 2002; Fenstermacher & Berliner, 1985; Good, Miller, & Gassenheimer, 2004;
Guskey, 2000; Helsing, Howell, Kegan, & Lahey, 2008).
Program Improvement (PI): Corrective action measures that occur when a school has
failed to meet its Adequate Yearly Progress for two years in a row in the same content area
(Mathematics or English Language Arts) and therefore must implement interventions and
changes in order to improve learning and increase student achievement on yearly standardized
tests (CDE, 2012).

23
Reculturation: A complete paradigm and cultural shift that occurs when change takes
root and that results in entirely new practices (Dowd, 2005; Fullan, 2012; Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2008, p. 46; Gallucci, 2008; Ramaley, 2002).
Second Order Change: Deep-seated transformational change that relates to a specific
issue and that requires a total overhaul of a system or systems in place (Gilley, Gilley, &
McMillan, 2009a; Heifetz, 1994; Marzano, Walters, & McNulty, 2005).
Social Capital: The quantity and quality of relationships that contribute to productive
activity within an organization. These can include trust, commitment, and buy-in toward a
vision, leadership, and other individuals (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012).
Teacher Learning: The activities, including Professional Development, for in-service
teachers that lend themselves to the development of expertise, knowledge, and skills for
continuous instructional improvement. These activities also promote the notion that teachers are
agents for change within their specific context (Darling-Hammond, 1990; Desimone, 2009;
Elmore, 2002).
Transformational Leadership: A type of leadership that focuses on change through
setting organizational vision, establishing goals for desired outcomes while working in
collaboration to reach the change vision and the goals of the organization (Marzano et al., 2005;
Robinson et al., 2008).
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 has presented the overview of the study, the background of the problem, the
statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the research questions, a summary of the
methodology, the limitations and delimitations and finally, the definitions of terms. Chapter 2 is
a review of relevant literature. It addresses topics related to this study including: leadership, the

24
principalship, organizational change, building internal capacity and the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS). Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in this study, including the research
questions and design, the rationale for a mixed methods approach, the sampling procedure, the
participants as well as the data collection and analysis processes. Chapter 4 presents the results of
the study, and Chapter 5 is an analysis and discussion of the results, limitations,
recommendations, and conclusions.

25
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Authors: Melissa Kistler and Kristen Shultz
Introduction
The literature review for this study will begin with leadership theories in relation to
education. It will then address a history of the principalship, the role and requirements ascribed
to the modern principal, the impact of site leadership on innovations and student achievement,
and effective skills and strategies employed while implementing those innovations.
Implementation of such innovation is inextricably tied to organizational change and the change
process. Using John Kotter’s (2012) change model as a framework, prominent themes emerged
from the literature review relating to the processes and barriers faced during organizational
change in educational settings. The eight steps of successful change contend with not only
implementation but also the maintenance of such change over time, including the change to that
culture and context (Kotter, 2012). Equally important to the implementation of change is the role
of internal capacity, as a method to sustain that change. Finally, the change process and
leadership will be situated in the specific context of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS),
one of the most sweeping and significant federal changes to today’s education system (Kirst,
2013; Kober & Rentner, 2011a; Kober & Rentner, 2011b; Kober & Rentner, 2012; Marzano et
al., 2013; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School Officers, 2010a; Porter et al., 2011). Research as it relates to the implementation of CCSS
in school sites has been limited, yet the change process has been well documented; therefore, this
literature review seeks to connect what is known about leadership and change in education with
what is suggested or implied by CCSS.

26
Leadership in Theory and Practice
Leadership is an idea that has existed since ancient times and various theories of practice
have been ascribed to it throughout the years (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Fullan, 2013; Marzano et
al., 2005). Leadership is an idea that is not tangible but exists through the relationships,
imaginations, and perceptions of the parties involved (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Key themes in the
literature regarding the role of the leader are to persuade and inspire others and to work
cooperatively to pursue goals that reach beyond self-interests (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Leaders
should have vision, think in systems, influence beyond their current bounds, and have the
political skill and wherewithal to cope with the intricacies of conflicting and competing agencies
(Bolman & Deal, 2003; Fullan, 2013; Senge, 1997). Various theories of leadership have been
identified in and are used as foundational constructs to guide practices in business and
educational settings. Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe (2008) found utility in analyzing the impact of
different types of leadership as opposed to leadership in general in educational settings.
Although most theories were established in business settings they have become influential in
education because they address leadership for similar systems (Marzano et al., 2005; Senge,
1997). Within the myriad of theories and variations thereof, two tend to be favored in
educational settings—transformational leadership and instructional leadership (Marzano et al.,
2005; Robinson et al., 2008).
Transformational leadership is a modern theory propagated in the latter half of the last
century. This style of leadership is focused on change through setting organizational vision,
establishing goals and desired outcomes while working in collaboration to accomplish the goals
and reach the vision (Marzano et al., 2005; Robinson et al., 2008). Instructional leadership theory
gained popularity in the 1980s during the school improvement movements (Marks & Printy,

27
2003; Marzano et al., 2005). In this structure, the principal is central to student outcome success
(Leithwood et al., 1999; Marzano et al., 2005). Instructional leadership theory has four
identifiable dimensions – instructional leader, resource provider, communicator, and the visible
leader (Leithwood et al., 1999). In addition to the four areas described, principals are also called
to provide specific feedback and actively support instruction through daily practices, modeling
and professional development (Marks & Printy, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005; Robinson et al.,
2008).
In a comparison of transformational leadership, instructional leadership, and other
leadership theories, indicators pointed to instructional leadership theory as influencing student
outcomes and transformational leadership supporting social outcomes (Robinson et al., 2008).
This suggests that both are of import. Educational leadership involves building collegial
cohesive staffs that share a vision for schools all while keeping a trained focus on student
achievement and teacher development and practice to ensure those outcomes (Bendikson et al.,
2012; Marks & Printy, 2003; Robinson et al., 2008).
Therefore, research about leadership and its impact on the principalship has emerged in
the last three decades due to the emphasis on student outcomes and policies designed to support
student achievement. However information about leadership, the principalship, and their impact
on change and student outcomes has been scant.
A Historic Perspective of the Principalship
Hallinger and Heck (1996) identified 40 studies within a 15-year time span that
addressed school leadership and school achievement. This was done in a time of high public
scrutiny of public schools. The publication of “A Nation at Risk” generated negative feedback
about the preparation of students in the United States (Bell, 1993). It would seem that such

28
intense focus on education and student achievement would lead to and produce research about
the instructional leader at a school: the principal. That was not the case. It has been theorized that
this lack of research into the role of the principal exists for three distinct reasons. Historians have
researched the broader category of school administration with more of a focus on the central
office administrators. Scholars who write about educational administration are not historians, and
the works are limited in their focus to historical perspectives for training and guidance of school
leaders. Writers also may make the role of the principal diminutive because of personal
experience: the perception of the principal as a distant individual who is responsible for
administering discipline (Kafka, 2009; Rousmaniere, 2007).
The principalship is a newer phenomenon within the broader historical context of public
education (Kafka, 2009; Rousmaniere, 2007). Many shifts in public education and its
organization have taken place in the last century. The principalship was one of those innovations
that had significant impact. As organizational structures and accountability increased, the
principal became the hinge between the school and the district (Rousmaniere, 2007). Schools
expanded from one-room elementary schools to ones with multiple rooms and differing functions
(Cubberley, 1923). They became large enough to need supervision by the head teacher or
principal (Pierce, 1935). In the late 1800s, the “principal teacher” provided clerical and
administrative duties to keep the school functioning. By the early twentieth century, industry,
urbanization, migration and immigration grew and populations shifted from rural to more
densely populated areas. Schools needed to provide compulsory education for these growing
numbers of families with school-aged children. Once again, this led to schools becoming larger
and more complex organizations. Area superintendents needed to relinquish some responsibility

29
to local site principals in order to manage the increasing populations (Kafka, 2009). This was a
variance in the “principal teacher” role.
More changes in the role and principal power became evident in the early decades of the
twentieth century. The idea of the school principal in authority over other adults in the building
was novel (Kafka, 2009). Principals became teachers of teachers. They took on the responsibility
of training, supervising and evaluating teacher performance and the performance of their
students (Pierce, 1935). In the 1930s and 1940s principals were viewed as democratic leaders
taking into account the views of different community stakeholders to work on a cause. This idea
of democratic leadership, a form of shared leadership developed due to the social contexts of the
wars that embroiled most of the world because it extolled “The American Way” (Kafka, 2009).
This meant that they became community leaders taking more power and authority and the idea of
collaborative leadership began to emerge.
By the 1960s and 1970s principals still maintained many of these roles yet were now
encumbered by the management of federal policy that required detailed accountability for
systems under the ESEA. It has been argued that the principalship began to look more like
management than leadership (Rousmaniere, 2007). The 1980s ushered in more market driven
perspectives of education (Burke, 2004; Fuhrman, 2004). The nation as a whole began to look at
the state of schools and our ability to compete in the world based on foundations established
through education. With the impact of effective school research (Hallinger & Heck, 1996) and
the publication of “A Nation At Risk,” the principal, once again, was positioned to be the
instructional leader on a school site in support of instructional change that resulted in higher
student performance (Murphy & Hallinger, 1992). The 1980s were also witness to the
emergence of the application of leadership theories in K-12 educational settings. This aligned

30
with the ideas from writings of the time where the principal was seen as the most pivotal for
student achievement and success (Cuban, 1984; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood, et al.,
1999; Marzano et al., 2005).
Transformational and instructional leadership theories appealed to educators and were
applied in practice producing learning about improving teaching and creating conditions for
teaching and learning (Bendikson et al., 2012). These practices have been identified as direct and
indirect leadership (Bendikson et al., 2012; Marks & Printy, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005; O’Day,
2002; Robinson et al., 2008). Direct leadership practices can be described as practices that focus
on improving teaching such as goal setting, quality teacher selection and development, and
continued teacher learning. Indirect applications create safe and orderly environments where
learning can occur and resources are strategically prioritized to support preferred outcomes
(Bendikson et al., 2012). The use of both strategies is part of the modern principal’s repertoire.
Quality instruction, key within instructional theory and direct leadership practices, is concerned
with student improvement. However, indirect approaches undergird successful schools and are a
necessity for schools that rely on departmental organizational structures. In these cases,
principals create the supports and the environments for departments that have more direct
influence on student achievement (Bendikson et al., 2012; Marks & Printy, 2003; Robinson et
al., 2008).
During this time, another significant shift occurred in educational accountability.
Principals were asked to engage in innovations and change to support student achievement that
directly impacts their future ability in the workforce (Fullan, 2013; Marzano et al., 2005). The
new image of the workforce was one of global economies and competition. This brought the
principal into different accountability structures, such as market models that had not been part of

31
the purview in the past (Burke, 2004; O’Day, 2002). Accountability includes the proper use of
power, working to achieve the priority of the organization while maintaining efficient, effective
quality programs that are transparent to the public (Burke, 2004; Hentschke & Wohlstetter,
2004). Once again education took a page from business: schools were now asked to focus on the
bottom line results. Accountability attended to school-level performance and allowed for
consequences when performance indicators were not met (Fuhrman, 2004; Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004). The performance indicators came in the form of summative state tests that
measured grade-level learning. This became more defined with the introduction of state
standards and NCLB and is a significant part of the dialogue with CCSS (National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010a; NGA &
CCSSO, 2010b; NCLB, 2001).
It can be seen from this historical perspective that instructional leadership has always
been a part of the principalship to some degree in American education. The modern
principalship requires the knowledge and use of a myriad of complex skills. The principal needs
to be strategic, instructional, organizational, political, and a community leader in order to garner
success. Principals are viewed from all these lenses. They are pivotal and accountable in efforts
to improve schools and bring about educational change (Kafka, 2009). Since the 1980s,
instructional innovations and implementation have risen in importance with strong accountability
measures in place to determine target achievement and success. The newest iteration of these
innovations are CCSS, and they are currently in the initial implementation phase and are a shift
and change in how schools will attend to the business of instruction and student achievement.
Although seen as the conduit of educational change and policy implementation, principals are
faced with barriers to change and its implementation (Fowler, 2009).

32
Organizations and the Change Process
The historic perspective of change suggests that it is difficult and uncertain.
Organizational change can proceed from hopeful beginnings, to a turbulent middle, and a
discouraging ending if mindful change implementation is not considered (Bolman & Deal,
2003). However, successful change that is truly transformational draws upon strong leadership, a
change in behavior, and a complete commitment to a new way of thinking and doing. Coupled
with the theories and frameworks of instructional and transformational leadership,
transformational change is both the impetus for and hindrance of organizational success (Gilley,
Gilley, & McMillan, 2009b; Gilley et al., 2009a; Robinson et al., 2008). That success can be
determined not simply by outcomes and products but by the reculturation of an organization as it
both creates and sustains that change; in education, that change is often manifested through the
implementation of directives, policies, and a variety of external forces (Elmore, 2002; Flett &
Wallace, 2005; Fullan, 2012; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2008). Thus, while many
transformational change efforts fail, this failure may not simply be attributed to the directives or
policies themselves but the implementation of them by leadership.
In order for that transformational change to take hold as part of a new culture and to be
successful over time, it must be part of second-order change or “deep change” (Fullan, 2012;
Gilley et al., 2009a; Marzano et al., 2005, p. 66). Differentiation of change—and the magnitude
of change—has been conceptualized by change theory in a variety of ways but can be articulated
most succinctly for education by the two orders of change proposed by Marzano et al. (2005).
First-order change is that which is incremental and related to the daily life of a school. In
contrast, second-order change relates to a specific issue that requires a total overhaul of a system
or systems in place (Gilley et al., 2009a; Marzano et al., 2005). This second order change is

33
aligned with transformational change as it represents a complete break with a former way of
learning and doing; it is often “dramatic” in its re-visioning of an organization and is fraught
with difficulties (Marzano et al., 2005, p. 66). Beyond managing daily issues, it requires a leader
to serve as a change agent, a visionary, an innovator, a team builder, and a guide for all aspects
of change (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Fullan, 2012; Gilley et al., 2009a; Gilley et al., 2009b; Kouzes
& Posner, 2011; Marzano et al., 2005). More importantly, second-order change requires a change
agent mentality or brand of transformational leadership that can drive an organization forward
while simultaneously reculturing it (Fullan, 2012; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2008; Gilley et al.,
2009a; Gilley et al., 2009b; Marzano et al., 2005).
Organizational change theory recognizes that change does not occur in a vacuum nor in a
linear fashion. It is complicated by human behavior and human needs. Moreover, it is by those
same people that transformational change is made possible, as implementing change is entirely a
human endeavor (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Calabrese, 2002; Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 2012; Gilley et
al., 2009a; Gilley et al., 2009b; Kotter, 2012; Kotter & Cohen, 2008; Kouzes & Posner, 2011;
Marzano et al., 2005; Senge, 1990). Thus, by viewing change through the context of human
behavior—notably leaders—it is possible to understand how change is both successful and
challenging. Leaders are the change agents who have the ability to mobilize, implement and
sustain change (Battilana et al., 2010; Calabrese, 2002; Gilley et al., 2009a; Kotter, 2012; Kouzes
& Posner, 2011). The study of leadership behaviors with respect to organizational change and
educational reform has been studied and analyzed thoroughly, and a cumulative literature on
organizational change in education exists in full, yet its application to current or specific
curricular and instructional policy has yet to be explored (Battilana et al., 2010; Bendikson et al.,
2012; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Calabrese, 2002; Fink & Resnick, 2001; Flett & Wallace, 2005;

34
Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 2012; Gilley et al., 2009a; Gilley et al., 2009b; Kotter, 2012; Kotter &
Cohen, 2008; Kouzes & Posner, 2011; Marzano et al., 2005; Robinson et al., 2008; Senge, 1990;
Youngs & King, 2002).
Understanding how organizations operate is a critical component in implementing
change. Because today’s world is increasingly more “turbulent” and complex, it is essential that
leaders use multiple perspectives and the four frames to determine what’s wrong, how to fix it,
and defend against complacency and stagnation. Bolman and Deal (2003) conceptualize how to
move organizations forward with four frames through which one may define and understand the
roles of leaders and leadership through change and progress. The four frames—structural,
political symbolic, and human resources—serve as a mental model to navigate the ins and outs of
organizations from the perspective of the leader (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Moreover, if leaders
view situations through multiple frames, they may see other ways to solve problems with more
“artistry” (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Together they attend to the dynamics, people, environments,
conflicts, rituals, beliefs, values and tasks carried out within an organization and speak to the
potential an organization has in improving and maintaining success.
Coupled with the framework for organizational change proposed by Bolman and Deal
(2003) are the models of change that support organizations in their endeavors of progress.
Models of change serve as a way to guide leaders in their decisions and actions. Many are
conceptualized for the workplace—applicable to businesses experiencing both incremental first
order change and more dramatic second-order change. How-to books, theoretical frameworks,
research studies, and professional development or trainings are offered in abundance in order to
support organizations embarking on a change journey. Each takes into account the magnitude of
change, the human context, as well as the possibilities for maintenance and sustainment of that

35
change (Battilana et al., 2010; Bendikson et al., 2012; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Calabrese, 2002;
Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 2001; Gilley et al. 2009a; Gilley et al, 2009b; Kouzes & Posner, 2011;
Marzano et al., 2005). One model of transformational change encompasses many of the ideas
presented by earlier organizational change models and incorporates the role of the leader as well
as those carrying out the change—speaking to the need for a complete reculturation; Kotter’s
(2012) eight stages of change draws upon many of the previous organizational change theories
including Lewin (1951), Schein (1990 and 1994), and Ulrich (1998) as well as organizational
leadership theory (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 2012; Gallimore & Goldenberg;
2008; Gilley et al., 2009a; Kouzes & Posner, 2011; Marzano et al., 2005; Senge, 1990). Through
studying successful change initiatives, Kotter (2012) found eight stages for change:
(1) Establishing a sense of urgency
(2) Creating the guiding coalition
(3) Developing a vision and strategy
(4) Communicating the change vision
(5) Empowering broad-based action
(6) Generating short-term wins
(7) Consolidating gains and producing more change
(8) Anchoring new approaches in the culture
These eight stages seek to mobilize people and change their behavior in such a way that a
new culture committed to the specific change is created (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Kotter, 2012;
Kotter & Cohen, 2008). Each step plays a critical role in working toward reculturation and
successful second-order change; furthermore, each role can be tied not only to organizational
change but to leadership practices that are applicable to the educational setting.

36
1. Establishing a Sense of Urgency
To establish a sense of urgency is to prepare for change, to bring a sense of relevance for
that change, and to begin the process of mobilizing people and resources to enact change. This
requires change to be understood as a difficult process but one that is necessary and natural
(Calabrese, 2002). In this pre-implementation stage, finding and developing the competencies of
the leaders and the supporters who will carry out the message of change and the change itself
allows for momentum to build and a direction to be created. In order to avoid what Kotter (2012)
refers to as complacency—that sense of low urgency in which people are unmotivated to change
because they do not believe that the change will create benefits. Researchers and studies in
addition to Kotter support that it is critical to motivate, communicate with, and educate
stakeholders regarding the change—both mobilizing and making relevant what the change is,
how it will affect all stakeholders, and the plans and processes for enacting change (Battilana et
al., 2010; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Calabrese, 2002; Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 2012; Gilley et al.,
2009a; Kotter, 2012; Kotter & Cohen, 2008; Kouzes & Posner, 2011; Marzano et al., 2005). All
must understand the motives for the change, the appropriateness of that change, and how that
change is envisioned to affect the organization at all levels.
In the context of education, that sense of urgency is often created by external forces such
as policies and directives. As schools are held accountable for student knowledge through
student performance on standardized tests, mandates such as federal policies require schools to
take action and implement change not only at the district or school level but also in each
classroom (Burke, 2004; Flett & Wallace, 2005; O’Day, 2002). Change is occurring two-fold at
the site level: at the schools as a whole and in each individual classroom managed by an
individual teacher. This twice-occurring change lends to both issues of urgency as teachers

37
harbor their own beliefs and values regarding educational reform as well as a whole school sense
of urgency with the principal at the center of any tensions toward change at the district level and
those maintained by teachers (Brighton, 2003; Datnow & Castellano, 2000; Flett & Wallace,
2005).
Accountability is a practice of continuous improvement, and research suggests that the
impetus for such change is on school leadership to promote a continued effort toward the
education of teachers who must also implement change (Elmore, 2002; Flett & Wallace, 2005;
Harpell & Andrews, 2010; Norton Grubb & Badway, 2005; Smit & Humpert, 2012). This
heightens the sense of urgency as change is understood to be a responsibility for more than just
leaders. Furthermore, failure to respond to policy changes affects more than the educators
involved; it affects a school’s ability to receive funding, demonstrate student achievement, and
maintain autonomy (Flett & Wallace, 2005). Many policies such as No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) include consequences requiring corrective action should a school fail to carry out
change successfully (Fuhrman, 2004; NCLB, 2001). This, Kotter (2012) describes, is often the
impetus behind change: understanding the realities and potential crises for not implementing
change or for remaining complacent.
2. Creating the Guiding Coalition
Fowler (2009) believes that the pre-implementation phase requires significant
mobilization of resources and materials—especially resources such as the participants supporting
the change process. Who, he asks, will participate and to what capacity? With change
conceptualized as a human and interpersonal endeavor, those who resist or do not value it
complicate the process; therefore, it is critical that organizations enlist a network of champions
and a collaborative team who have the ability to clarify the values, model the behaviors, and

38
provide the credibility for guiding the change process (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Calabrese, 2002;
Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 2012; Gilley et al., 2009a; Gilley et al., 2009b; Kotter, 2012; Kotter &
Cohen, 2008; Kouzes & Posner, 2011; Marzano et al., 2005; Senge, 1990; Senge, 1997).
Bolman and Deal (2003) and Kotter (2012) write of establishing a guiding team—a
coalition—with the credibility, skills, connections, reputations, and formal authority or
leadership to prepare, motivate, and provide the knowledge and skills in order for the change
process to take hold. The team, in essence, becomes change experts who provide the awareness,
learning, and stability for change (Calabrese, 2002). These are the leaders who provide the
opportunities for support and learning, who build the capacity of others, and who, in the face of
challenges, maintain forward progress. Moreover, these leaders are still understood to be learners
who are willing to take risks in their actions and challenge the process in order to bring about
successful change (Kotter, 2012; Kouzes & Posner, 2011). They are the driving forces behind
planning and implementing change.
3. Developing a Vision and Strategy
While the coalition or team are the actors working toward implementing change, before
that process can begin or the actors play their roles, a vision for change—the plans, procedures,
and strategies—must be established. Often created by a leader or a leader with the support of the
coalition, the vision for change is a shared ideal for how that change will be manifested in
practice as well as how it will affect an organization in both the short- and long-term range
(Kotter, 2012; Kouzes & Posner, 2011). Anchored in symbolism, shared values, and goals, a
vision seeks to clarify, direct, and inspire all stakeholders to understand the necessity for change
(Bolman & Deal, 2003; Kotter, 2012; Kouzes & Posner, 2011). In essence, it creates buy-in for
the change process.

39
It motivates people to think beyond their individual interests and to look forward to the
benefits of change; thus it is a shared vision nurtured by a leader’s creation of a picture of the
future (Kotter, 2012). Additionally, it refers back to the organization’s history and demonstrates
how the change will support progress, innovation and success (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Kotter,
2012; Kouzes & Posner, 2011). Kotter believes than an effective change vision is one that is
imaginable, desirable, feasible, focused, flexible, and communicable. Calabrese (2002) supports
this idea, arguing that a strong vision consist of awareness, learning, and stability for an
organization, its people, and its culture. Finally, vision is the foundation for the implementation
process and must exist prior to action.
Vision lends itself to strategy and plans by bringing focus and logic to the change
process. Yet more than a simple outline of a plan for action, the strategies, programs, and
procedures require leaders to act as learners. This allows the development of a coalition
committed to the change process unique to the context implementing the change (Battilana et al.,
2010; Calabrese, 2002; Fowler, 2009; Kotter, 2012; Robinson et al., 2008). These strategies take
the form of both direct and indirect behaviors and actions on the part of the leaders; in other
words, they consist of the direct actions as well as the environmental conditions that support the
change vision (Bendikson et al., 2012). Moreover, strategies—perhaps more than the vision—are
a response to and integration of the external factors that both encourage and hinder change
(Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 2012; Kotter, 2012). They are, as Kotter argued, designed to be feasible
and flexible. Here is where the action may commence: in the guidance and support provided by
the strategies, programs, and procedures clearly delineated and influenced by the vision
statement. Yet the vision cannot exist in isolation of the change process; there must be buy-in
created through effective communication.

40
4. Communicating the Change Vision
The leader’s ability to communicate the change vision is a tool for change agents to lead
by example and model the way for change. More than just talk, communication refers to the
actions, the deeds and the message in support of change and of change implementation (Gilley et
al., 2009b; Kotter, 2012). Kotter (2012) and Gilley et al. (2009b) continue in their belief that in
order for a great vision to take hold, it must be communicated often and effectively through
multiple and varied forms. Communication serves to motivate, troubleshoot, lead by example,
and provides a continued understanding regarding the critical nature of change (Battilana et al.,
2010; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Gilley et al., 2009b; Kotter, 2012; Kouzes & Posner, 2011;
Marzano et al., 2005). Communication, moreover, begins in the pre-implementation phase of
change and continues well beyond implementation, as it relates to the plans, procedures, and
strategies set in place to bring about change and sustain change over time.
Organizations are cultures made up of people with shared artifacts, values, and
assumptions (Schein, 1990). These cultures are manifested and communicated through various
symbols, words, and actions (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Kotter (2012) continues that
communication consists of deeds more than words, and that those deeds take on both strategic
and symbolic underpinnings. However, Bolman and Deal (2003) contend that communication
can be carried out effectively through acts, rituals, metaphors, and the various symbols of the
organizations themselves. These symbols communicate the values, beliefs and visions of an
organization and function as the “narrative” of that organization’s purpose, plan and history
(Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 251). During the change process, this narrative may alter and thus
require communication to bring clarity, resolve, and direction for change (Battilana et al., 2010;
Bolman & Deal, 2003; Gilley et al., 2009b; Kotter, 2012). As a result, unspoken

41
communication—symbolic communication—is as valued as spoken communication during the
change process as it threads itself throughout all aspects of an organization’s culture.
5. Empowering Broad-Based Action
To empower broad-based action is to be in the midst of the implementation process. It is
the moment in which plans, procedures and strategies are set in place through shared leadership
and the empowerment of employees and other stakeholders (Darling-Hammond, 1990; Fullan,
2012; Kotter, 2012; Marzano et al., 2005; Senge, 1990). Kotter believes that the key to taking
action is to provide people opportunities to remove any barriers that will hinder the
implementation process. He continues that barriers typically take the form of structures, skills,
systems and supervisors (Kotter, 2012). He cautions fragmented visions and communication
patterns as well as lack the power given to those who are inextricably bound and undoubtedly
affected by the change. Consequently, he views the solution as one of “tapping” into an
organization’s source of power—its people (Kotter, 2012, p. 106). Through communication,
collaboration, alignment, training, and maintaining focus, people will be empowered through
their knowledge, skills and motivation gained via involvement (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Fullan,
2012; Kotter, 2012; Senge, 1990).
In prior educational reform efforts regarding instruction and curriculum, action has taken
the form of teacher learning and collaboration opportunities in order to increase knowledge of
practice and create a sense of shared leadership (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Darling-
Hammond, 1990; Elmore, 2002; Marzano et al., 2000; Senge, 1990). In order for action to be
effective and reflective of the goals and vision set forth by leadership, such teacher learning and
collaborative efforts to strengthen knowledge and practice must be focused on the specific
change occurring (Elmore, 2002; Guskey, 2000). In recent years, that collaboration in education

42
has occurred through Professional Development, training, and collaborative leadership (Cochran-
Smith & Lytle, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 1990; Eilers & Camacho, 2007; Elmore, 2002;
Guskey, 2000; Fowler, 2009). This is a strategy used often by principals who are responding to
top-down directives by reaching for support from outside resources as well those within the
school site (Eilers & Camacho, 2007). Collaboration empowers as knowledge is shared,
problems are reasoned through logically, and professional capacity is built. Others are enabled to
act as part of the team, and all are working toward a shared vision or goal brought about by
change (Kouzes & Poser, 2011; Senge, 1990).
6. Generating Short-Term Wins
Throughout the change process it is critical to generate and celebrate short-term victories.
These wins are visible, unambiguous and directly related to the goals and vision of change
(Fullan, 2012; Kotter, 2012). Kotter maintains that these wins prove that the change is worth it,
help refine the vision, keep stakeholders involved and supportive, and build momentum. With
short-term wins, evidence of the work put forth during the pre-implementation stage is made
clear. Taking the time to support and appreciate those who have supported change not only
empowers them to take action but also to motivate them to continue working toward progress
(Kouzes & Posner, 2011).
The evidence of victory, based on occurrences rather than simply data, informs decisions
made during the implementation process (Dowd, 2005; Eilers & Camacho, 2007; Fullan, 2012).
It also is a moment in time for the change process to be evaluated, amended and restructured as
necessary based on the evidence (Battilana et al., 2010; Kotter, 2012). Dowd (2005) believes that
making decisions based on evidence rather than data has the ability to transform an
organization’s view toward change by supporting the creation of a culture of inquiry rather than

43
simply a culture reliant on data. By reflecting inward, there is the hope that the “locus of change”
will begin within an organization as stakeholders make data-based decisions for improvement
and reform (Dowd, 2005, p. 2). Thus change—and wins—become the norm for creating progress
rather than the exception.
7. Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change
Change is a long process that is fraught with difficulties and complexities that may not
have been apparent from the onset of the process. Therefore, Kotter believes that it is necessary
to celebrate wins in order to avoid complacency and maintain momentum, but celebrations that
do not produce further change or that create resistance can be “lethal” to the process (Kotter,
2012, p. 138). However, with the credibility brought forth by the short-term wins, more change is
possible (Kotter, 2012). Moreover, those who bring about that credibility through their actions
and support of change have made that change their own responsibility and part of their identity
as a member of that organization (Calabrese, 2002). Organizational change can be deeply
personal despite many working toward a shared goal; it is also a deeply human endeavor that can
lead to significant tensions between those who support the cause and those who resist it (Bolman
& Deal, 2003; Calabrese, 2002; Fowler, 2009; Kotter, 2012; Senge, 1990).
In consolidating gains and maintaining forward momentum, a certain resilience occurs
that has the ability to transcend resistance (Fowler, 2009; Kotter, 2012; Senge, 1990). Mobilizing
for sustainment and monitoring for progress also occur through the consolidation of wins,
allowing for continuous effort toward continuous improvement (Elmore, 2002; Fowler, 2009).
Yet it takes a leader to recognize, consolidate, and use those wins to garner further change and
anchor them within the emergent culture (Kotter, 2012; Marzano et al., 2005). Leaders, as
change agents, maintain the vision and direct all actions toward that vision of change.

44
8. Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture
Schein (1990) defines the three levels of culture that exist within a particular organization
or context: artifacts, values, and assumptions. He contends that learning and change cannot occur
without a commitment to and an understanding of an organization’s structure, beliefs, and those
values that exist at the unconscious level, internalized by all who belong to the organization
(Schein, 1990). Cultural models—the shared schema of how the world works—influence the
setting and therefore shape the culture through often “inimical” ways that can be
counterproductive to school reform and change (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2008, p. 51). That is,
it is the cultural setting of an organization such as a school, as information and policy flow from
top to bottom and bottom to top, that impedes progress and causes conflict yet also allows for
successful change to take root. Moreover, it is the culture of the school that must be changed in
order to mitigate competing values and beliefs that are hampering the change process. This
reculturation affects all aspects of the school’s culture—from the beliefs and policies to the
behaviors and expectations for all individuals (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2008).
Fullan (2012) believes that change can only be maintained if there is a reculturation—one
that is beyond merely a leader “adopting innovations” (p. 44). This is tied to second order change
and is rooted in new ways of thinking, believing, acting and leading (Marzano et al., 2005). It is
more than a reculturation of the organizational structures and tasks; it is a reculturation of the
people and stakeholders, too. These new ways of being require support and a commitment to
continued learning as well as personal and organizational growth (Calabrese, 2002; Darling-
Hammond, 1990; Eilers & Camacho, 2007; Elmore, 2002; Kouzes & Posner, 2011). Therefore,
in sustaining change an organization must focus on developing the capacities of its leaders and
its key members. At school sites, this would be the principals and teachers who are, as previously

45
described, responsible for building that shared knowledge, motivating, supporting, and
implementing change (Marzano et al., 2005). Building internal capacity—the knowledge of skills
of those carrying out change—supports a reculturation dedicated to continued learning and
progress.
Building Internal Capacity

As educational directives, policies, and initiatives from the top trickle down into districts
and individual school sites and the change process is initiated, it is often hampered during the
implementation phase by various external and internal pressures, demands, and a lack of
communication or vision (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 1990; Elmore, 2002;
Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 1991; Kotter, 2012; Kotter & Cohen, 2008; Marzano et al., 2005). Yet
successful change implementation, as previously described, is possible when the right decisions,
resources, and people are made, mobilized, and supported. In Kotter’s eight change stages, he
describes the critical nature of incorporating a vision with key people to developing a new
culture (Kotter, 2012; Kotter & Cohen, 2008). The development of internal capacity—building,
identifying, and harnessing an individual or a group’s value, expertise, and assets in order to
accomplish goals—is an integral component of successful change implementation as it allows for
the maintenance of that new culture (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Elmore, 2002; Fullan, 1991;
Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Kotter, 2012; Kotter & Cohen, 2008; Marzano et al., 2005).
In the context of education, Elmore (2002) argues, capacity building is rooted in
instruction and involves interaction amongst teachers, students, and content. Teachers—in
addition to administration—are critical players or team members in the implementation of
curricular and instructional change. Moreover, these top-down decisions have bottom-up
solutions as developing internal capacity leads away from “power over” and moves to “power

46
with” (Elmore, 2002; Darling-Hammond, 1990; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012, p. 14). Hargreaves
& Fullan (2012) write that internal capacity is rooted in professional capacity developed through
the integration of human, social, and decision capital. By identifying and mobilizing the
individual and shared knowledge, skills, talents and relations, not only will professional learning
occur, but change is better facilitated within the “power with” rather than “power over” model
(p. 9).
Strong leadership has the potential to cultivate increased student achievement through an
involvement with curriculum and assessment, intellectual stimulation of a school’s faculty, and a
commitment to school culture (Marzano et al., 2005). These qualities speak to a strong internal
system dedicated to building internal capacity (Dowd, 2005; Elmore, 2002; Norton Grubb &
Badway, 2005). Thus, as administration focuses on the teaching and learning of teachers as well
as the teaching and learning of students, change and student achievement can occur (Childress et
al., 2006; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Dowd, 2005; Elmore, 2002; Marzano et al., 2005).
These qualities also align themselves with the goals of effective Professional Development (PD):
an investment in knowledge and skills in order to achieve a particular end, including improving
student learning and achievement (Childress et al., 2006; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Elmore,
2002; Good et al., 2004).
Professional Development (PD) is a key example used by schools to build and maintain
internal capacity. While it has been referred to and researched as staff development or in-service
training in the past, PD is the name given to the teacher learning activities designed to increase
internal capacity (Elmore, 2002; Fenstermacher & Berliner, 1985). Often characterized as after
school meetings or trainings mandated by administration, PD has come under fire in recent years
as being ineffective, unproductive, a waste of time and not tied to student learning or teacher

47
practices while others cite a lack of time to commit to a full understanding and integration of PD
strategies into practice (Abdal-Haqq, 1996; Elmore, 2002; Guskey, 2000). However, research has
also pointed to the qualities of effective PD, arguing that effective PD must be: ongoing;
inclusive of training, practice, and feedback; collaborative; rooted in student learning; anchored
in a specific content area; focused; related to a clear vision or mission; research-based; involving
the participation of teachers and administrators; a practice that is intentional or “consciously
designed”; systemic; and continuous (Abdal-Haqq, 1996; Childress et al., 2006; Cochran-Smith
& Lytle, 1999; Elmore, 2002; Guskey, 2000, p. 17; Good et al., 2004; Marzano et al., 2005). It
is, above all, connected to particular issues of content and pedagogy that are tied to student
learning and achievement (Elmore, 2002; Guskey, 2000). By viewing PD as ongoing, focused,
and a part of the institutional and instructional structure of the school, the barriers that often
hamper the implementation of effective PD are lessened.
Successful implementation of policy and directives, therefore, requires teacher skills,
knowledge and action. Internal capacity speaks to the ability of teachers to transform into change
agents acting as “conduits for instructional policy” (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Darling-Hammond,
1990, p. 345; Elmore, 2002). Yet this change is not occurring in isolation or in a single action; it
is ongoing, rooted in improvement, focused on student needs and student learning, collaborative,
and builds on teacher expertise (Good, Miller, & Gassenheimer, 2004). In the context of
education, such capacity building has been researched and discussed under the labels of training,
staff development, in-service training, action research, inquiry, and PD (Childress et al., 2006;
Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 1990; Desimone, 2009; Elmore, 2002;
Fenstermacher & Berliner, 1985; Good et al., 2004; Guskey, 2000; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012;
Helsing et al., 2008; Marzano et al., 2005). They speak to the activities for ongoing learning as

48
well as the development of skills and knowledge to “respond to the external demands” and
“engage in the improvement of practice and performance” (Elmore, 2002, p. 13). In essence,
capacity building mobilizes the change agents at a particular site by developing practitioner
knowledge and skills in the face of radical policy change.
Research has shown that teacher quality and leadership affect student achievement
(Darling-Hammond, 2000; Good et al., 2004; Marzano et al., 2005, Wenglinsky, 2000). If PD is
tied to student learning and student achievement, then PD can be used as a tool to increase
teacher quality at the school site in order to implement successful change initiatives (Good et al.,
2004). Effective leaders sustain human and professional capacity by building in systems that
support teacher learning and knowledge building in order to transform external directives into
internal instructional and curricular models. By building the shared knowledge base for teachers
through PD, principals, as instructional leaders, can not only build internal capacity but also
develop shared leadership in which teachers have the ability to grow as professionals and experts
in their field (Cardno, 2005; Elmore, 2002; Good et al, 2004; Youngs & King, 2002). Thus
change is driven by both internal and external factors—the capacity and expertise of the teachers
and leaders as well as policy and reform dictates—with the principal or leader as the key figure
for developing a professional learning culture (Cardno, 2005; Youngs & King, 2002).
PD and other internal capacity building activities have been used as a way in which local
contexts respond to external demands such as policy and the various accountability systems at
play. Accountability in K-12 public education has a long history that has affected all levels of
government, public perception, the economy, and social realms of our society. Defined as the
“contractual” or obligational relationship between a provider of a service and a director,
accountability manifests itself in education as the practice of “holding educational systems

49
responsible for the quality of their products—students’ knowledge, skills, and behaviors”
(Hentschke & Wohlsetter, 2004, p. 17; Stecher & Kirby, 2004, p. 1). In recent years, this practice
of holding schools accountable for student knowledge is maintained through student
performance on standardized tests and the evaluation of teachers based on those tests. Thus, in
the era of results-driven accountability systems, teaching and learning have been greatly
impacted as schools act and react in response to the accountability models that bring about the
various policies, directives and initiatives. The impetus for change has relied on school leaders
and teachers to “focus the resources and capacities” of schools in order to meet the requirements
of such policies (Elmore, 2002, p. 23). Elmore (2002) continues that if PD is being used as a
response to the pressures created under accountability, then schools must undergo a reculturation
in which PD is an institutional structure anchored in continuous improvement.
Consequently, PD and capacity building must be sustained and woven into the fabric of a
school’s identity. This maintenance and sustainability of change and improvement can be
integrated into a school’s identity through the reculturing of teacher learning as a learning culture
(Elmore, 2002; Desimone, 2009; Fenstermacher & Berliner, 1985; Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2008). It requires a change in behaviors and beliefs as well as a commitment to continuous
improvement (Elmore, 2002; Helsing et al., 2008). Moreover, schools become environments for
continuous, collaborative and productive professional learning that are focused on student
achievement (Elmore, 2002; Good et al., 2004; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). Kotter’s last stage
of change requires new cultures to support new ways; a commitment to effective PD can build
internal capacity as well as transform and support culture (Kotter & Cohen, 2008). In turn, that
new culture can support and integrate further organizational changes that impact student learning
and achievement.

50
Common Core State Standards Initiative

The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSS), developed in 2009 and released in
2010 by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School
Officers (CCSSO), is a state-led effort to create a national curriculum. Consisting of English
Language Arts and Mathematics standards, the curriculum seeks to bring focus and depth to
teaching and learning under a unified set of standards adopted by 43 states, the District of
Columbia, four territories, and the Department of Defense Education Activity, as of this writing
(Kirst, 2013; Porter et al., 2011; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices &
Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010a; NGA & CCSSO, 2010b). The standards were
conceived as a way to better prepare all students for college and the workforce, to bring about
academic equity and to place the United States back at the apex of economic and intellectual
productivity. They are a research-based, internationally benchmarked, and rigorous set of content
standards rooted in 21
st
century skills that will improve the ability of all students—from
kindergarten through twelfth grade—to be college and career ready (Kirst, 2013; NGA &
CCSSO, 2010a; NGA & CCSSO, 2010b; Porter et al., 2011).
The standards-based reform movement in education is not a new discussion. Previous
standards and curricular reforms such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) have created high-stakes
accountability systems rooted in standardized testing and measurable student progress in order to
close the achievement gap (Dee & Jacob, 2011; NCLB, 2001). Under the federal policy of the
NCLB all students are to meet a level of proficiency by 2014; this proficiency is reported
through performance indicators such as annual tests, a school’s Academic Performance Index
(API), and through a school’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) mandates (NCLB, 2001). While
NCLB sought to provide academic equity for all students and effectively close the achievement

51
gap, critics of NCLB have argued that it has, in fact, limited a child’s education to that which is
tested on annual standardized tests (Causey-Bush, 2005; Dee & Jacob, 2011). Focus,
consequently, has been on breadth not depth of content knowledge. Moreover, as performance
standards increased, schools have faced a variety of consequences should they fail to meet their
AYP (California Department of Education, 2010; Kirst, 2013; Linn, 2005; NCLB, 2001).
However, not all states faced the same consequences as states implemented their own content
standards and determined their own proficiency levels (Dee & Jacob, 2011; Linn, 2005). By
contrast, CCSS represents a comprehensive set of national standards to be used by all states that
have adopted them with individual state standards to supplement and reflect context (NGA &
CCSSO, 2010a; NGA & CCSSO, 2010b; Porter et al., 2011). The hope is that CCSS will provide
an equitable education and equally rigorous standards for all students—effectively promoting
“fewer, clearer, and higher standards” that will prepare students for college and the workforce
(Marzano et al., 2013, p. 6; NGA & CCSSO, 2010a; NGA & CCSSO, 2010b; Porter et al.,
2011).
Unlike previous iterations of state standards or federal policy, this emphasis on higher
cognitive demands represents a significant change not only to what content will be taught but
also what levels of learning will occur (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a; NGA & CCSSO, 2010b; Porter
et al., 2011). However among the criticism against CCSS is the argument that the initiative does
not articulate how teachers should teach these content standards (Jenkins & Agamba, 2013;
Porter et al., 2011; Tienken, 2011). CCSS represents a move away from the “one size fits all
curriculum” created under the federal policy of No Child Left Behind toward a more
differentiated curriculum as the standards include multiple strands based on varying levels of
academic readiness (California Department of Education, 2010; Kirst, 2013; Porter et al., 2011).

52
Since the standards release in 2010 and the adoption by the majority of the states, the
focus of NGA and CCSSO—as well as school districts—has been on implementation. If
implemented “effectively,” NGA believes that the standards have the “potential” to narrow the
achievement gap by preparing all students for college and the workforce (Grossman, Reyna, &
Shipton, 2011, p. 3). However, it is noted that the change will be significant and challenging, and
will require change in instruction, curriculum, teacher preparation, resources and accountability
measures (Grossman et al., 2011; Jenkins & Agamba, 2013; Kirst, 2013; Sawchuk, 2012).
Moreover, these challenges have raised the concerns of teachers, principals and other educational
leaders as many question not the rigor or intentions of the standards but the implementation
process (Grossman et al., 2011; Sawchuk, 2012; Tienken, 2011). Teacher education will be at the
forefront of the debate as teachers are changing the way in which they teach and assess (Jenkins
& Agamba, 2013; Kirst, 2013; Kober & Rentner, 2011b; Kober & Rentner, 2012; Tienken,
2011). Research from the creators of CCSS as well as other sources have pointed to the
importance of Professional Development (PD) and organizational change strategies as leaders
are tasked with implementing the vision, goals and changes created under CCSS all the while
indicating that implementation of such strategies will not be without challenges (Grossman et al.,
2011; Jenkins & Agamba, 2013; Kirst, 2013; NGA & CCSSO, 2010a; NGA & CCSSO, 2010b;
Kober & Rentner, 2011a; Kober & Rentner, 2011b; Kober & Rentner, 2012; Porter et al., 2011,
Sawchuk, 2012). Yet the works of Kober and Rentner (2011a; 2011b; 2012) and the Center on
Educational Policy (CEP) also point to state and district progress with the implementation of
CCSS despite the fact that significant change will and must occur. Their work suggests that
states and districts are hopeful with regard to the effectiveness of CCSS in improving students’
knowledge and skills.

53
Effective change requires more than policy and belief in the initiative. Successful
implementation following adoption of CCSS has been ongoing and involves a variety of
educational stakeholders outside of the school site. The NGA suggests that governors, since they
have political authority over education and can mobilize resources and funds for schools, can
play an integral role in the implementation process (Grossman et al., 2011). They have the ability
to communicate a vision for reform; identify performance goals and measure progress; engage
key leaders from education, business, and philanthropy; build educator capacity; lead transitions
in state assessments and accountability policy; support local development and acquisition of new
curricula and materials; and maximize resources and share costs (Grossman et al., 2011). Their
suggestions echo the process of leading effective change outlined by Kotter and Cohen (2008) as
well as Bolman and Deal (2003), as previously described. Additionally, these imperatives for
successful implementation reflect the needs states and districts have indicated in the surveys and
studies completed by the CEP (Kober & Rentner, 2011a; Kober & Rentner, 2011b; Kober &
Rentner, 2012).
Thus initial research about CCSS has pointed into two divergent arenas: the potential
effectiveness of the standards and the change process. While little research has been done on
how best to implement the standards at the site level, research through the CEP has listed
possible routes for implementation at the state level that are echoed by organizational change
literature (Kober & Rentner, 2011a; Kober & Rentner, 2011b; Kober & Rentner, 2012; Rentner,
2013). Among the state challenges in implementing the change process the CEP has listed
teacher preparation, funding and resources, and assessments (Kober & Rentner, 2011a; Kober &
Rentner, 2011b; Kober & Rentner, 2012; Rentner, 2013). Therefore, a global analysis has been
initiated by national sources such as the NGA and the CEP, but the discussion remains on the

54
context of states and districts rather than what is occurring at individual school sites and with
individual leaders.
Conclusion
The role of the principal is seen as significant in terms of change at the site level. The
understanding and amalgamation of theories and organizational frameworks found in the
literature support the idea of change as a process and provide strategies the effective principal
can utilize when instigating instructional change. These theories and frameworks play an
important role as schools begin teaching CCSS. How will principals, as educational leaders,
implement changes derived from CCSS at the site level that promulgate the demands of
academic rigor and equity while preparing students for college and the 21
st
century workplace?
This study examined practices employed by principals in elementary and middle school settings
to determine the skills and strategies the principal leader uses while transforming practices to
elicit the outcomes sought under CCSS.

55
CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Authors: Melissa Kistler and Kristen Shultz

Introduction

Organizational change theory recognizes that change does not occur in a vacuum or in a
linear fashion. It is complicated by human behavior and human needs. Moreover, it is by those
same people that transformational change is made possible, as implementing change is entirely a
human endeavor (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 2012; Kotter, 2012; Kotter &
Cohen, 2008; Marzano et al., 2005). Thus by viewing change through the context of human
behavior—notably leaders—it is possible to understand how change is both successful and yet
challenging. In essence, leaders are the change agents who have the ability to mobilize,
implement, and sustain change (Gilley et al., 2009a). The study of leadership behaviors with
respect to organizational change—and organizational change within education—has been
analyzed thoroughly, yet its application to current curricular and instructional policy has not been
explored (Battilana et al., 2010; Bendikson et al., 2012; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Fowler, 2009;
Fullan, 2012; Gilley et al., 2009a; Kotter, 2012; Kotter & Cohen, 2008; Marzano et al., 2005;
Youngs & King, 2002).
As principals occupy an instructional leadership role rather than simply a managerial
role, it is their responsibility to plan and implement curricular and instructional change brought
about by external and internal factors, policies and directives. Chief among these policies are the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS), a sweeping educational policy that will affect not only
what students learn but also how they learn. In turn, it will undoubtedly impact teaching
practices within all classrooms. Thus principals face a plethora of challenges and decisions in

56
order to successfully implement the changes, increase student achievement, and reculture their
school sites to meet the demands and requirements of CCSS.
The preceding chapters provided an overview of the study and a review of the literature
that is relevant to the topic. This chapter provides an outline of the study and the methodology. It
specifically includes the purpose of the study, research design, sample population, data collection
protocols, and data analysis process used.
Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to identify strategies principals in the K-12 continuum
have found to be effective while implementing curricular and instructional change brought on by
policies and directives such as CCSS. In framing the discussion around accountability as well as
teacher learning, the theoretical lens has been one of organizational change and school culture
and climate. By examining the processes for implementing successful change, this study
illuminated the choices and beliefs regarding the strategies used by school leaders as they deal
with internal and external factors brought about by curricular change.
Research Questions

The following research questions were explored for this study:
(1) What planning and program design do principals use during the implementation of
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?
(2) What context-specific leadership practices are necessary for the implementation of
instructional changes?
(3) What are the organizational barriers that principals encounter when implementing
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?

57
Rationale for Mixed-Methods Study Design
Quantitative Research Methods

The study began with a quantitative survey. Surveys are often used to provide
descriptions of feelings, perceptions, values, habits and personal background or demographic
characteristics and are used in conjunction with other forms of information sources (Fink, 2013).
In order to gauge both the habits and characteristics of principals during the planning and
program design for implementing CCSS, a survey was deemed the appropriate and most efficient
tool to measure specific and individual responses across a sizeable sample population. Closed-
ended questions and a Likert-style response scale provided concrete and specific responses
across the sample population, consequently noting trends through an analysis of frequency and
central tendency such as mean and mode.
The self-administered online survey was used to gather cursory and foundational
information regarding various principals’ choices, knowledge, and attitudes toward
organizational change, CCSS, and the intersection of the these ideas. This survey then informed
the qualitative methods protocol and instrumentation design used as well as determined the
selection criteria for the principals interviewed.
Qualitative Research Methods

With qualitative research, the data collection process allows the researcher to be the
instrument of data collection and to construct meaning, patterns and themes out of the
experiences and people interviewed, observed and analyzed (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009).
Interviews, like other qualitative methods, function as a firsthand experience or way in which to
immerse oneself into the natural setting where the phenomenon of interest occurs (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Guided by the research questions and the context,

58
interviews help to further define that context and the experiences as they relate to the research
questions; in other words, they provide a framework to the phenomenon that may not be
understood through other research methods such as surveys and data analysis.
The nature of this study was to understand a phenomenon—that of implementing change,
and qualitative methods are the most appropriate ways to interpret that experience and
understand all facets of organizational change. Merriam (2009) argues that the nature of
qualitative research is to understand not just the events that occur but how people interpret that
experience. Therefore, the study of humans as their behavior, choices, and actions interact with
change requires qualitative research as many facets of change were explored.
Table 1
Methods Choices for Each Research Question
Research Question Survey Interview
Document
Analysis
What planning and program
strategies and features do principals
use during the implementation of
Common Core State Standards
(CCSS)?
X X X
What context-specific leadership
practices are necessary for the
implementation of instructional
changes?
X X
What are the organizational barriers
that principals encounter when
implementing Common Core State
Standards (CCSS)?
X X

Interviews were the chief source of qualitative data collection for this study since
implementation of CCSS has already begun, and interviews and surveys allow for participants to
reflect on the entire arc of the change process. Merriam (2009) believes that interviews work best

59
for that which cannot be observed or recreated. Interviews are used to provide clarity of practices
and to allow leaders to reflect on some of the non-observable phenomenon such as perceived
barriers or other factors that impact leaders’ decisions. The information provided in the
interviews were further grounded and validated in supporting documents made available by
districts and school sites. These documents provide tangible evidence of the planning, programs
and decisions made regarding implementation of CCSS. Table 1 outlines each research question
with the quantitative and qualitative methods selected.
Research Design
Identifying and understanding the strategies that successful principals employ in
implementing change is a complex process that requires significant time and resources. In order
to address the research questions fully, a mixed-methods study design was necessary. The study
began with a quantitative survey of several principals. Following the quantitative survey, select
principals and school sites engaged in qualitative interviews and document analysis. Document
review was utilized to support and seek out more specific data based upon the results of the other
instruments identified.
Sample and Population
Every aspect of a study is systematic and follows logical plans (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007;
Maxwell, 2012; Merriam, 2009). With this in mind purposive or purposeful sampling with
specific criteria was used to select participants and sites (Merriam, 2009). Purposeful and
criterion sampling focuses the researcher in identifying and ultimately choosing participants and
sites that best help to answer the research questions at hand. The sites and population sampled
must possess the attributes that best match a list of identified characteristics developed for the
research (Fink, 2013; Maxwell, 2012; Merriam, 2009; Weiss, 1994). The following

60
characteristics were deemed necessary to the research when selecting participants and sites for
the study:
(1) The district was seen as a leader in the implementation of CCSS.
(2) The school and the district had begun the planning process for implementing CCSS.
(3) There was documentation of a plan at the site level.
(4) The principal had been a principal for at least two years in order to have the requisite
understanding of accountability under student achievement systems.
(5) The principal had some training (formal and/or informal) in preparation for CCSS.
(6) The principal had qualities of transformational leadership (Robinson et al, 2008)
(7) The principal had oversight of resources needed to implement CCSS.
The internet-based survey was sent to 95 participants informed by the sampling criteria
described above via an email containing a recruitment letter and the link to the survey (Appendix
A). However, the survey was not limited to principals who have at least two years of experience,
as it was difficult to confirm via a recruitment letter and cursory check of the credentials of the
principal. A target was set to obtain a minimum of 57 participants’ responses—a response rate of
at least 60% within the timeframe set by the researchers. Five principals were selected based on
the sampling criteria to be interviewed in depth based on their responses to the survey as well as
the sampling criteria.
Instrumentation
Data collection choices and methods stemmed from the problem of practice addressed in
this study. The driving purpose behind the study, the data and its analysis was to identify
strategies principals in the K-12 continuum have found to be effective while implementing
curricular changes set forth by district, state and federal policy such as NCLB and CCSS using

61
Kotter’s organization change structure (2012) and Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames as the
theoretical framework for the study (Bolman & Deal, 2003). This mixed-methods study relied on
surveys, interviews and document reviews.
Table 1 details the coordination and articulation of the research questions and the forms
of instrumentation utilized for this study. The particular data collection methods were selected to
gather, verify and triangulate the data through concurrent embedded design with the survey as
the primary form of data collection (Creswell, 2009). Data triangulation relies on the use of
multiple sources of data that have different strengths and limitations in order to corroborate or
disconfirm the validity and reliability of findings and conclusions in order to develop our
understanding about different aspects of the phenomena (Creswell, 2009; Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam, 2009). Concurrent embedded design allows for simultaneous collection of quantitative
and qualitative data in support of the research with the specific selection of one type of data as
the primary source and the other sources as reliability and validity checks (Creswell, 2009).
Quantitative Instrumentation
The use of the concurrent embedded data gathering and analysis strategy relies primarily
on the use of a self-administered web-based quota, Likert-style survey for this study (Creswell,
2009). The initial cluster of questions involved demographic information including the level of
K-12 leadership held, years in the principalship, and education. The next group of questions
probed the knowledge base as well as planning and programming used in the implementation of
CCSS. These were followed by questions related to contextual and procedural experiences, as
well as barriers encountered during implementation. Respondents were also asked about their
attitudes toward implementation, those of their staff, and changes in climate due to the impact of
CCSS.

62
Qualitative Instrumentation
Two forms of qualitative instrumentation were used as a part of this study: interview and
document review. Within the context of the concurrent embedded strategy the survey acted as
the initial method that guided the data collection process. The qualitative instruments provide
both primary and supportive roles in the research and in efforts of triangulation for reliability and
validity (Creswell, 2009). The semi-structured interview was selected as an effective method of
data collection due to its flexibility in wording and the ability to probe and mine for specific
information based on the participant’s responses (Merriam, 2009; Maxwell, 2013; Weiss, 1994).
The interview questions were constructed to determine what, if any, considerations make a
difference at each phase of change implementation (Fowler, 2009; Kotter, 2012). Five principals
were selected from the survey sample based on an indication of willingness to participate in the
interview portion of the study as well as the sampling criteria described previously. The second
qualitative measure enlisted for the study was document review. Document review was ancillary
and probative based on the other forms of data gathering.
Pilot Study
Each instrument used was piloted as part of the study. The pilot provided the opportunity
to further develop and clarify the research questions and from them choose and design
appropriate data collecting tools to address those questions. The pilot afforded structured
guidance to explore the methodologies while working with populations similar to that in the
actual study, to review worked samples, and to reflect on the use of interviews with the goal of
refining strategies and techniques (Fink, 2013). The ability to distill the information through this
process supports the improvement of reliability and validity in the process.

63
Data Collection
Data collection consisted of two phases. Both phases were voluntary for all participants
and no participant received any incentive to participate in the study. The first phase included
closed and open responses from a quantitative survey given to principals based on the
aforementioned criteria. The second phase encompassed qualitative interviews and document
analysis with principals selected based on their willingness to participate and their alignment to
the criteria. All participants were notified of their rights to privacy and anonymity during the
research process, in accordance with the Institutional Review Board at the University of
Southern California.
Quantitative Data Collection
Quantitative data were collected through an internet survey given to principals who met
the standards of the sampling criteria. In total, 30 participant responses to the survey sent via the
software tool Survey Monkey were sought. An email was sent to each potential participant which
included a cover letter explaining the purpose of the study, the study’s implications for CCSS
and organizational change in education, and the purpose of the survey (Appendix A), an
information fact sheet regarding the study (Appendix B) as well as a link to the survey itself
(survey items can be found in Appendix C). Those who participated followed the link and
completed the web-based survey. Those who did not respond to the link within 10 business days
were contacted by the researcher via phone and email.
Qualitative Data Collection
Interviews functioned as the chief source of qualitative data. Interviews were conducted
with five principals who affirmed their willingness to participate and be interviewed for this
study and also matched the sampling criteria established by the researchers. Those who

64
expressed their willingness to participate and who were eligible under the established criteria met
for a one-hour, one-on-one interview conducted by the researcher and using an interview
protocol (Appendix C). At the onset of the interview, each participant was asked to confirm his
or her consent to participate and was informed of his or her right to privacy and anonymity.
Furthermore, each participant provided consent to have his or her interview audiotaped. This was
accomplished through the use of a consent form signed by the researcher and the participant
(Appendix C). A copy of the letter was provided to each participant. The interviews were
transcribed using a professional transcription service.
Protocols for the interviews were constructed by the researcher and informed by the
related literature and the research questions.
Data Analysis
In order to answer the research questions posed at the onset of this study, it was decided
to analyze the data collected throughout the process using strategies, programs and the research
literature as points of reference in order to triangulate and validate any and all findings.
Moreover, the content of the findings was also compared to the body of literature related to the
subject as a method of validation.
Quantitative Data Analysis
Analysis of the survey data collected consisted of matching the survey responses with the
research questions and the assertions made based on the literature. The mean was calculated
using Microsoft Excel. The mean measures the central tendency, in this case the mathematical
average of all scores in the data collected. However, while the mean establishes central tendency,
it was important to understand the range of responses in the Likert-style survey as well as any

65
variance away from the mean. This dispersion allowed the researcher to see the variability and
note any trends in dispersion.
Qualitative Data Analysis
Qualitative data analysis was guided by the Creswell (2009) model, which begins during
the data collection process. Analysis methods were applied to all transcribed interviews and
accompanying notes from all interviews and documents. The model consists of six steps that
help the researcher to manage the data and make sense of the emergent themes that allow for
analysis:
(1) Organize and prepare the data for analysis
(2) Read through all the data
(3) Code the data
(4) Generate description
(5) Create narrative
(6) Interpret the data
The model guides the researcher through the analysis process from the very broad to the
very specific, from managing the volume of data and completing a cursory read-through to
generating specific themes (Creswell, 2009). Since qualitative research is an ongoing process, it
is important to organize the data for analysis throughout the collection process—making the data
accessible and easily referenced, essentially creating an inventory of data (Creswell, 2009;
Merriam, 2009). Merriam (2009) believes that it can be easy to overlook this first step as the
researcher is immersed in the data collection process and not taking the time to manage the
“identifying characteristics” of the participants and sites (Merriam, 2009, p. 173). It helps the
researcher to keep track of his or her own thoughts and ideas prior to actually analyzing the data

66
(Merriam, 2009). Second, the researcher becomes familiar with the general sense of the data by
reading through it to look at the overarching ideas, the tone, and the impression of the depth,
credibility and usefulness of that data (Creswell, 2009). General ideas are noted in field journals
or reflections throughout the data collection process; they are the notations and comments the
researcher makes on the documents and transcripts themselves referencing relevant or interesting
information (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009). Third, the researcher “chunks or segments” the
text before bringing meaning to the information (Creswell, 2009, p. 186). This coding allows the
researcher to categorize information based on emerging patterns and topics that may become
themes (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009). This “category construction” or coding takes multiple
readings or iterations to generate those categories or patterns that cut across the data sources
acting as thematic umbrellas under which the data is grouped (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009, p.
178). From this, themes and specific descriptions can be defined and categorized, hopefully
working toward answering the research questions.
In the fourth step, the researcher develops categories and themes for analysis. Themes are
ones that run throughout each of the documents used for analysis, including the interviews and
the data samples; these themes would be used for different headings in the findings section
(Creswell, 2009). Moreover, the descriptions and themes point to an interconnected, rich picture
of the setting, people, and situations. While some of the themes stand alone as their own distinct
ideas, many of the themes were generated out of interrelated ideas concerning how data is used
and perceived by the respondents (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009). These descriptions form a
narrative or emerging theory that conveys the findings of the analysis. The narrative is detailed in
that it creates a story that speaks to multiple perspectives, uses direct quotations, and creates a
visual image of phenomenon studied (Creswell, 2009). The narrative also interprets the data—

67
the final step—drawing conclusions and implications about the data and the themes or theory
that emerged. This interpretation links themes and subthemes, and it makes connections across
the multiple data sources to build a grounded theory (Merriam, 2009). It also points to potential
areas of further research and the unanswered questions that linger following data analysis
(Creswell, 2009).
Conclusion
The focus of this chapter is to describe, in detail, the purpose of the study and the
research questions derived from that purpose. In order to answer the questions with mindful
consideration, protocols and standards were developed for appropriate data collection including
research design, sample populations selected, data collection, and analysis procedures and
processes. Based on the intent of the study, a mixed-methods approach using surveys, interviews
and document reviews was chosen to extract and explicate information in support of principal
leadership during times of change. The next chapter provides the details of the data collection
and the findings that flowed from that analysis.

68
CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

Introduction

The implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) has been a significant
undertaking for school districts and school sites. This shift includes planning and implementing
the instructional changes—from gaining knowledge to gathering resources to training teachers
and principals on the new standards and pedagogy—which has required a complete overhaul of
how teachers will teach and how students will learn. The role of the principal during this change
process has been overlooked in the literature on Common Core. Therefore, this study sought to
reveal the leadership practices of principals, namely middle school principals, as they have
begun the change process.
Middle schools can be nebulously characterized, ranging in the grades served, the
structure, and the role of leadership (Sanzo et al., 2011). Moreover, middle schools sit between
elementary school and high school—making them as much a transitional entity in the K-12
continuum as a stand-alone component of a student’s education. Coupled with the task of
teaching a population that is entering early adulthood and in the midst of a significant physical
and emotional developmental transition, middle school leaders are faced with challenges that
extend beyond school site governance (Sanzo et al., 2011). Their focus must not only be on
student achievement, but also on how best to optimize that student achievement given the
dynamics of the onset of adolescence. Research indicates that a successful middle school is one
that strives for academic excellence while providing instruction that is developmentally
appropriate, integrated across the content areas, and promotes critical thinking, community, and
collaboration (Elmore, 2000; Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Hopkins, & Harris, 2006; Sanzo et al.,

69
2011). The importance of fostering community and collaboration is a critical aspect of middle
school programs and an extension of strong leadership practices (Elmore, 2000; Sanzo et al.,
2011). While many middle school studies have, in recent years, focused on the effects of No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) and standards-based accountability, little research has been done on
the practices and challenges faced by middle school principals in the post-NCLB era, including
that of CCSS.
This chapter presents the findings from a mixed-methods study consisting of a
quantitative survey completed by 60 elementary and middle school principals and five qualitative
interviews conducted with middle school principals. The questions for the survey and the
interviews were aligned to the following research questions:
(1) What planning and program design do principals use during the implementation of
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?
(2) What context-specific leadership practices are necessary for the implementation of
instructional changes?
(3) What are the organizational barriers that principals encounter when implementing
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify and examine the leadership practices of middle
school principals as they implement instructional change at their school site, in particular as they
implement the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). This study sought to examine the arc of
change, using Kotter’s (2012) eight stages of change as a framework to understand the change
process from the pre-implementation planning to implementation as it has been experienced and

70
continues to be experienced by the school site, all the while understanding the barriers and
challenges faced by principals as they implement Common Core.
Response Rate
Based on the selection criteria for this study as described in Chapter 3, 95 principals
representing 10 districts in southern California including Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino,
and Imperial counties qualified to participate in the quantitative survey. This represented a wide
array of districts in southern California serving students from various socioeconomic
backgrounds and comprised of both urban and suburban schools. Table 2 indicates that of the 95
potential participants, 61 elected to participate, with a response rate of 64%. This pool surpassed
the goal of the researchers, which was a response rate of 60%. However, two surveys were
incomplete resulting in 59 completed surveys for a final response rate of 62%.
To participate in the study, sampling criteria, supported by the literature on effective
organizational change and on instructional leadership, were imposed (Hallinger, 2005; Hallinger
& Heck, 1996; Kotter, 2012; Marzano et al., 2005; Robinson et al., 2008). Districts must be seen
as leaders in the implementation of CCSS, actively implementing the standards and teaching
practices at their sites; there was planning and programs in place; and there was documentation of
a plan for implementation. Moreover, the literature contends that change takes time, and therefore
principals must have been in their position for at least two years in order to understand
accountability under student achievement and were in a position of leadership when schools
began to implement CCSS (Early & Weindling, 2007; Kotter, 2012). To participate in interviews,
principals must have been in their role for at least two years, have received training on CCSS, and
have site-level oversight of the decision-making process and resources. Participants for the

71
qualitative interviews were selected from the quantitative survey and are consistent with the
sampling criteria.
Table 2
Quantitative Survey: School Sites Served
Measure
Principals
No. Participated
59
% Participated
62%

Elementary
(PreK/TK/K-5 or PreK/TK, K-6, as well as
TK-4

and 3-6)

43 73%
Middle School
(6-8 or 7-8 as well as 7-12)
13 22%
K-8 1 2%
Other (9-12, District Office) 2 3%

Total

59

100%

Principals self-identified the grade levels for their particular school site. This question
served as the basis for distinguishing between elementary school and middle school principals and
for the disaggregation of data (see Kistler, 2014, for results of elementary school principals). Of
the 59 completed surveys, 41 principals were from elementary schools, which included Pre-K,
Transitional Kindergarten (TK), and Kindergarten through grades 5 or 6. Eleven principals
indicated that their school site served middle school grades—either grades six through eight or
grades seven and eight. One principal’s site served grades K-8. Six additional respondents served
other configurations; these included one high school principal, one district office staff member
who supports grades K-12, two principals of a 7-12 school, one principal who served TK-4. Based

72
on those self-selected site levels, the researchers elected to group some of the respondents as either
middle school or elementary school. The breakdown of respondents is shown in Table 2.
For the purpose of this study, the respondent whose site serves grades K-8 will be
counted as both elementary and middle school since the site serves grades 7 and 8 in addition to
those grades which are typically considered elementary school. Therefore, 14 respondents who
qualified as middle school principals.
Of the 14 middle school principals who elected to participate in the quantitative survey,
12 met the criteria to participate in the follow-up qualitative interview. Of these 12, eight
principals agreed to an interview, but only seven provided contact information. These seven
respondents represented three counties: Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino. Each of these
seven is a quality respondent who not only fits but surpasses the sampling criteria with, on
average, 8-10 years of experience as a principal and 4-6 years as principal at their current site.
Consistent with the sampling criteria described in Chapter 3, each interviewee has been the
acting principal within a district that is seen as a leader in the implementation of CCSS and has
had documentation of the plan for their district and/or school. Finally, they have been responsible
for upwards of 500 students, demonstrating that they are responsible for a sizeable staff. The
tables in the following sections further outline this data for the 59 principals who responded to
the survey as well as for the 14 middle school principals.
Quantitative Demographic Data

As the study reflects the leadership strategies principals use in order to implement
instructional change, the demographic data that was considered for this study includes basic
information including personal and professional information as well as information about the
school site. Personal and professional information was limited to degrees and credentials

73
obtained, personal educational background, professional educational background, most recent
position prior to becoming an administrator, years as a principal and years at current position.
Information collected about individual school sites included grade levels served. These
demographic questions function as a foundation on which to understand the decisions, planning,
and barriers faced by principals as they have implemented change. The tables outline the survey
responses to these demographic questions, comparing the total number of responses with that of
the middle school principals.
Table 3 shows the degrees held by principals. The question asked principals to select all
that apply; however, the inconsistent responses—notably that more respondents had a master’s
degree than a bachelor’s degree despite a bachelor of arts (B.A.) or a bachelor of science (B.S.)
being a prerequisite for higher degrees. This led the researchers to infer that respondents
misunderstood the question and, therefore, all respondents must have earned a bachelor’s degree.
Moreover, the follow up question in the survey asked respondents to list and describe their
degrees; nearly all respondents indicated they had a B.A. or B.S. Table 3 lists the information as
reported in the survey for all respondents, but for Middle School principals it reflects the
knowledge gained from the follow-up question.
Table 3
Quantitative Survey: Degrees Obtained
Measure
All Principals Middle School Principals
No. % No. %
B.A. or B.S

21 36% 14 100%
Master’s Degree 51 86% 14 100%

Ed.D.

15

26%

5

38%

Ph.D.

1

2%

0

0%

74
Of particular interest is the fact that 5 out of 14 middle school principals earned a
doctoral degree compared to 15 of the 59 total participants; proportionally, more middle school
principals earned a doctoral degree than their elementary school counterparts. Of the elementary
school principals surveyed, 24% earned doctoral degrees while 38% of the middle school
principals earned doctoral degrees. Middle school principals surveyed have earned more degrees
overall.
Table 4 outlines the credentials held by the respondents. Choices included Multiple
Subject Credential or Elementary Teaching Credential, Single Subject Credential or Secondary
Teaching Credential, Administrative Services Credential, and Special Education Credential or
Education Specialist Instruction Credential. The Elementary Teaching Credential allows the
holder to teach in any self-contained classroom most commonly associated with Elementary
Schools (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2010). However, those with this
credential can teach in any multiple subject self-contained classroom as well as in a core or team
teaching setting (CTC, 2010). The Secondary or Single Subject Credential authorizes the holder
to teach the specific subject or subjects listed on the credential (CTC, 2010). This credential is
most often associated with middle school and high school settings. The Administrative
Credential is for those who serve typically in K-12 settings including but not limited to
principals, assistant principals, and superintendents (CTC, 2010). To be a principal, many
schools require an Administrative Credential. California has a two-tier credential structure
including a five-year preliminary credential and a clear credential. The clear credential can be
obtained after a principal has successfully met all credential requirements. The credential is
required for those who assess instructional programs; evaluate and supervise personnel; provide
student and personnel discipline; manage site, district, or county fiscal services; recruit and

75
employ personnel; and develop, coordinate, and supervise student programs and services, many
of the jobs required of principals (CTC, 2013). The Special Education Credential is for those
educators who teach in specialized disability areas including Mild/Moderate Disabilities,
Moderate/Severe Disabilities, Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Visual Impairments, Physical and
Health Impairments, and Early Childhood Special Education (CTC, 2010).
Of the 14 middle school principals surveyed, six hold a Multiple Subject Credential, eight
have obtained a Single Subject Credential or Credentials, 13 earned an Administrative Credential
and none have a Special Education Credential. This nearly even split between Multiple Subject
Credentials and Single Subject Credentials is consistent with the middle school context, as it is
situated between elementary school and high school and is often characterized as the transitional
phase between the two (Chance, Cummins, & Wood, 1996; Elmore, 2000; McElroy, 2000). For
the Single Subject Credentials specified, four have a Social Studies credential, two have a
Mathematics credential, one has a Biology credential, and one has both a Social Studies and an
English credential.
Table 4
Quantitative Survey: Credentials Obtained
Measure All Principals Middle School Principals
Credential No. % No. %
Multiple Subject Credential

47 80% 6 43%
Single Subject Credential 19 32% 8 62%

Administrative Credential

58

98%

13

93%

Special Education Credential

3

5%

0

0%

Despite holding a Multiple Subject or Single Subject Credential, the respondents’
backgrounds both within and outside of education do not always align to the credentials held.

76
Table 5 depicts the primary background of the respondents: elementary education, secondary
education, business, or other. Of the 59 respondents, 58 responded. 72% of all the principals
come from a background that is primarily elementary while 22% come from a secondary
background. No one has a background in business while three indicated that their background
did not fit the parameters of the question; respondents were provided space to elaborate on their
experience and they indicated that they had spent equal time across the K-12 continuum or have
worked in a variety of sites. For middle school principals, nine of out the 14 come from a
secondary background while three identified with elementary education. One principal indicated
he or she has spent equal time between the two. Thus, middle school principals were more likely
than elementary school principals to have a background in secondary education. This is
consistent with the information presented in Table 4 regarding the credentials held by
respondents—more middle school principals had a Single Subject Credential or Credential
compared to the total.
Table 5
Quantitative Survey: Professional Background
Measure
All Principals Middle School Principals
No. % No. %
Elementary Education

42 72% 3 21%
Secondary Education 13 22% 10 72%

Business

0

0%

0

0%

Other

3

5%

1

7%

Total

58*

100%

14

100%

77
In order to examine the professional background of principals and understand their roles
within an educational setting, participants were asked to select their most recent position in
education. Choices included elementary, middle or high school teacher, teacher on special
assignment (TOSA), special education teacher, school counselor, athletic coach or other. A
TOSA serves outside the classroom setting for any instructional assignment including teacher
and student support as well as academic planning and program development or as defined by the
district and Superintendent. Nearly all of the middle school principals surveyed were teachers in
either middle school or high school settings prior to becoming an administrator. One respondent
was a TOSA and one indicated that he or she was “none” of the options provided and did not
specify his or her most recent role. One respondent indicated that she was a ‘Secondary Literary
Expert’ and served in this position at a district office. Table 6 details the responses.
Table 6
Quantitative Survey: Most Recent Position in Education
Measure All Principals Middle School Principals
Position No. % No. %
Teacher (PreK/TK/K-5)

16 27% 0

0%
Teacher (6-8) 10 17% 6 43%

Teacher (9-12)

7

12%

5

36%

Teacher on Special Assignment

12

20%

1

7%

Special Education Teacher

1

2%

0

0%

School Counselor

0

0%

0

0%

Athletic Coach

0

0%

0

0%

Other

13

22%

2

14%

Total:

59

100%

14

100%

78
The next two questions asked principals to identify how long they have been a principal
and how many years they have served in their current position. These questions aligned with the
sampling criteria imposed upon the study. In order to meet the sampling criteria standards for the
interview, principals had to be a principal for more than two years. This criterion is based on the
fact that the principal would have the opportunity to participate in the change process and could
speak to and reflect on the CCSS since its initiation. Table 7 depicts the distribution of years
respondents have been in the principalship.
Table 7
Quantitative Survey: Years as Principal
Measure All Principals
Middle School Principals
Time Period No. % No. %
0-1 years

4 7% 1 7%
2-4 years 15 25% 1 7%

5-7 years

10

17%

5

36%

8-10 years

10

17%

4

29%

More than 10 years

20

34%

3

21%

Total

59

100%

14

100%

The principals surveyed have an average of 5-7 years of experience. Most of them (68%
of all principals and 86% of middle school principals) have had five or more years of experience
and have been in an instructional leadership position since the release of CCSS in 2010. Of the
middle school principals, 21% have been in the position for 10 or more years and have
experienced multiple change initiatives in education—from the state standards initiative and
NCLB to CCSS. This is also indicative that change, especially deep-seated change, takes time to

79
develop and requires an ongoing commitment (Marzano et al., 2005). As Kotter’s stages of
change illustrate, there is a significant need for leaders to have the time to develop vision, buy-in,
and a coalition of supporters before the plan is communicated and implemented (Kotter, 2012).
Thus, it is also important to know how long principals have served in their current position or
site, as shown in Table 8.
Table 8
Quantitative Survey: Years in Current Position
Measure All Principals Middle School Principals
Time Period No. % No. %
2-3 years

28 47% 4 29%
4-6 years 17 29% 8 57%

7-10 years

9

15%

2

14%

More than 10 years

5

8%

0

0%

Total

59

100%

14

100%

On average, 76% of all principals have been at their site for between two and six years.
For middle school principals, 86% have served at their site for between two and six years with
more than half surveyed serving between four and six years. Research on career theory suggests
that principals are most effective in implementing and sustaining change in their second through
fourth year at any given site (Earley & Weindling, 2007). At this stage, principals have had
enough time to gauge school culture, have been socialized into that school culture, and are now
able to implement change. These are merely approximations and do not predict success;
however, career theory is supported in the change literature, noting that it takes time, trust, and
relationships to be well founded before change can take place (Kotter, 2012).

80
In conclusion, the quantitative data collected from the survey demonstrated that all
principals surveyed, including elementary principals, had been in their position for on average 5-
7 years, long enough to witness the conception and pre-implementation phase of CCSS. They
have served in the educational field, with most respondents serving in the classroom prior to
becoming principals. Their experience in the classroom and tenure as principals speaks to the
notion of instructional leadership as well as of instructional knowledge, commitment to student
achievement, and experience with educational change. Qualitative demographic data probed into
the identities of the middle school principals, notably of the five principals selected to interview,
and related their knowledge and beliefs about leadership and instructional leadership to CCSS
and the implementation of instructional change. The reporting for the following qualitative data
and the research questions will be on middle school principals, as they are the focus of this study.
However, for some survey responses the inclusion of elementary principals who participated in
the study was deemed necessary, since their responses underscore trends in instructional
leadership for these school sites and leaders, drawing attention to the professional background,
beliefs, and knowledge that have informed their individual practices. (For more extensive results
on elementary principals implementing CCSS, see Kistler, 2014.)
Qualitative Demographic Data

Interview data was collected during one-hour, in-person interviews at a site chosen by the
interviewee. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim in order to ensure reliability of
responses. The transcripts were then coded for patterns and themes that relate to the research
questions described previously. Once the data were collected, an open coding system guided by
Creswell (2009) was used. A six-step process, which is described in Chapter 3, helped the
researchers to manage the data and make sense of the emergent themes that allow for analysis:

81
(1) Organize and prepare the data for analysis
(2) Read through all the data
(3) Code the data
(4) Generate description
(5) Create narrative
(6) Interpret the data
As previously stated, the middle school principals selected for interview represent quality
individuals who are deeply committed to the implementation of Common Core. Upon receiving
emails inviting them to participate in the study, many superintendents responded that they had
quality leaders who would be ideal participants in this study because of their role in
implementing CCSS. The district leaders, who hired and evaluated these principals and deemed
them as effective and exemplary, also added to the selection criteria. Although this was not the
sole criterion for selecting interview participants, it was a consideration made by the researchers.
Middle School Principal and School Site Information
If the principal had served in their position for more than two years, had begun the
planning process, received some training for CCSS, and demonstrated transformational
leadership qualities, they were given the option to participate in a qualitative interview. The
criteria reflect the literature examined about leadership and the change process (Kotter, 2012;
Marzano et al., 2005; Robinson, 2008). Change is a difficult process that requires time,
commitment and a strong leader; therefore, it was imperative that the principals who participated
in the interview process could speak to the implementation process for CCSS from its initial
creation to the present.

82
Tables 9 and 10 detail the demographic profile of each middle school principal who
participated in a qualitative interview as well as the characteristics of the school sites in which
these principals currently serve. This information provides a contextual foundation for the leader
and the school site in which CCSS is being implemented and reflects the sampling criteria for
this study.
Table 9
Qualitative Interview: Characteristics of Middle School Principals
Middle School
Principal
Gender
Highest Degree
Obtained
Years as
Principal
Years at Site
1 Male Master’s Degree 7 4
2 Male Doctor of Education 11 4
3 Male Master’s Degree 7 2
4 Male Master’s Degree 9 9
5 Female Master’s Degree 9 9

Consistent with the findings in Table 8, the middle school principals interviewed have
been at their sites long enough that the conditions for change implementation exist. On average,
these principals have served in their position for 8.6 years and worked at their site for 5.6 years.
Earley and Weindling (2007) suggest that after two years at a site, principals—or head teachers
as they are referred to in the article—can reshape their sites through change because enough time
has passed for them to become familiar and comfortable with school culture and organizational
socialization. They also suggest that those who serve at a site beyond eight years are in a period
of “plateau” as motivation to implement and sustain change is difficult (Earley & Weindling,
2007, p. 76). However, this model for career stages accounts only for changes initiated by the
principal; it does not account for top-down directives or policies such as CCSS. They also note

83
that elementary principals move through the stages more “rapidly” than middle school or high
school principals due to the smaller size and less bureaucratic and hierarchical nature of primary
schools (Earley & Weindling, 2007, p. 76). The ability to implement change does have some
relation to stages and time, but while time is not the definitive factor to predict success for
change implementation, research suggests that motivation, capacity building, and commitment to
accountability are equally critical (Earley & Weindling, 2007; Mulford & Silins, 2011). Thus,
each of the principals interviewed, although ranging from two to nine years at their site, have
served enough time that change is more optimal than had they served for less than two years.
This is also consistent with the rationale for the sampling criteria.
Additionally, during the interviews, the five middle school principals were asked about
their education and career history. All five interviewees began their careers in education as
teachers, relatively equally distributed across the K-12 continuum and serving a variety of sites.
After earning an administrative credential and a master’s degree, each took the next step in their
career and served as assistant principals, again across the K-12 continuum. After serving as
assistant principals, each served as a principal. Three have served at multiple sites while two
have only served in their current location. Only one has served in a district or leadership role
beyond the principalship.
The middle school principals interviewed represent three counties within southern
California. These three counties represent a diverse array of schools, school types and sizes, and
student population profiles. Together, they represent both urban and suburban K-12 schools of
varying sizes and structures including private, public and charter. Within these three counties, the
principals serve at distinct districts and schools. On average, they have 700 students and serve
similar grade levels consistent with the middle school paradigm. Four principals have been

84
implementing CCSS for approximately one year. During the interviews, the implementation time
included gaining knowledge about CCSS, creating or interpreting a site or district plan, and
carrying out that plan as shown in Table 10.
Table 10
Qualitative Interview: Characteristics of School Site
Middle School
Principal
County
Number of
Students
Grade Levels
Served
Months Implementing
CCSS
1
San
Bernardino
700-800 6-8 10-12
2 Los Angeles 700-800 6-8 10-12
3
San
Bernardino
600-700 7-8 10-12
4 Orange 700-800 7-8
2
7-9
5 Los Angeles 600-700 6-8 12 or more

These middle school principals are quality individuals who hold fast to the tenets of
instructional leadership, promote teamwork and collaboration, and have spent adequate time and
energy to actively implementing CCSS. Their beliefs about leadership have informed all that
they do as middle school principals and as the facilitators of change.
Leadership Beliefs
In order to understand how principals act as leaders in their day-to-day practices as well
as in implementing CCSS, it was important to understand how they characterized themselves as
leaders, uncovering their beliefs on leadership. This is undoubtedly related to the strategies they
set in place, and it also established the groundwork for understanding their decisions. All five
middle school principals characterized themselves as instructional leaders. During the interviews,
it became evident that the role of school leader was tied to increasing student achievement and

2
This school site has a traditional high school serving grades 9-12 on its shared campus.

85
providing support to all stakeholders—especially teachers and students; yet how this was
accomplished varied. These two primary responsibilities, they believed, were integral not only in
implementing change but also in carrying out their duties as instructional leaders. Moreover,
these goals are connected to the idea of building internal capacity—of increasing knowledge and
productivity through the formation of collaborative learning environments. These principals’
dedication to internal capacity as a leadership belief was evident in many of their programs,
actions and strategies employed to implement change.
Before they were able to implement change, each middle school principal interviewed
spoke of the necessary leadership beliefs in order to achieve any sort of change agenda. Among
these beliefs were the ideas of transformational leadership, team leadership, distributed
leadership, and servant leadership—referencing aspects of leadership styles that are reflected in
the literature and that promote positive change, cultivate coalitions and teams, and foster group
accountability (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Kotter, 2012; Marzano et al., 2005, Robinson et al.,
2008). Each middle school principal spoke of the importance of a team and team accountability
established over time through trusting relationships and a strong vision, thus reiterating the four
dimensions of instructional leadership described in chapter 2: instructional leader, resource
provider, communicator, and visible leader (Leithwood et al., 2006). Principal 2 described his
belief that leadership is about “cheerleading” and coordination. He continued to state that
change, must “flow from [the teachers]. It you try and top-down something, they’re going to shut
down….” Principal 1 echoed this, championing a “collaborative model of leadership,” while
Principal 4 believes that his job “is to let teachers know the cool things they’re doing and spread
the word,” reiterating the role of collaboration and cheerleading. Principal 5 believes “you don’t

86
ask your team to do anything you’re not willing to do,” thus supporting the team or servant
leadership model.
Principal 3 spoke of the importance of visibility beyond the scope of the duties of a
principal. He said, “I think you have to be visible and I think you have to be flexible. And you
have to know your true North…. You have to know what’s guiding you.” This self-knowledge of
one’s own capabilities as well as the willingness to be adaptive to the situation and the context is
a key component of transformational and instructional leadership, the two main theories of
leadership for principals identified most prominently in the research (Marzano et al., 2005,
Robinson et al., 2008). These leadership theories cover the two areas of focus identified by the
principals—student achievement and providing support. Furthermore, these areas of focus
resonated with their beliefs and transferred to their duties. A discussion of how those beliefs are
applied to practice will be raised later in this chapter.
Duties as Instructional Leader
During the interviews, each of the middle school principals was asked about their duties
as principals and how those duties pertain to instruction. As the instructional leader of their
school, the principals broke down their duties into two main areas of responsibility: supporting
the people and the school environment as well as evaluation. Each of these areas was framed
around the idea that their main role was to promote student success through a collaborative
environment focused on CCSS. Moreover, these duties and the beliefs surrounding their
perception of their position were later reflected in the strategies selected and utilized to
implement instructional change.
As described in Chapter 2, transformational and instructional leadership practices center
on those activities that produce learning and improve teaching for learning. Bendikson et al.

87
(2012) and other researchers characterize these practices into two categories: direct and indirect
practices (Marks & Printy, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005; O’Day, 2002; Robinson et al., 2008).
Direct instructional leadership practices are those that focus on improving teaching through
establishing instructional goals, selecting and training quality teachers, and providing
opportunities for teacher learning. Indirect instructional leadership practices include those that
create and the support the safe environments with appropriate resources where learning for
students and teachers can occur. Principals defined their role in terms of both direct and indirect
practices and behaviors, highlighting their identity as instructional leader.
Building capacity and culture: People and environment. All five middle school
principals interviewed discussed the importance of guiding, protecting, and supporting the
people whom they serve, especially students and teachers. Their duties as instructional leaders
extend beyond leadership beliefs; they are also about providing the appropriate structures,
protocols and presence to improve student achievement through instruction. Creating an
environment that supports the people it serves is not only a logistical role but also the role of the
instructional leader. Student safety, student instruction, and improving student achievement were
also the duties related to people and the environment. Principal 4 described the need to “oversee
facilities” and the “administrivia” or the day-to-day jobs that keep a school running. Principal 5
said that: “The textbook answer would be I’m the instructional leader, but what trumps that, in
my opinion, is student safety. So, first and foremost I see [that] as making sure that the school is
a safe learning environment.” Principal 3 continued this idea, stating: “There is no easy way
around that. There’s no way to be an instructional leader without knowing what goes on in your
rooms. And there is no way to have credibility with your staff unless they see you do that.”
Principal presence—being in the classroom to ensure student safety and quality of instruction—

88
was described by all of the principals as not only a duty of the instructional leader but also a
leadership strategy for implementing CCSS.
Working with people at a school site begins with the teachers and staff. While the
ultimate goal of any principal is to improve student achievement, the pathway to academic
achievement begins with teachers. Principal 1 stated:
Sometimes, my job as a leader would be working with people on, maybe,
identifying their weaknesses together. Who can I send you to go see either on my
campus or another? Do I need to invest in training in somebody? Do I need to
send you to a [CCSS] training? … Sometimes actually they don’t need anything. I
need for people to come see them. “You’re doing great, and you’re a great role
model. I need you to stretch your wings a little bit and let people see that.” Or, “be
willing to share why the math activities that you’re doing… are awesome. Let’s
have your colleagues see that.”

Principal 1’s notion of working with people, of being in the classroom, and of finding ways to
support encapsulates the beliefs and the perceptions of each principal interviewed. This idea of
working with people to improve, to inspire, and to create positive instructional change not only
resonates with the leadership beliefs held by the individual principals but also in the strategies
used to bring about organizational change. Most significantly, working with people is a
reflection of cultivating relationships and building teams, to share knowledge and to leverage
that knowledge as a strategy for effective organizational change. Principal 3 said, “The longer
that I am serving as principal, you realize it’s not a job for an individual person. And then you
realize that [given] the scope of the job you can get more accomplished by being selective of
finding your teacher leaders, training them.” Teamwork, collaboration and selecting the right
people with whom to share leadership responsibilities became a critical strategy used by all
principals interviewed. Thus the cohesion amongst beliefs, duties, and strategies—amongst
thought and action—was also an underlying principle guiding these middle school principals.

89
Evaluation. Supporting people and principal presence also relate to the idea of
evaluation—of ensuring that the teachers are effectively promoting the pedagogy and curriculum
for CCSS. Each middle school principal described the purpose and importance of observing and
evaluating teachers. They noted that it was never used to catch teachers off guard or to punish,
but rather to discover what instructional strategies were being employed and what has worked as
well as identifying areas for improvement. As Principal 1 described above, evaluating teachers is
about building a capable team of instructors who can help lead the change movement. Principal 1
continued: “As the instructional leader…there’s the evaluative part where you’re working with
probationary [teachers] and teachers who are waiting for an evaluation in the course. There’s a
leadership component to that, leading them or guiding them, helping them or giving them the
accolades.” Principal 4 echoed this, stating that evaluations and supporting his staff have worked
in tandem:
...getting the classroom observations, really my day to day job, as far as it relates
to instruction, is how can I support whatever the teachers are doing? Whether they
come to me and say that “we need training in this, we need supplies in this”—
whatever it is—that’s my job—is to get them and support them in that.

Others discussed the importance of being in the classroom to observe instructional practice and
use those experiences as future collaboration, training, and instructional resources. As Principal 5
stated, it is a way to “facilitate the stretching process” for continual growth. By observing and
evaluating teachers, principals have been able to gauge the needs and abilities of their staff and
create action plans and programs to improve instruction. However, by prioritizing evaluation and
observation as part of their duties as principal, they are also acting as instructional leaders,
emphasizing the importance of instruction and supporting an environment that foregrounds
instructional improvement, as well as identifying and harnessing the capacity of individuals and
resources to maintain quality instruction.

90
The demographic data gleaned from the survey and the interview lays the foundation for
the research question findings. It provides the leadership framework on which the middle school
principals planned and implemented instructional change for CCSS. By understanding the
underlying beliefs and the role of the principal, discussions about their choices and actions to
implement instructional change reflect their identity as an instructional leader.
Research Question 1:

What planning and program design do principals use during the implementation of
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?
Kotter’s (2012) model for organizational change identifies eight steps successful
organizations take in implementing change. These steps are aligned to the process in which
change occurs: from planning and preparing for change, to ensuring that the new practices are a
part of the organization’s culture. As such, the research questions for this study mirror the eight
steps. The eight steps include:
(1) Establishing a sense of urgency
(2) Creating the guiding coalition
(3) Developing a vision and strategy
(4) Communicating the change vision
(5) Empowering broad-based action
(6) Generating short-term wins
(7) Consolidating gains and producing more change
(8) Anchoring new approaches in the culture
The first research question sought to identify the planning and program design principals
undertook in implementing CCSS. This pre-implementation stage is the preparation phase in

91
which (1) a sense of urgency is established and (2) a guiding coalition is created. Knowledge is
gained, a vision is formed, motivation is assessed and competencies are built. The five middle
school principals interviewed and the 14 middle school principals surveyed demonstrated a high
correlation between their own responses and Kotter’s eight stages. Therefore, planning and
program design is centered around the concept of knowledge—the degree to which principals
and their staff believed themselves to be knowledgeable of CCSS and its intended changes—as
well as the sources of knowledge—where and how information about CCSS was gained.
Continuing acquisition of knowledge relates to the training provided by the district and the
school site as well as the leadership teams and committees whose task it is to maintain the funds
of knowledge for CCSS. Many of these programs created and utilized became an integral
component of the strategies principals used in implementing CCSS.
Knowledge: Building Professional Capital

Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) believe that building capital—notably professional
capital—is essential in order to accomplish goals and promote positive and long-lasting change.
Professional capital is made up of human capital or the knowledge and skills of individuals and
the group, social capital or relationships that contribute to productive activity, and finally,
decision capital or the ability to make knowledge-based judgments (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012).
Through this professional capital, continuous improvement can occur and action can be taken.
Furthermore, the change process requires knowledge and agency prior to action (Darling-
Hammond, 1990). Therefore, the first planning or programming to occur includes assessing the
levels and sources of knowledge, prior to taking any action.
Levels of knowledge. CCSS is a relatively recent initiative, whose directives and
resources have trickled down from the framers of the standards to the district and finally to

92
individual sites. As described in Chapter 2, there is scant research on how best to implement
CCSS at the site level; rather the scholarly research has focused on the Standards themselves. In
the past two years more publications have centered on the implementation process, noting the
alignment between CCSS planning and programs with Professional Development (PD) and other
training opportunities. Myriad companies and websites have published books and resources to
increase teacher knowledge. However, for middle school principals, that knowledge is just as
new if not newer than CCSS and the companies and websites dedicated to increasing that
knowledge.
Table 11 presents the disaggregated survey responses of middle school principals to the
questions: (1) What level of knowledge about CCSS did you possess a year ago? and (2) What
level of knowledge about CCSS did you possess two years ago? Principals were asked to indicate
their level of knowledge using a Likert-type scale in which “1” indicates very little, “2” indicates
some, “3” indicates quite a bit, and “4” indicates a great deal. For all survey items, data were
self-reported, and the Likert-type scale remained consistent for all items in this section of the
survey.
Table 11
Middle School Principal Responses to Levels of Knowledge
Question
Very
Little
(1)
Some
(2)
Quite a
Bit
(3)
A Great
Deal
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Responses
1. What level of
knowledge about
CCSS did you possess
a year ago?
0 11 3 0 2.21 14
2. What level of
knowledge about
CCSS did you possess
two years ago?
11 3 0 0 1.21 14

93

The response mean describes the average of the levels of knowledge for CCSS a year ago
and two years ago. A year ago, the middle school principals had gained more knowledge, having
between some and quite a bit of knowledge. This gain in the level of knowledge correlates to the
growth in research and literature written about CCSS. Two years ago, in California CCSS was in
the nascent phases of implementation; most knowledge was contained to the state level with
some resources and publications written for districts (Kirst, 2013; Kober & Rentner, 2011a;
Kober & Rentner, 2011b; Kober & Rentner, 2012; Marzano et al., 2013; NGA & CCSSO,
2010a; NGA & CCSSO, 2010b; Porter et al., 2011). Focus and research two years ago was on
the standards, not on the programs or resources for implementation at the site level. One year
ago, more research, publications and resources became available—many of it related to
Professional Development (PD) and training opportunities (Jenkins & Agamba, 2013).
Therefore, in the past year, principals had more opportunities to gain knowledge for themselves
and their staff.
Sources of knowledge. Those opportunities to gain knowledge about CCSS during the
past two years have grown with the increase in research and materials about the standards
published by the California Department of Education (CDE), the National Governors
Association (NGA), the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), and other
organizations and individuals. Surveyed principals indicated a variety of sources of knowledge
for CCSS, as illustrated in Table 12. Overwhelmingly, principals learned from trainings offered
by the district office, meetings, and workshops; all middle school principals who responded to
this question in the survey selected trainings, meetings, and workshops. This was closely
followed by research and peers or colleagues as sources of knowledge. Lastly, some principals

94
turned to the media for information. The sources of knowledge for all principals surveyed were
consistent with those of principals at the middle school level, with the vast majority turning to
the district office for support.
Table 12
Principals’ Sources of Knowledge for CCSS
Measure All Principals Middle School Principals
Knowledge Source No. % No. %
District office trainings,
meetings, and workshops

57

98%

13

93%

Research 51 88% 12 86%

Peers and/or colleagues

47

81%

9

69%

Media

21

36%

3

21%

Total

58

98%

13

93%

Knowledge is characterized by that which was gained through trainings, meetings,
workshops, research, colleagues and the media as well as how that knowledge was transferred to
the teachers. All five middle school principals interviewed discussed the impact of research—of
independent research, completed on their own time and based on their own interests with regard
to CCSS. For these middle school principals, it served as an opportunity to gain awareness and
deepen their knowledge of the underlying issues that were not discussed in trainings and
workshops. Principal 5 described the process she used for her middle school when gleaning
knowledge using the CDE website—her initial introduction into truly understanding the purpose
of CCSS and the changes it implied; she said that she actively questioned the standards and their
origins then made the following observation:
After doing all that research, I was impressed. [CCSS] is totally grounded in
something that is urgent and necessary… presenting that to my teaching

95
staff…going along the whole vein of this is the year of awareness. It’s a
collaborative process. It’s not like I have all the information. It’s more I’m
sharing this as I’m getting this. And I’m sharing this because I want us to
experience it, process it, problem solve it together as a team. So it’s not top-down.

Of the five middle school principals interviewed, only one indicated that his research was
linked to media and social media. Principal 3 said:
The biggest thing for me is Twitter. I follow a lot of people on Twitter as far as
sitting superintendents, assistants [superintendents] and…researchers…140
characters isn’t going to make me a better principal. But they usually do attach
studies and research to it.

Thus while the role of the media was not as salient to all the principals surveyed, to this middle
school principal it was nevertheless a central component to knowledge acquisition.
The district office has played an integral role in the implementation of instructional
change, especially with CCSS. Several of the publications and much of the research surrounding
implementation of CCSS has been directed at the district level, describing the policy, directives,
and the implications to districts and states (Kober & Renter, 2011a). The district office is both
provider and creator of the plans, vision, and programs for change, offering opportunities for on-
and off-site training such as PD, providing CCSS academic coaches who co-plan, co-teach, and
co-evaluate CCSS lessons with teachers and principals, and collaborating across school sites to
unify the district’s implementation of CCSS.
All participating principals described the existence of district office plans provided to
their school sites. Some of these plans included a year-by-year plan for Language Arts and
Mathematics that was both horizontally and vertically articulated, offering a scope and sequence
of the standards, types of knowledge, and assessments required by CCSS for all grade levels in
the K-12 continuum. However, how that plan was to be implemented and when exactly it was to
be implemented was unclear to the principals. The plan was discussed with middle school

96
principals at monthly district meetings with other administrators at the district, handed over and
explained, but details and specifics were left out. At times, some of the middle school principals
interviewed felt that they were only receiving parts of the puzzle at a time while others felt that
the plan would be overwhelming to teachers if presented to them at once. Principal 2 said, “I do
not want to overload, so one of my biggest roles now is to pull back on the district because [the
teachers] get all eager. They go all in and then it’s just too much too soon and too
overwhelming.” By this, he meant that there was enthusiasm for CCSS and he explained that
while he was grateful for the work the district office had put into the grand roll-out plan, it was
too much to digest all at once. Filtering and distilling the message of the district office (described
later) became a critical strategy used by principals as they divided the plan into comprehensible
pieces.
The district office, therefore, has served as a support and a source of knowledge.
Principals 2 and 4 articulated the amount of help the district office has provided in implementing
CCSS, acting as part of the collective group and collaborating with school sites through training
and PD. They are an active participant in the change process, often delegating responsibility to
site principals and other key personnel. For Principal 2, this included the superintendent
assigning the principals in his district the task of writing components of the district plan and
allowing principals significant leeway in implementing said plan. Principals 1, 3, and 5, who
work in different counties than that of Principal 2, said they were given the same amount of
flexibility by their own superintendents and the district office. With CCSS, many districts found
that they needed to identify and assign key individuals who could develop expertise in various
aspects of CCSS. For example, the districts of Principals 2 and 4 utilized TOSAs to act as
Common Core coaches, to help, as Principal 4 said: “With the administrative piece at the district

97
and the site…and the Common Core coaches have been really setting up…the procedures and
protocols and all the logistics.” Here, the district office acts in a collaborative role in addition to
providing information, training, and coordination for learning and pacing.
A Plan for Change: District and Site Plans
A plan for change establishes a guiding vision, provides clarity, and is a roadmap for
implementing changes at all stages of that change. More than a timeline or a single document,
the plan for change includes strategies and methods for implementing that change. In order to
participate in this study, schools needed to have a site plan that articulated how change would
occur. Middle school principals surveyed responded to a Likert-style question regarding the
degree to which a plan exists at their school site, as shown in Table 13.
Table 13
School-Wide Plan for Middle Schools
Question
Very
Little
(1)
Some
(2)
Quite a
Bit
(3)
A Great
Deal
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Responses
A school-wide
plan has been
created and
adopted for CCSS
implementation
3 2 5 4 2.71 14

Of the 14 middle school principals, five believed that there was quite a bit of a plan in
place; however three principals believed that there was very little existence of a site plan. During
the interviews, this discrepancy was further explored, even with principals who responded that
there was quite a bit or a great deal of site planning available. Principals stated that the district
created the plan for change—including PD and other trainings to increase knowledge for both
principals and teachers. Monthly meetings with all principals in the district served as an
opportunity for principals to work with the district plan, make site-specific revisions, engage in

98
critical dialogue about CCSS, and collaborate with other principals. Teachers also participated in
meetings and PD opportunities at the district; elected by their department or by their principal,
they have served as teacher leaders, charged with bringing the instructional change strategies and
knowledge to their sites, then training their fellow teachers at on-site staff meetings.
However, the interviewed middle school principals indicated that there was no single
district “roll out plan” that principals had to adhere to, but rather a series of incremental plans
and changes offered at the district and site level. Some districts, like that of Principal 2, provided
a “Common Core Implementation Timeline” that describes broad goals for multiple sites
including “support middle school principals with ongoing knowledge of Common Core” and
“build leadership capacity by attending common core training” to more specific goal such as
“begin shifts in CCSS math curriculum with CCSS Math Committees”. This timeline, started in
2012 and continuing through the 2015-2016 school year, covers many instructional aspects yet
does so in broad sweeps, providing a single bullet point for areas such as assessment, training
and PD. Nowhere in the plan is there a discussion of how to implement, where to find resources,
and how those goals will be achieved at the district or site level. Thus while the district plan is a
plan, there is a significant amount of planning and program design that is omitted.
Consequently, principals involved their School Site Council (SSC) in the change process,
creating site plans that promote individual student academic achievement and the tenets of CCSS
such as critical thinking, collaboration and communication. These Single Plans for Student
Achievement (SPSA) are site plans that seek to improve the academic performance of all
students through instruction, allocation of resources, and support. While they do not make
explicit mention of CCSS, they include a school’s vision and mission statement. For example,
Principal 3’s SPSA includes the statement that the school is a “professional learning community

99
where all students receive…common content standards…rigorous instruction…[and] quality
learning”. Likewise, Principal 4’s SPSA articulates strategies, goals, persons responsible, and
expenditures for reaching high levels of student achievement and rigorous instruction—using
similar language to that which is found in the CCSS. This plan makes mention of CCSS, noting
that it is the teachers’ responsibility to “align” curriculum to the “current California standards
and continue transition to common core priority standards for all students.” However, there is no
description in the site plan for how that change will occur other than the fact that teachers will
have release time to “collaborate…to analyze unit tests and quarterly common assessments and
discuss strategies to improve student achievement.”
While there may be little evidence of a single document reflecting how change will
occur, there is documentation at the district level and at the site level that champions CCSS
goals. Documentation gives way to participation in training where teachers and principals alike
come together to collaborate at the district and then return to their school sites to share these
learning experiences with others. This provides the scaffolding for site committees, teams, and
learning opportunities to take CCSS from a set of standards to instructional practice in every
classroom.
Committees and Teams: Getting the Right People on the Bus

The formation of committees and leadership or CCSS teams has served as a program in
and of itself in addition to being a way to facilitate and oversee the CCSS-related actions by
those committees and teams. Consequently, committees and teams are not only a program but
also a strategy used. Three of the five principals interviewed used existing programs and teams to
bridge the knowledge gap between current instructional practices and those of CCSS. The
formation and use of teams and committees generally fell into three categories: collaboration

100
with other middle school principals at district sponsored meetings, leadership teams, and CCSS-
related teams or committees.
Each middle school principal interviewed discussed how he or she interacted with other
principals at formal, monthly administrator and/or curriculum meetings at the district office.
Principal 2 noted that principals in his district have collaborated “very closely” to develop
strategies to implement CCSS, to problem solve, and to identify and utilize the strengths of the
district to their advantage. He continued that these meetings with other principals served as a
way to gain knowledge and that the message coming from the district was that collaboration and
information was “power.” Principals were selective with whom they collaborated at these
principal meetings, noting that it was about aligning the personal leadership and pedagogical
beliefs of their colleagues with their own. Principal 5 indicated that there were certain principals
she did not seek out during meetings because they were not instructional leaders. However, these
meetings alone are not enough to go from knowledge to action. Principals lauded their time with
other administrators, but that time was limited. Principal 3 said that: “we have a meeting once a
month…you’re meeting 10 times a year for about an hour. And that’s it. So you have got to
be…in charge of your own PD.” Therefore, principals took additional measures to make sure that
knowledge was being generated and shared as well as turned into action; through emails, phone
calls, newsletters, and informal meetings with other administrators and teachers, continual
discussions about CCSS took place, questions were raised, and collaboration occurred.
This lack of time is perhaps what led the principals to create and use committees and
teams at their own site. Existing department teams, leadership teams, and curriculum teams were
tasked by their principals and their district to come up with CCSS lessons, attend trainings and
report back, and share knowledge during staff meetings. More importantly, the middle school

101
principals identified the key individuals to be a part of teams. Carefully identified and selected
by the principal, these individuals were appointed, creating a shared sense of responsibility and
buy-in at the site. Principal 3 offered this view:
I’ve got to get to know that person. What makes them tick? What makes them—
motivates them? I need them on the bus, you know, so I need them on the bus and
some people, you tell them, ‘The bus is going to leave without you.’ And there’s
other people that are already ahead of the bus.

Here Principal 3 alludes to Jim Collins’ (2001) book Good to Great: Why Some Companies
Make the Leap…And Others Don’t. In his book, Collins argued that before change can be
implemented, good leaders identify the “who” before the “what” (Collins, 2001). Using the
analogy of the bus, the leader as bus driver must get the right people on the bus and in the right
seats before it can drive away. Equally as critical, the wrong people need to be off the bus.
Collins foregrounds the importance of identifying key members of a team, eliminating the need
to motivate those on the bus in the right seats.
Other middle school principals interviewed made references to this principle of
identifying and utilizing the right people for the change process. Many of the middle school
principals stated that teacher leaders were chosen from amongst their colleagues, and although
these teacher leaders sometimes “aren’t the best teachers,” as Principal 3 stated, they had
qualities that other teachers found admirable and worthwhile. Moreover, principals often offered
these leadership teams options on how they wanted to move forward with implementing CCSS.
For example Principal 1’s “leadership team,” composed of department chairs, worked on
developing CCCS-related lessons, units, and assessments; shared these with their colleagues;
implemented them; and evaluated their successes and shortcomings. Similarly, Principals 4 and 5
created a CCSS team that worked with district office personnel to create, implement and evaluate
CCSS lessons.

102
Teams and committees serve to create buy-in, a shared vision, and the groundwork for
effective collaboration. They build internal capacity, taking top-down directives and finding
bottom-up solutions (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Kotter & Cohen, 2008). Hargreaves and Fullan
(2012) identify this capital as “professional capital” made up of human, social, and decision
capital and transforming the change process from “power over” to “power with” (p. 9). It
develops expertise, shared knowledge, and leverages assets in a way that is productive to all.
Training: Ongoing Principal and Teacher Preparation
Middle school principals were asked about the presence and use of training for
themselves and for their teachers and staff. Training continues to be an opportunity for principals
and teachers to gain knowledge and skills related to CCSS, to continue their growth as
professionals, and to be stay current with policies and trends in education; often this training
comes in the form of Professional Development (PD). Teacher learning through PD ensures that
reform efforts such as CCSS can be maintained and integrated into the school culture (Darling-
Hammond, 1990; Elmore, 2002; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Kotter, 2012). As described in the
literature and research about CCSS, much of the decisions regarding CCSS came in the form of
directives passed down through the district office to individual school sites. In the survey,
principals were asked about the existence of training, the role of the district office, and their own
role in the training and capacity building process using a scale that ranges from very little to a
great deal. Table 14 illustrates the results of this survey for all middle school principals
surveyed:

103
Table 14
Training for CCSS
Question Very
Little
(1)
Some
(2)
Quite a
Bit
(3)
A Great
Deal
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Responses
1. Your
district
provided
principal
training for
CCSS

0 7 2 3 2.67 12
2. Your
district
provided
teacher
training for
CCSS

0 5 4 5 3.00 14
3. The training
had direct
benefit for
your staff in
implementing
CCSS
0 5 4 5 3.00 14

4. You have
trained your
teachers and
staff in order
to implement
CCSS
0 5 6 3 2.86 14

5. You have
used trainers
or consultants
from outside
of the district
in order to
train teachers
and staff in
CCSS
4 3 4 3 2.43 14

104
The first question in Table 14 asked principals to indicate the degree to which the district
office provided training for principals. Of the 12 middle school principals who responded, seven
indicated that their district only provided some training for principals while five said that they
received between quite a bit to a great deal of training from the district. More middle school
principals found that there was quite a bit to a great deal of training offered to teachers in the
district, thus reflecting the idea that agency for educational change rests on teachers rather than
principals (Darling-Hammond, 1990). Overall, middle school principals believed that the
training offered by the district office had quite a bit of impact on their staff for implementing
CCSS. On a more local level, principals trained their own staff between some of the time to quite
a bit of the time. This is reflective of their role as instructional leader; while transformational
change in education requires principals to take on the role of instructional leader and use both
direct and indirect leadership strategies, many find that they do not have the opportunity to act as
such (Marks & Printy, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005; Mulford & Silins, 2011; O’Day, 2002;
Robinson et al., 2008). Thus while all principals may not employ direct instructional leadership
strategies such as personally training their staff, training still occurs at the site level. The results
of this survey item were spread across the continuum when it came to hiring and using outside
trainers and consultants—including those at the district office, with the average at 2.43, between
some to quite a bit of the time. Therefore, it appears that training, capacity building, and
knowledge is derived from the district office yet promoted by the principal as instructional
leader.
Table 15 describes the types of trainings offered to principals and teachers. Nearly all
the principals—elementary and middle school—surveyed indicated that they received on-site
training for CCSS. During the interviews, all five middle school principals discussed that the

105
on-site training consisted of either a district office staff member facilitating the training or the
principal, upon return from a district office training, sharing the knowledge and leading an on-
site version of the same training. Off-site conferences or workshops were attended by more than
half of the middle school principals surveyed. These off-site conferences consist of trainings for
specific programs or specific content knowledge related to CCSS. The principals interviewed
encouraged teacher attendance at these trainings, happily helping them find and travel to
conferences. To these principals, attending these workshops and encouraging others to attend
related back to their idea of leadership in which a good leader supports and works with others to
develop one’s own knowledge and skills.
Table 15
Types of Training
Measure All Principals Middle School Principals
Training Type No. % No. %
On-Site Training

54 93% 12 92%
Off-Site District Office 50 86% 11 85%

Off-Site Conferences or
Workshops

38

65%

9

69%

Total

58 total
responses

98%

13 total
responses

93%

Professional Development (PD) in education is often synonymous with training,
workshops, and conferences that seek to provide continuous learning opportunities for in-service
teachers (Borko, 2004; Desimone, 2009; Elmore, 2002; Fenstermacher & Berliner, 1985; Fullan,
1991). Both on-site and off-site, through the district and through independent consultants, PD
takes shape through formal and informal meetings, staff development, and specialized
conferences or workshops that seek to enhance knowledge and improve student learning. PD is

106
both a program and a strategy that principals have used to build internal capacity and implement
CCSS.
The principal’s role during PD has been one of support and coordination—acting as the
go-between for teachers’ needs and the PD available to them. This reflects the leadership beliefs
of the middle school principals in which all defined themselves as advocates and supporters of
their teachers, seeking avenues to help teachers grow in knowledge and skill. For Principals 1
and 3, this meant knowing their teachers as individuals and finding ways to support them as
such, including finding materials and PD opportunities that teachers may be interested in or need.
For Principals 2 and 4, this met acting as “coordinator,” spending time in the classroom, talking
with district office academic coaches, observing teachers, and communicating with all parties to
form collaborative opportunities for learning. Principal 5 took a more direct route to PD, directly
training her teachers during staff meetings on CCSS. Principal 5, as with the others, also sent
teachers to PD opportunities at the district office, often at the behest of the teachers themselves.
Principals 1, 2, and 3 acted in a similar manner, using their staff meetings as forums for PD,
modeling instructional strategies, having teachers present lessons, and holding discussions on
PD.
Thus what precipitated PD and training was a concerted effort on the part of principals to
gain knowledge of the happenings in the classroom and an awareness of the needs brought about
by CCSS, yet the forum for that PD differed. Many middle school principals discussed the role
of informal PD, of learning opportunities that occurred because they saw something inspiring in
the classrooms they observed. Principal 3 provided an example of an exchange he typically has
with his teachers:

107
What I saw in your room was awesome. You really had the kids engaged. How
can I get that, to have that translate to a larger scale? You have to really nurture
them, because you need those people to speak up at staff meetings.

Principal 3 draws emphasis to the idea of ongoing PD, a critical component of effective,
continuous learning in which teachers become the agents for change and the “conduits for
instructional policy” (Darling-Hammond, 1990, p. 345; Desimone, 2009; Elmore, 2002). By
“nurturing” the teachers and using them as sources of knowledge to share knowledge and build
capacity, Principal 3 is acting as instructional leader—developing expertise across all levels of
leadership, especially that of the teachers.
Three middle school principals spoke of off-site conferences, noting that they are an
effective and exciting way to build capacity. Two noted that attendance at off-site conferences
has been a recent trend, since funding for them in the past has been scarce. Principal 2 stated that
funding for off-site conferences was the “first thing” that disappeared when the “money dried
up” but found that with CCSS, there was more funding directed at teacher learning, that teachers
were “eager” to attend and had a “hunger to learn.” Principal 3 described a similar concept,
stating that it was “awesome” that he was able to attend and have that “kind of support” for the
“vision” of CCSS and the school. Consequently, with opportunities for PD and teacher learning,
there is buy-in and support for the change vision. Everything, said Principal 3, has to “funnel”
through that vision and that excitement—including PD. Principal 1 also used district money to
send teachers to conferences and also found that many teachers came to him with conferences
that they wanted to attend. He was “happy” to send them to whatever he could and was equally
happy that they shared enthusiasm for CCSS and PD programs.
While policy directives may come from the top down, learning and capacity building
come from the bottom up, often through training such as PD. Ensuring teacher quality and

108
leading teacher learning—direct leadership—is used by instructional leaders to improve student
learning, but PD is the program that sets the conditions for teacher quality, an indirect leadership
strategy (Bendikson et al., 2012; Marks & Printy, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005; O’Day, 2002;
Robinson et al., 2008). Operating with both direct and indirect leadership in their repertoire,
principals use training and PD as a way to mobilize teachers to support the change and to amass
the knowledge necessary to implement change.
Discussion

Education is not immune to change, and change can be a difficult process. Planning and
programs must be set in place prior to implementing change in order to make the change process
effective and sustainable. Knowledge must be acquired, shared and leveraged; key players must
be identified; opportunities for growth must occur for all members. This is echoed in the
research; Gilley et al. (2009b) argued that there are six leadership behaviors that are critical for
effective change implementation; they include communication, coaching, involving others,
motivating, rewarding, and promoting teamwork (Gilley et al., 2009b, p. 79). Moreover, the
principals had to possess the leadership behaviors in order to plan and create programs for
instructional change. In other words, they had to be instructional leaders who believe in
transformational change first and foremost; only with those behaviors and a commitment to
collaboration and building professional capacity can agency be attained and change made
possible (Darling-Hammond, 1990; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). In the planning and programs
created for implementing CCSS, principals used many of these. And they use many more of
these behaviors as strategies, as described in the next section. Notably, principals promoted
teamwork and involved others in their planning and program, taking care to gain knowledge and
share knowledge through collective and collaborative methods. These methods include training

109
and Professional Development (PD) offered at offsite locations including the district office as
well as onsite training opportunities such as staff meetings.
Research Question 2:
What context-specific leadership practices are necessary for the implementation of
instructional changes?
The second research question related to the implementation strategies and practices used
to enact change. For Kotter (2012) this relates to the (3) development of the vision, (4)
communication of that vision, (5) empowerment to take action, and (6) short-term wins
generated in the early stages of implementation.
Middle school principals were asked to elaborate on the specific strategies and programs
used to implement CCSS, the roles adopted, and the decisions made. They found that
communication was the most important leadership strategy used, and it came in various forms—
formal and informal. Disseminating the message of the vision requires consistency, trust, and
encouragement. Building off the previous research question, Professional Development (PD) and
training were further explored as principals discussed how PD-created teamwork improved
communication and collaboration amongst teachers and with administration. However, it was
more than just offering training; the content of that training, the role principals took during PD,
and the follow-up steps after training were of significant importance. By being in the
classroom—by being a presence—principals were able to better gauge the needs and the
successes of their teachers. This helped middle school principals to understand how teachers
have been applying the knowledge gained during PD.

110
Communication of the Vision and Plan: Distilling the District Message

Middle school principals communicated the vision and the plan for instructional change
early, often, and through various forms. Some used weekly emails, bulletins, and newsletters in
conjunction with forums such as PD and staff meetings as platforms to discuss change,
strategies, and goals. Over the past few years, the message has remained the same: CCSS is here
to stay. Therefore, communication has focused on distilling the district office’s message,
providing consistent reinforcement, and offering support to teachers. All principals were
surveyed about whether or not they communicated the plan for change—not just the existence of
CCSS but how the school would implement CCSS, as illustrated in Table 16. Of the 14 middle
school principals surveyed, the majority—10—communicated the message either quite a bit or a
great deal. Only one responded that he or she communicated the plan for change very little.
Table 16
Communication of the Plan for Change
Question
Very
Little
(1)
Some
(2)
Quite a
Bit
(3)
A Great
Deal
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Responses
As principal,
you have
communicated
the plan to
school
stakeholders
1 3 4 6 3.07 14

Principals 2 and 4 stated that the content of their communication with stakeholders
focused on distilling the district’s message—breaking down the information into comprehensible
pieces so as to avoid overwhelming teachers with the demands of CCSS. Over the past year,
Principal 2 has taken the district message and “filtered” it for his teachers, presenting them with
information on an as-needed basis, adding small changes to instruction, and using staff meetings
and PD programs to reiterate the message of the district. Principal 2 believes that it is his job to

111
filter the district’s message as a way of protecting his teachers and taking ownership for the
change process. All communication from the district comes through him and his academic
coaches—allowing him to provide only the most salient information to his teachers. Principal 2
said that his goal for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year would be:
…to take this enormous amount of information they’ve got, breathe, think about it
over the summer, come back, and then add to it. You don’t have to do this all at
once…And that’s really important to me and I think I’ve gotten that message
through to everybody.

Principal 4 used a similar strategy, attending meetings at the district and with the district-
provided academic coaches and then bringing the message to his teachers. He said:
We bring the message from the district back to the teachers as ‘this is the
direction we’re going’. Then when they talk about that among themselves and
have concerns, good things [and] bad things. Then I take those back to the
district…let them know and we just work back and forth, but it’s at those late start
meetings that we have most of those conversations.

The late start meetings he refers to are the before-school staff meetings and on-site PD
opportunities at his school. Held once a month, the meetings have provided the middle school
principals a chance to discuss, collaborate, teach, and learn about instructional strategies used for
implementing CCSS.
Principals 1, 3 and 5 used other mediums to filter and present the district’s message.
Using emails, online newsletters, and staff meeting agendas, they provided teachers with
snippets of information regarding CCSS including strategies that promote critical thinking and
collaboration, upcoming PD opportunities, articles or websites they found interesting, and lesson
ideas. Emails have served to continue conversations started between individuals, check in with
teachers, provide reminders, and offer suggestions for the classroom or further research. Often
confidential in nature, they provide one-on-one opportunities for the middle school principals to
talk about CCSS and other pressing issues with teachers and staff. Emails and other informal

112
exchanges between teachers and the principal also function as a way of “building relationships”
and “trust” according to Principals 2 and 3. In contrast, newsletters and meeting agendas make
information regarding CCSS public knowledge and provide information to all stakeholders,
including parents, students, and the School Board. These newsletters and agendas are also made
public by being available on the school website and in the front office. Their content includes
upcoming schedules for CCSS testing for students, CCSS PD opportunities, and information
about the standards themselves.
More important than the content of the communication is the consistency of the message.
Each interviewed middle school principal talked about the importance of communication, but
Principals 3 and 5 underscored the importance of ongoing and consistent messaging. Principal 3
said: “It’s a singular message for me. And always reinforcing the bigger picture about Common
Core and Common Core development.” Thus communication serves a larger purpose than
simply informing; it serves to reinforce, underscore, and build trust surrounding the “bigger
picture.”
Coordination

The five middle school principals interviewed defined their role and actions as those of
an instructional leader, emphasizing student achievement as well as collaboration,
communication, and ongoing learning in order to realize that achievement. At times, this means
using indirect leadership skills, delegating tasks, and being the coordinator of action rather than
the manager of action—creating the environment but allowing others to lead. Principals 1, 2, 3
and 5 saw themselves more as facilitators or coordinators of change rather than the sole
dispensers of knowledge, skills and change.

113
Middle school principals acted as coordinators during PD and other trainings, putting
together these opportunities of learning yet stepping back and allowing the district or other
teachers to lead, teach, and model the way for change. This was a conscious effort on the part of
the principals to create universal buy-in and to “bring everybody along,” as Principal 1 said.
Furthermore, it has been critical to Principals 1, 3 and 5 that the idea of coordination extends
across all groups and all faculty at the school site. Principals 1 and 5 believed this to be true as
well, working to coordinate the CCSS effort across all departments, including Physical
Education and Music, departments often characterized as being outside the traditional conception
of academic content areas. Yet coordination goes beyond bringing “everybody along.”
Coordination alone does not create knowledge and skills. Knowledge and skill through
coordination requires action, participation and communication. Principal 1 cautioned that relying
on a trickle-down effect is simply not enough to coordinate efforts and knowledge. He said:
As a leader, you have to be strategic when you’re dealing with change, and I
don’t believe the tutorial model works. I don’t even believe—and we talk about
modeling a lot, like, ‘let’s model it’, and then everybody else will just follow it. I
know from practice…that there’s this idea that if you get one group of people to
do it really well, and then everybody else will see it and they’ll automatically
want to do it the same way, but it doesn’t always work that way. Those people do
it well and the other people could care less, sometimes, not always. I want to
develop this thing where it’s not just me picking the department and making
them my stars and ignoring the rest of the school.

Coordination is about leveraging resources and human capital, and using that capital to
co-construct knowledge across all departments and all faculty rather than providing knowledge.
Therefore, coordination requires collaboration, consistent messaging, and training for all
departments. In order to maintain that knowledge building and encourage further efforts to learn,
the role of coordinator includes monitoring that knowledge and efforts as well. Principal 3
believes that “you want to monitor and make sure things are going, and sometimes you have a

114
difficult conversation with people.” Those difficult conversations require further coordination to
work with those teachers, find training opportunities for them, and actively support their
knowledge and skills. Coordination, in essence, requires principals to be aware of what is
occurring in classrooms, what knowledge and skills are needed, how to increase knowledge and
skills, and where to find resources to close the gap.
Bridging the Gap
In addition to communication, an integral strategy used by middle school principals was
to link CCSS to curricula and programs already in place, effectively easing the transition by
using prior knowledge and experiences. Coupled with using prior knowledge and experience is
the adoption of a “just try it” attitude, trusting in the professional body of knowledge that
teachers have to implement CCSS.
Using prior knowledge and experience. Three of the five principals interviewed
incorporated previously existing programs and curriculum that aligned well to the CCSS
initiative. These programs bridged the gap between old knowledge and new knowledge—making
the transition to CCSS less daunting; moreover, they have significant overlap with the
knowledge and skills described in CCSS.
Principal 1’s school site is a middle school STEM campus—a specialized middle school
dedicated to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). This program,
usually found at the secondary level, integrates the STEM disciplines with 21
st
century learning
concepts such as critical thinking, collaboration, hands-on learning, exploration and problem
solving while simultaneously promoting a skilled workforce within an increasingly global and
competitive market (Mann, Mann, Strutz, Duncan, & Yoon, 2011; Subotnik, Rai, Rickoff &
Almarode, 2010; Thomas & Williams, 2010). Born out of the political recommendations of the

115
America Competes Act and supported by the already existing programs of Gifted and Talented
Education (GATE), a STEM curriculum emphasizes many of the same skills and processes
espoused by CCSS including critical thinking and collaboration (Thomas & Williams, 2010).
Unlike many GATE programs, STEM programs are extended to all students at the school site,
just as CCSS will impact all students. Principal 1 stated:
As this school has been down the STEM road, a lot of the STEM literature and
the Common Core literature has been the same. I may have picked up something
because it has some STEM stuff in it, and it had Common Core stuff in it…but
every year has gotten greater by having been exposed to more literature, seeing
things at conferences, seeing things in my classes or classes at another school.

Here Principal 1 describes how CCSS and STEM literature overlap, discovering that in learning
more about STEM, he also made connections to CCSS. This has helped his teachers to feel more
comfortable with CCSS and instructional change and be willing to experiment. He continued to
state that he believes this overlap has placed his school “in a good spot because I think our staff
has already made the mental leap of what we need to do on the Common Core…it fits right in.”
Making the “mental leap” is one of the early steps of Kotter’s change model in which
buy-in is created. With the connection between CCSS and STEM, that buy-in already exists, and
leadership can circumvent many of the challenges faced in the early days of change. If buy-in is
already established, then it follows that credibility, motivation, teamwork, commitment, and trust
also exist as buy-in works to establish those critical components of pre-implementation.
Furthermore, the connection to a previously established program, such as STEM, ensures that the
right people are already in the right spots and on the right bus.
Similarly, Principals 2 and 3, working in separate districts, used a college readiness
program called Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) to ease the transition to
CCSS. AVID programs in the United States were introduced initially at the secondary level but

116
are now used in grades 4-12 to support underrepresented populations and those students who
represent the “middle” of academic success (Bernhardt, 2013). Unlike STEM, AVID is offered
only to those students identified by the school as at-risk or in need of additional academic
support. Nonetheless, the program seeks to advance those in the middle through academic
support, a specific AVID course as part of the student’s academic load, community building and
relations, collaboration, and critical thinking (Bernhardt, 2013). Like STEM, the alignment with
CCSS is evident as both include strategies, skills, and knowledge to increase deeper thinking; an
interdisciplinary curriculum; and cooperative learning. Principal 2 believes that AVID has
facilitated the change process:
At this school we are training people on AVID strategies. And AVID strategies
have been around for quite some time. And AVID as a vehicle to the common
core, it makes a lot of sense…And sometimes with Common Core you think
about it as kind of a nationalized education plan, when really it’s just about
having high standards and making sure that we have high standards…But if you
frame it in a way where it’s, hey, these AVID strategies are going to help us do
this then—you know the average strategies help you with new teachers because
they’re good, they’re awesome instructional strategies. But then they also help
bridge a gap from some of the veterans because like, how can anybody argue with
AVID?

Principal 2 draws the connection between AVID and CCSS using a wider worldview by
stating that CCSS and AVID are about having “high standards” for students, not simply
an overlap of strategies. High standards are at the heart of CCSS and of individual
schools’ mission statements. AVID is a meaningful program from which teachers can
connect new knowledge with old knowledge—a tried and true program that has “high
standards” for all students.
AVID and STEM bridge gaps not only with the curriculum and ways of learning but also
between new and veteran teachers. Principal 3 believed this to be his experience with CCSS: “I
think AVID strategies are the way to go because you have a mix of new and old teachers. So,

117
you have to bring the veterans along and support the newbies. Veteran teachers may know AVID
but not CCSS, while newer teachers, trained during the early days of CCSS, may know CCSS
but not AVID. Here, Principal 3 uses AVID as a connection to CCSS to ease the transition for
his veteran teachers, because it “brings them along” the change process of what will be without
presenting change a complete departure from what was. Secondly, connecting CCSS to AVID
supports the new teachers who may have the knowledge of CCSS but not AVID, thus this
connection is a dialogue, partnering new knowledge with old knowledge and new teachers with
veteran teachers. Principal 3 also believed that using AVID gave him “autonomy” from the
district, as he had trust in his staff that they already possessed the knowledge and skills to
implement CCSS. Trust is an equally important strategy that principals employed as they
implemented CCSS.
Trust. Bridging the gap means building not only knowledge and skills but also
motivation and capacity. It means believing in the team’s ability to overcome obstacles and
implement instructional change without the use of “power over” but instead through “power
with” (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012, p. 9). It extends buy-in from belief to action, as principals and
teachers follow through with the change process. Principal 1 said, “I really make it a point not to
second-guess my teachers, I think if I hire the right people and I keep the right people, they’re
worthy of my trust, and I think that’s why I get the trust back.” Principal 1 describes the idea of
building a coalition—a team—of people who all believe in the message of change and in the
good represented by that change. He also alluded to what other principals described as “getting
the right people on the bus,” a planning strategy from Jim Collins’ (2001) Good to Great model
for organizational success.

118
Trust is at the heart of building a team and of turning beliefs into action. For both
Principal 1 and 2, trust in teachers advances the change initiative by supporting and empowering
others to take action on their own. Sometimes trust can only go so far; at times, middle school
principals must take more direct action to make sure that like Collins’ wrote, the right people are
on the bus and in the right seats (Collins, 2001). Thus trust has its limitations, as Principal 1
described:
They’ve seen that I am their advocate, or I’m their support, and I’m going to be
there for them if it’s something that they’re going to need. Granted, there’s a flip
side of that my teachers have also seen--I think this does build trust as well - that
when there’s a poor performing person, or a teacher that’s pulling down the
group. It’s incumbent upon me to take action. Whether its help them, get them
trained, get them fixed. Whether it’s move them to a different department.
Whether it’s to non re-elect them. That’s my job, and I think my teachers have
learned that I am willing to do both sides of the trust game.

Trust is a strategy that encourages and also demonstrates leadership and follow-through. It builds
capacity and gives cause for teachers to experiment and be “exceptional” as Principal 2
characterized his staff. Direct leadership includes hiring and maintaining the best teachers who
are dedicated to student achievement, yet trust establishes the conditions for that dedication and
caliber of instruction and instructional leadership.
Experimentation: “Just try it”. Bridging new knowledge and experience with past
knowledge and experience creates the conditions for experimentation. Middle school principals
who were interviewed recognized that change is difficult, and many noted that change itself is a
barrier to implementation as it raises fears and asks many to be beyond their “comfort zone” as
Principals 2, 4 and 5 described. Yet this change is not optional; CCSS is a federal initiative
adopted by the state of California and has altered not only what is taught but also how it is
taught. Middle school principals are facilitating the change process by being open, experimental
and trusting of their teachers. A “just try it” approach communicates support and encouragement

119
as well as building relationships and buy-in. It transitions the change process from
communication of the change process to action, an invaluable part of Kotter’s (2012) fifth and
sixth steps: (5) Empowering broad-based action and (6) Generating short-term wins.
Words become action, and incremental change begins to occur when teachers feel they
have the trust and support to take on empowered action. Principals 1, 2 and 5 described how the
transition’s pace for teachers varied but that any instructional change reflective of CCSS should
be celebrated. Principal 2 summed this up, saying:
I also know there are teachers who are going to be comfortable with it right away
and they will do way more and there will be teachers who are going to do one
thing and that is going to be a huge triumph for them.

He continued to say that this is reflective of their informal motto: “Let’s do this.” By noting that
doing “one thing” is a “triumph,” Principal 2 demonstrated his support for experimentation and
teamwork.
Two of the middle school principals did not believe that change would come as easily as
it has, given that there was some initial resistance to CCSS and the change process. However, by
maintaining a positive attitude about change and allowing for small changes to occur—and be
celebrated—middle school principals have been “pleasantly surprised” despite initial misgivings,
as Principal 4 stated. He elaborated:
I will be honest and say I had a couple that I did not think would even go to the
summer training but they did. I wasn’t sure if they’d be gung-ho about it but
they’ve been putting their best effort into doing it.

“Best effort,” emerges out of empowerment. Principal 1 supported the statement of Principal 4.
He explained: “I trust my teachers so I show them that I trust them by saying, ‘Give it a shot. I
know you’re going to do what you professionally think is right.’” As a result of trust and a
willing attitude by the middle school principal, teachers feel able to experiment and implement

120
CCSS strategies on their own accord without the need for an explicit directive. Thus, capacity is
built internally, through the creativity of the teachers and through “power with” (Hargreaves &
Fullan, 2012, p.9).
Principal Presence

Presence speaks to the duties of an instructional leader, of the ability to observe, be in
classrooms, and provide ongoing and impromptu support for teachers as they employ CCSS
instructional strategies. For middle school principals, it allows them to witness the creativity and
experimentation occurring within classrooms, to gather information and build a team of teacher
leaders. Talent scouting, relationship building, and reconnaissance promotes the building and
maintenance of professional capital (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). All five principals spoke of the
importance of being in the classroom to find out what was working and what was not working.
This led to important decisions regarding training, agendas for staff meetings, and future
communication.
Teaching, by design is an “unnatural” practice as it is an isolating job, in which much of
the work consists of creating deliberate and carefully articulated learning conditions that are
often completed by individuals behind closed doors (Ball & Forzani, 2009, p. 500). By being in
the classroom, middle school principals undo some of that isolation, seeking out “rock star
teachers,” as Principal 5 called them, and those who could help the principals facilitate the
change process through collaboration and teamwork. Following this, the middle school principal
coordinates with that teacher and others to form collaborative learning environments for
teachers. Principal presence is not about catching teachers off guard, but rather it is a way to
build relationships and see change in action. In the survey, middle school principals reported that

121
they spend quite a bit to a great deal of their time participating in classroom observations or
walk-throughs. Table 17 illustrates the results for the 14 middle school principals surveyed.
Table 17
Middle School Principal Classroom Observations
Question
Very
Little
(1)
Some
(2)
Quite a
Bit
(3)
A Great
Deal
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Responses
As principal,
you have
observed
teachers
implementing
CCSS in their
classrooms
0 3 6 5 3.14 14

These results indicate that middle school principals define themselves as instructional leaders,
working to improve student achievement through direct and indirect leadership strategies such as
bringing awareness of the activities in the classroom, creating supportive environments for
collaboration, and selecting and training quality teachers (Marks & Printy, 2003; Marzano et al.,
2005; O’Day, 2002; Robinson et al., 2008).
Middle school principals described that for the most part, walking through the classrooms
does not always serve as an evaluative tool. For Principal 1, it is to see what teachers and
students “are doing” and to stay current with instructional practices as well as the needs and
skills of both teachers and students. Middle school principals also noted that they tried to walk
through the classrooms daily either alone or with their assistant principal. Principal 3 stated:
I get into every classroom. Most days it’s every classroom, every day. There is
no easy way around that. There’s no way to be an instructional leader without
knowing what goes on in your rooms. And there is no way to have credibility
with your staff unless they see you do that…. Because like I just said about
opportunities to meet and to train and to be an instructional leader, they’re
fleeting. You only have an hour a month. You only have the kids for [six] hours
a day. So you better get in there and meet with them.

122
Here, Principal 3 draws the connection between principal presence, instructional leadership, and
the need to be productive with the “fleeting” moments available for working with his team to
implement change. It continues consistent messaging, buy-in and trust. It also indicates areas of
strength and weakness, allowing the middle school principal to discover the best uses for the
staff’s time together. Furthermore, as Kotter (2012) and Gilley et al. (2009b) argued, presence
serves as a communication tool, showing a willingness to participate in the change process, to
take action, and to provide credibility. It is a symbol of support, as Principal 4 described:
Just to be visible, because that’s when the teachers know that you’re there to
support them. If it’s going well, I’ll know it, because I can walk in the room and
they’re not going to stop to say, “Am I there for a reason?”…Then I can pick up
on little things, because I might see things that I can have conversations with them
afterwards. That would be part of it too, to have consistent, ongoing
conversations.… And if I’m taking notice, it might just be like casual
observations and just kind of hit those things. Or to know that we’re going to
schedule something regularly, that they can see how things are going. Because,
otherwise, between [what] my job entails, their job entails, we never get together
and chat until something big comes up.

Thus being present is not simply an evaluative tool, but a strategy to prevent conflict and to keep
everyone on the same bus moving in the same direction.

Discussion

Middle school principals have an arsenal of strategies to use in implementing CCSS that
stem from their own beliefs on leadership as well as the planning and program design established
during the pre-implementation phase. These strategies include both direct and indirect methods
of instructional leadership, which speak not only to the actions but also to the culture and
environment that supports the change process (Bendikson et al., 2012; Robinson et al., 2008).
Demonstrating instructional leadership competencies, principals utilize both task- and person-
oriented strategies to facilitate the change process through a collaborative manner (Battilana et

123
al., 2010; Bendikson et al., 2012; Marks & Printy 2003). Centered on building capacity, middle
school principals use communication, trust, team building, and experimentation, to mobilize
others to support and enact change. The importance of communicating the plan for change is
supported in the research and literature about change and instructional leadership (Battilana et
al., 2010; Calabrese, 2002; Gilley et al., 2009a; Gilley et al., 2009b; Kotter, 2012; Kouzes &
Posner, 2011); all five principals articulated this notion, as each discussed the importance of
communication for articulating the vision, gaining buy-in, and promoting collaboration and
support during the change process.
During implementation, effective change begins with communication of the goals and
need for change. This creates buy-in and support and leads to mobilizing efforts by all
stakeholders to embark on the change journey. Communication serves as a task-oriented and
direct leadership strategy and behavior in which leaders communicate the change vision, make
the change vision universally known, motivate constituents, and promote teamwork (Battilana et
al., Gilley et al. 2009a; Gilley et al. 2009b). It can manifest itself in nonverbal modalities
including trust, visibility, accessibility, and a willingness to allow others to lead and experiment;
each demonstrated by the principals interviewed. Thus communication and trust is the umbrella
under which all other strategies—both direct and indirect—exist. Communication and trust
promote professional accountability and a culture of inquiry in which a community of learners—
including teachers and principals—form a collaborative, productive environment focused on a
single goal: student learning (Dowd, 2005). It leads to a “reculturation” where bottom-up
solutions are formed from top-down directives (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2008, p. 48).
When communication about change is connected to initiatives and programs already set
in place, fears are lessened. Middle school principals use curricula and programs such as STEM

124
and AVID as examples of CCCS-like instruction already occurring. When communicating this,
principals are reinforcing that teachers already possess the knowledge and skills to implement
this new change; it is a matter of transferring that knowledge of AVID or STEM to that of CCSS.
Consequently, all strategies reflect the development of expertise within all teachers and the
leverage of said expertise to build consensus and to create practices for improvement (Elmore,
2002; Fenstermacher & Berliner, 1985; Fullan, 1991).
Finally, communication and observation or visibility act as a strategy to mitigate conflict
and to problem solve before small problems become large, unmanageable ones. Kotter (2012)
described this as removing obstacles that can hinder or slow the change process. Visibility builds
credibility and is a reminder that principals, like teachers, are part of the change process, not
simply the director of change. Coupled with the “just try it” attitude, presence serves as a
commitment to the change process and a model for shared leadership in which knowledge
building is a two-way street with both teachers and principals contributing to the creation and
sustainment of knowledge and skills.
Research Question 3:
What are the organizational barriers that principals encounter when implementing
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?
In order to institutionalize change as part of the organizational culture, a new culture
must be nurtured, supported, and brought to life; this is the eighth and final step in Kotter’s
(2012) change stages. The final step takes time, requires new norms and ways of doing things, as
well as universal commitment to that change. It requires a change in people’s behaviors.
However, barriers to reculturation inevitably exist and threaten to prevent change from lasting.
Despite the planning, programs, and strategies, for the five middle school principals interviewed

125
as well as for the principals surveyed, real barriers to change persist. These can be grouped into
two overarching categories: resources and fear of failure. Resources include both tangible and
intangible entities such as time and funding while the fear of failure is both a cause and result of
a resistance to change.
Resources: Time and Funding
Middle school principals surveyed were asked about the degree to which they were
provided with sufficient materials to implement CCSS, noting in the interviews that time was a
major “material” they lack. Middle school principals were also asked about the availability of
funding for implementing CCSS in a follow-up question. Table 18 shows the responses of the
middle school principals surveyed using a Likert-style scale identical to the one utilized in
previous tables in this paper. On average, they responded that they had between some and quite a
bit of resources with nearly half of the middle school principals responding that they only had
some materials.
Table 18
Availability of Materials and Resources
Question
Very
Little
(1)
Some
(2)
Quite a
Bit
(3)
A Great
Deal
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Responses
You have been
provided
sufficient
materials to
implement CCSS
at your site
2 6 4 2 2.43 14

Budget cuts, the teachers’ union, the district office, and the school board were cited as
reasons why tangible and intangible resources were not available. All five middle school
principals described that their staff meetings, became sites for PD and training out of necessity
because they had approximately one hour per month with teachers dedicated to training and

126
ongoing learning. Beyond time in the month to train teachers, two middle school principals
indicated that in general there was not enough time for teachers to cover the mandated
curriculum, try out CCSS lessons, assess the lessons and their students, and implement the new
CCSS end-of-year assessments. There was too much to do in too little time, and this was
compounded by the accountability systems set in place that often dictate how resources such as
time and money are spent (Linn, 2005).
Additionally, middle school principals were asked about the availability of funding for
implementing CCSS. Table 19 illustrates the responses of the middle school principals surveyed:
Table 19
Availability of Funds
Question
Very
Little
(1)
Some
(2)
Quite a
Bit
(3)
A Great
Deal
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Responses
You have been
provided
sufficient funds to
implement CCSS
at your site
3 3 6 2 2.5 14

When asked if they had sufficient funds to implement CCSS at their site, the average response
was between some and quite a bit. This is due to the fact that schools saw an influx of state
funding for CCSS for training such as PD and materials (Jenkins & Agamba, 2013; Kirst, 2013
Kober & Rentner, 2011b; Kober & Rentner, 2012). Yet despite that influx of funds there has
been fear that there will not be enough to sustain the positive changes made during the
implementation phase. Principal 2 summed up this fear, a fear that was echoed by Principals 1
and 3:
We have two years of this great funding for Common Core and then it is going to
go away and what are we going to do? We’ve just gotten people to the place
where it is normal to go out to these great conferences…that’s good but at some

127
point the money is going to run out on the implementation piece. How are we
going to pay for those [academic] coaches because I just don’t want to see them
go away?...So that’s a big question mark for me and I don’t want to see [CCSS]
just peter out because of lack of time and money.

Principal 2 captured the desire for reculturation at the school site yet has prepared himself for
battles to come. The barrier has not been CCSS itself, but the “implementation piece[s]” such as
time and funding, two entities that may not be altered or improved upon given the policies that
dictate educational funding and governance. Furthermore, these pieces are an integral part of the
strategies, programs, and planning that all five principals have used to implement CCSS;
eliminate that, and many the implementation processes become far more complex and difficult to
sustain.
Fear of Failure and Resistance to Change

Resistance to change comes from a fear of failure; the fear of failure comes from a
resistance to change (Kotter, 2012). Resistance to change also stems from the idea that change is
“tough” as Principal 4 said and that it is natural for people to be afraid of change, according to
Principal 2. People are “comfortable with what they’ve done and they’ve been successful doing
what they’re doing,” continued Principal 4. This was echoed by Principal 5 who said that her
teachers view CCSS as out of their “comfort zone.” Therefore, resistance to change emerges
from a degree of comfort, not necessarily complacency or active resistance. However, leadership
can mitigate those feelings of fear and resistance. Middle school principals use strategies and
adopt attitudes to help assuage fear, which in turn allows teachers to feel confident to “just try
it.”
Permission to fail, therefore, becomes an integral strategy to overcome barriers. Principal
1 said, “Teachers need actually the permission to fail, too. Because if they don’t have permission
to try things and kind of mess it up, they’ll never learn what needs to be fixed.…” He continued:

128
Younger teachers, I have found, are probably more apt to go for it and scrape
themselves off the ground…it’s probably the more seasoned teachers…who are
hesitant to [implement CCSS], because they’re comfortable and they don’t want
to fail. In fact, depending on where they may have worked before, failure was
punished…or it was in their evaluation.

Fear of failure runs deep within school culture, a part of a teacher’s identity and a school’s
success. With CCSS, that fear of failure is exacerbated by experience—especially by the
experiences under previous educational policies such as NCLB in which accountability systems
placed corrective measures on schools that failed to meet students’ designated Annual Yearly
Progress (AYP) (CDE, 2012). This placed increased pressure on teachers and administrators to
focus on student performance on high-stakes tests. In the past, teachers felt as though their
evaluations and success were dictated by such performance measures as Principal 1 described;
with CCSS, there is a shift in the instructional strategies and the student performance measures.
Change is difficult, and the fear of failure complicates that process. Questions surrounding how
success will be measured during the transition phase linger. It is, as Principal 5 stated, “pushing
the envelope a little bit.”
Every middle school principal interviewed found that meeting with individual teachers,
co-designing lessons, and being in the classroom helped to lessen fears and simultaneously sent
the message to teachers that they were all in this together. Reflecting and sharing failures
bolstered that feeling of togetherness and support, as teachers could talk openly about their trials
without feeling judged. Thus, even though all principals believed one of their key roles as
instructional leaders was to evaluate teachers, they also recognized that evaluation had a time
and place; in those “just try it” moments, evaluation was not a central focus. Ultimately, faith
and belief in CCSS have helped to overcome fear of failure, especially leadership’s faith in the
teachers carrying out the instructional changes.

129
Discussion
Early research on CCSS argued that there were an alarming number of barriers to be
faced with the implementation process. Citing the standards themselves, the lack of resources—
including curriculum—the unpreparedness of teachers, and scant number of PD programs
available for teacher learning, it appeared that implementing CCSS would be a difficult uphill
battle (Jenkins & Agamba, 2013; Sawchuk, 2012; Tienken, 2011). However, those barriers were
not raised in either the survey or the interviews; in fact, principals found that they had enough
resources such as PD, academic coaches, materials and funding for the moment but raised
questions about the sustainability of those resources as well as the availability of less tangible
resources including time. A barrier faced by all middle school principals was the fear of failure,
stemming in part from a resistance to change due to the newness and significant instructional
changes brought about by CCSS. Middle school principals recognized these challenges yet
employed strategies, programs and planning measures to overcome them. In many cases, they
also allowed for those challenges to play out in the classroom, adopting a “just try it” attitude and
giving permission for teachers to experiment, fail, and reflect with each other and with
leadership.
Summary
The final step of Kotter’s change process is to sustain the changes over time by making
them an inextricable part of the organization’s culture. This requires time and a complete
paradigm shift. In order to anchor the new approaches in the culture and create lasting change, a
new cohesion between teachers and principals is needed as this instructional paradigm is
accepted and celebrated as part of the American educational landscape. As Principal 4 theorized:
[CCSS] is a really good connector between administration and the teachers
because there’s such a need to depend on each other. I think it’s already gotten

130
[principals] back into the classroom more, it’s already gotten us talking to the
teachers more, it already has us talking about philosophy.

CCSS has been a change not only for instruction but also for the role of administrators.
Principal 4 continued to say that CCSS has created a renewed love for teaching and has
found it to have “invigorated” principals and teachers. It has changed and will continue to
change the definition of principals, and he concluded the interview by stating that “we’re
going to see a return to instructional leadership which has been absent”—a sentiment that
has been supported by research and by the other principals.
More than strategies and programs, CCSS has brought and will continue to bring
about a new mindset for principals, one that has facilitated the process for instructional
change. Each of the middle school principals interviewed expressed hope and a positive
attitude toward CCSS, but noted that it will take time and leadership. History and
research supports the idea that although principals should be instructional leaders, they
are not given the opportunity to do so; too much of their time is spent out of the
classroom, preventing them from being such leaders (Early & Weindling, 2007; Marzano
et al., 2005; Mulford & Silins, 2011; Leithwood et el., 2006; Sanzo et al., 2011).
Therefore, there is a need for more opportunities for the support and learning of
instructional leadership. The implementation of the Common Core State Standards may
be that impetus for a return to instructional leadership.
The principals surveyed and interviewed for this study indicated that a number of
strategies were used in order to successfully implement instructional change such as the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The data suggests the following findings for middle
school principals related to the three research questions.

131
Research question one asks, What planning and program design do principals use during
the implementation of Common Core State Standards (CCSS)? All principals indicated that
training—whether onsite or offsite—were integral for preparing teachers for implementing
CCSS. The structure of that training differed across sites, but the need for knowledge and
resources did not. The difference in structure and the specificities for PD and training could be
related to the unique structure and needs of each of the five sites profiled. Overall, middle school
principals used the district office and the resources they provided as a template for the pacing,
planning and programs needed to increase the knowledge and ability of their teachers.
Professional Development (PD) and ongoing staff training continue to play a key role in
providing teachers with the knowledge, and each interviewed middle school principal noted that
they did not act as the sole dispenser of knowledge but the facilitator or coordinator. This “lead
from behind” mentality lends itself to the creation of teams and committees consisting of various
teachers and administrators; in essence, a guiding coalition is created at the school site, and these
individuals are charged with leading the charge for change.
Research question two asks, What context-specific leadership practices are necessary for
the implementation of instructional changes? All middle school principals emphasized the
importance of communication: communicating the vision, the goals, and the elements of CCSS.
Being consistent with the messaging and communicating often through various formats
facilitated the process for change, ensuring that all had buy-in and trust in their leadership before
and during the implementation of change. Therefore, before communicating, it is necessary to
establish trust, buy-in, and build relationships with the principals’ team—whether that is the
leadership team, the Common Core team, or all faculty. Middle school principals turned idea into
action through coordinating across faculty and teams to set in place training and learning

132
opportunities. Many of these learning opportunities were connected to previously established
programs and knowledge such as AVID and STEM. The content of these learning opportunities
arose from the district plans as well as the middle school principals’ observations on the needs,
strengths, and efficacy of their teachers. These observations not only helped to form the teams
but to find ways to utilize the teams to implement CCSS. By adopting a “just try it” attitude and
trusting their teachers through the difficult change process, the process for change was eased.
Research question three asks, What are the organizational barriers that principals
encounter when implementing Common Core State Standards (CCSS)? Organizational barriers
fell into two categories: resources and fear of failure. Despite the trainings provided and the “just
try it” attitude adopted by many of the middle school principals, teachers and principals believed
that there was not enough time or funding available to carry on successful progress. However,
they did not believe that this lack of resources would impede or prevent implementation of
instructional change; instead, middle school principals said that it would be difficult in the future
to sustain such progress and will frustrate teachers who have buy-in, trust, and now the skills for
change. The fear of failure stems from the newness of CCSS, but with more time, teachers will
gain confidence in their skills.
In the next and final chapter, a summary of the research will be provided along with final
conclusions, implications, and recommendations for further research.

133
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
The implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) has affected all
aspects of teaching and learning in the K-12 continuum. CCCS has and will change not only
what is taught but also how that knowledge is gained and leveraged for students and more
dramatically, teachers (Jenkins & Agamba, 2013; Kirst, 2013; Sawchuk, 2012). It is the duty of
the instructional leader—the principal—to lead the change process at the school site. However,
the role of the principal during this change process has been overlooked in the literature on
CCSS. Therefore, this study sought to reveal the effective leadership practices of principals,
notably middle school principals, during the implementation process. In doing so, this study
explored the planning, program design, strategies, and barriers middle school principals faced in
building internal capacity of the people and the school environment in order to implement
successfully the changes required under CCSS. Moreover, the steps principals took to implement
and monitor change demonstrated a commitment to the ideals espoused by instructional
leadership theory.
This final chapter provides a summary of the study, including a statement of the problem,
purpose of the study, research questions, and a review of the literature and methodology used,
followed by findings related to the three research questions. In closing, implications and
recommendations for future study will be explored.
Statement of the Problem
In Michael Fullan’s most recent publication The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing
Impact (2014), he posits that the role of the principal has never been more undefined and

134
confusing. Due to myriad changes to policy, instruction and accountability in the past 30 years,
each initiative has redefined the conceptualization of principal as leader (Hargreaves & Fullan,
2012; Fullan, 2014). Fullan argues that identifying the principal as a transformational leader or
an instructional leader is an insufficient image of the 21
st
century principal; with the expanding
duties tied to management, leadership, and instruction, the principal is more than this—he or she
is charged with providing the supportive and collaborative environment to implement change and
increase student achievement (Fullan, 2014). At the same time, their role requires them to take
direct actions and lead change from the front, armed with the knowledge necessary for creating
the conditions, plans, and action for change (Bendikson et al., 2012). Thus Fullan problematizes
the role of the principal, noting that with each change initiative the waters are further muddied.
This is echoed in the research on CCSS. Research on CCSS has focused on the standards
themselves, the importance of teacher learning and professional development, as well as the role
of the district in implementing this top-down directive (Jenkins & Agamba, 2013; Kirst, 2013;
Linn, 2005; Tienken, 2011). The principal has been left out of the discussion on CCSS, until
recently with Fullan’s work. Fullan contends that the 21
st
century principal under CCSS is the
leader, but the title of leader does not fully depict the extent to which the principal is an active
agent for change (Fullan, 2014). What principals lead, how they lead, and whom they lead
continues to be an undefined and complex discussion around instructional change. Moreover, as
the change to CCSS represents a top-down reform effort issued by the CCSS-adopting states,
how much leadership is needed at the site level and what that leadership looks like is unknown.
Much of the CCSS literature stops short of site-level descriptions for implementation providing
instead suggestions for the state and district level (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a; NGA & CCSSO,
2010b).

135
Fullan reimagines the role of the principal as “learning leader” or one who learns
alongside teachers and works collaboratively with others to implement change through learning
and building capacity. Yet he nonetheless admits that with the complexity of CCSS, the principal
is tasked with an enormous charge, one that may only further complicate the definition of the 21
st

century principal. Fullan’s depiction of the principal as “learning leader” (p. 25) is but one
interpretation that has emerged in the latest literature on CCSS, published after schools began the
journey of implementing CCSS. The experiences of the principals and the strategies they have
used does support Fullan’s assertion that principals are seeking to be collaborative “learning
leaders” while also serving as the stewards for change. Expanding the role of the principal
beyond that of transformational leadership, instructional leadership and direct and indirect
leadership is not enough, he argues, but a collaborative “learning leader” may not be either
(Fullan, 2014; Marks & Printy, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005; Robinson et al., 2008).
Consequently, this problem of defining the principalship under CCSS and instructional change
persists.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify and understand the effective leadership
strategies middle school principals have used to prepare for and implement CCSS at their
individual school sites. Viewing CCSS through the lens of implementing organizational change,
this study sought to explore the change process in education through the perspective of the
principal. As the learning leader and the instructional leader, it is the duty of the principal to
support the key players—the teachers and students—throughout the entire change process in
order to bring about effective change and increase student achievement. Consequently, exploring
the arc of change from planning and programming to implementation has allowed principals to

136
reflect upon the change process, address barriers, and understand their role as instructional and
“learning leader” more deeply (Fullan, 2014, p. 25).
Research Questions
The following three research questions were explored for this study:
(1) What planning and program design do principals use during the implementation of
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?
(2) What context-specific leadership practices are necessary for the implementation of
instructional changes?
(3) What are the organizational barriers that principals encounter when implementing
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?
Review of the Literature
The review of the literature provided the foundational knowledge and the context for
leadership and instructional change. By discussing the principalship, organizational change,
building capacity, and CCSS, it grounded the study in the current educational reform climate as
well as framed the change process at the site level. Understanding the role of the principal
throughout time positions them currently as the transformational and instructional leader
(Bendikson et al., 2012; Robinson et al., 2008). The principalship, understood through the
multifaceted and complex instructional initiatives within education, has also become increasingly
more complex and multifaceted as learning, leadership, and agency are intertwined with the daily
duties of running a school (Bendikson et al., 2012; Fullan, 2012; Fullan, 2014; Marzano et al.,
2005; Robinson et al., 2008). This is further complicated during times of instructional change, as
instructional leadership—beyond simple management—becomes a central component of the
principalship (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Fullan, 2012; Kotter, 2012; Kotter & Cohen, 2008). As

137
Kotter (2012) described, the leader is charged with guiding the change initiative; however, in
order to do this successfully, the change process requires not only strong leadership but also a
commitment to and engagement with the change vision as well as with the establishment of a
collaborative coalition with which a principal can guide, work, and support.
Using Kotter’s (2012) organizational change model, the change process is applied and
understood at the school site level with the principal acting as the key instructional leader and
change agent. Through studying successful change initiatives, Kotter (2012) lists the eight stages
for change (p. 23):
(1) Establishing a sense of urgency
(2) Creating the guiding coalition
(3) Developing a vision and strategy
(4) Communicating the change vision
(5) Empowering broad-based action
(6) Generating short-term wins
(7) Consolidating gains and producing more change
(8) Anchoring new approaches in the culture
This organizational change framework guides leaders, such as the principal, through the change
process, identifying essential components to the before, during, and after phases of
implementation. It takes into account the processes through which leaders engage with change
before implementation, during implementation, and after implementation—finding ways to
sustain the changes over time. The early steps seek to prepare, clarify, inspire and focus all
stakeholders for change (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Kotter, 2012; Kouzes & Posner, 2011). Vision
then gives way to action and the next few stages reflect this orientation toward action. Leaders

138
communicate the plan for change, motivating and reinforcing the message of change. Action is
taken, as procedures and strategies are set in place for the empowerment of all stakeholders to
participate. In education, empowerment occurs through leveraging capital—the assets of
individuals and the group, and it is a process that begins with the teachers who act as a “conduit
for instructional policy” (Darling-Hammond, 1990, p. 345; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012).
Building such capacity is established through ongoing teacher learning opportunities such as
Professional Development (PD). PD not only builds capacity but also sustains that capacity over
time. When rooted in instruction, student achievement, and collaboration, PD can be an effective
method for facilitating the change process by building new knowledge and skills through shared
leadership (Abdal-Haqq, 1996; Darling-Hammond, 1990; Elmore, 2002).
For the implementation of CCSS, PD and teacher learning has become a way to unite
teachers as a coalition of learners committed to implementing instructional change. However,
research on CCSS has focused on the standards, the extent to which instruction will change, and
the lack of learning opportunities for teachers rather than on effective leadership, what CCSS PD
should look like, or the process of building a coalition of learners with the “learning leader”
(Fullan, 2014, p. 25; Jenkins & Agamba, 2013; Kirst, 2013; Sawchuk, 2012). This is especially
evident at the site and district level, as there is little guidance as to how to implement CCSS,
what the role of the principal should be, and how to structure learning opportunities for teachers.
Methodology
This study used a mixed-methods research design that included a survey and interviews.
A total of 59 elementary and middle school principals participated in a quantitative survey and
five middle school principals were selected for a qualitative interview. By employing multiple
measures and analyzing the data collected throughout the process using data analysis strategies

139
and programs as well as the research literature as points of reference, the data was triangulated
and validated (Merriam, 2009).
Selection criteria for this study were applied. For the quantitative survey, principals
selected from various districts in California were seen as leaders in the implementation of CCSS;
the school and district had begun the planning process for implementing CCSS; and there was
documentation of a plan for implementation at the site level. For the qualitative interview, the
middle school principal had to have served as principal for at least two years in order to
understand the accountability demands presented by instructional reform. For the interviews,
middle school principals must have had some training in preparation for CCSS, had qualities of
transformational leadership and had oversight of resources needed to implement CCCS.
Fulfillment of the criteria for the interview process was determined by the participant’s responses
to the survey.
The online survey solicited information regarding the principals’ demographic data,
school site data, background and preparation as a principal and a willingness to participate. It
included an 18-item, Likert-style survey that queried specifically about a principal’s knowledge
of, preparation for, and receptivity to CCSS at their individual sites. The qualitative interviews
were conducted using a semi-structured protocol. All interviews were recorded and transcribed.
Instrument design, data collection, and data analysis were informed by the scholarly
literature and were aligned to the research questions in order to ensure reliability and validity.
Each instrument was analyzed using research-supported methods such as the Creswell Method
(2009).

140
Findings
The findings of this study related to not only the effective practices used by middle
school principals in implementing instructional change but also to the leadership necessary
during the change process. Middle school principals identified themselves as instructional
leaders, noting that their beliefs about leadership were aligned to the way in which they carried
out their duties. These duties extended beyond the logistical nature of the principalship and
instead focused on building and maintaining capacity through support of the people and
environment. Noting teachers as the key recipients of this support, middle school principals
employed a variety of structures and strategies to develop expertise and shared leadership. All
middle school principals highlighted the need for shared leadership, in which there is a coalition
or team dedicated to the building and maintenance of the knowledge, skills and motivation of
teachers. Support became a thread that was woven throughout this study, connecting beliefs with
vision and action.
Research Question 1:
What planning and program design do principals use during the implementation of
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?
Building knowledge and professional capital was an integral part of the planning and
program design before actual implementation of CCSS for the middle school principals who
participated in this study. As an initial step, middle school principals had to ascertain the levels
and sources of knowledge for their teachers and themselves. Over the past two years, middle
school principals have amassed a considerable amount of knowledge, growing in their awareness
of the standards and their comfort in working with the standards. Looking to research, the district

141
office, peers, and the media, middle school principals gathered information from a variety of
sources yet primarily turned to the district office to provide those opportunities for learning.
Middle school principals also turned to their teachers as a source of knowledge and as
integral team members to co-lead the change process. These team members acted as essential
capacity builders—often working in conjunction with the district to attend and, in turn, provide
training such as Professional Development (PD) for their fellow teachers. Identifying the team
members, leveraging their knowledge, and working with the district to create plans for change
and learning opportunities were critical planning and program design features prior to taking
action.
Research Question 2:
What context-specific leadership practices are necessary for the implementation of
instructional change?
The middle principals surveyed and interviewed identified communication of the vision
and plan for change as one of the most significant strategies employed. Often, communication
involved distilling or filtering the district message into comprehensible amounts of pertinent
information. However, beyond the frequency and manner in which communication occurred, it
was the consistency of the message that was of the utmost importance. In order to be consistent
in both message and action, middle school principals acted as coordinators or facilitators for
change, moving knowledge to action through collaboration with others to increase the
knowledge, skills, and comfort with the content of CCSS. At times, coordinating those efforts
and people required middle school principals to show unwavering support of efforts made in
order to problem solve and to assuage any fears about CCSS. Therefore, they relied on prior
knowledge and experience to draw connections between established instructional practices and

142
the instructional practices required under CCSS. For example, middle school principals used
existing programs and curricula to bridge the gap between what had been done in the past and
what will be done under CCSS. This, coupled with trust and experimentation, empowered
teachers to take action. Middle school principals, consequently, communicated and coordinated
not simply a vision for change but an encouraging mindset that allowed teachers to make the
“mental leap” as one interviewed middle school principal described the process.
Communication and coordination also required presence—visible and outward
commitment to change through actions in addition to words. Middle school principals spent time
in the classroom, observing teachers as they implemented the knowledge gained during training
and Professional Development. Middle school principals indicated that being visible and present
assisted in their own construction of knowledge, helped them further identify key people who
demonstrated sound instructional practice aligned to CCSS, and reinforced the purpose and goals
for change. More than anything, presence was a way to communicate support and to
acknowledge efforts put forth.
Research Question 3:
What are the organizational barriers that principals encounter when implementing the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?
All interviewed middle school principals discussed resources such as time and funding as
a major barrier. There has not been enough time in the day or the school year to provide all the
training, teaching and modeling they believed was necessary for implementing CCSS. Principals
surveyed also believed that currently there is quite a bit of funding available for implementing
CCSS—including purchasing curriculum, attending conferences, and providing additional
instructional support. However, the middle school principals interviewed stated that while there

143
was enough funding now, they were concerned about whether or not that funding would persist
over the next few years. They feared that future budget cuts, policies, directives and relations
with unions could alter the amount of funds and the way in which those funds are spent. Another
barrier to the implementation of instructional change was the resistance to change and the fear of
failure. Middle school principals noted that there was seemingly tangible fear with respect to
CCSS because it was out of the “comfort zone” for teachers since instructional changes for
CCSS run deep and require a complete shift in how teachers teach. Therefore, principals
encouraged experimentation, provided trust, and offered ongoing support to teachers in order to
lessen fear and resistance.
The beliefs and actions of the middle school principals interviewed accentuated the need
for instructional leadership as a defining quality for today’s principals. Commitment to CCSS
and instructional change through direct and indirect instructional leadership strategies facilitated
that change process and prevented barriers from stifling implementation of CCSS. Middle school
principals demonstrated that change does not occur with an individual but with a team or
coalition whose members empower one another to take action. Finally, it was evident that
providing support and creating structures to facilitate change were as significant as the actions
taken. This highlighted the idea that principals are learning leaders, as Fullan (2014) described,
because they co-construct knowledge, collaborate, and embolden all to be part of the change
process.
Implications
The findings of this study contribute to the body of scholarly literature on the
implementation of instructional change. Using CCSS as a vehicle to discuss change, the major
findings shed light on the role of the principal during the change process, identifying them as

144
instructional leaders and facilitators. While current CCSS research and the findings were
indicative of the district’s central role during the change process, this study brings attention to
the critical need for principal leadership—a need that should not be overlooked by research or in
practice.
The findings, therefore, can be used by school sites and districts to highlight the
importance of utilizing the principal as an instructional leader rather than simply relying on the
district to lead the change process. There was evident communication and participation occurring
between the district and teachers, but the middle school principals interviewed noted that they
were not as involved as the district was. While research recognizes that teachers are catalysts for
instructional change, principals are instrumental in guiding change through the use of key
leadership strategies (Desimone, 2009; Marzano et al., 2005, Fullan, 2014). By opening the lines
of communication between the principals and the district office, including them in the change
process and recognizing their role as instructional leaders, principals are given the chance to
participate fully in the change process as instructional leaders rather than as coordinators. They
can be the “learning leaders” for which Fullan (2014) argues. This will then mitigate the
nebulous conceptualization of the principal, as they become more active and contributing
participants in the change process.
Beyond CCSS, this study speaks to the strategies necessary for implementing educational
change. The work of Kotter (2012) and Kotter and Cohen (2008) focuses on organizational
change with examples from the business world, yet there is significant alignment between
Kotter’s stages for change and the experiences of the middle school principals interviewed and
surveyed. CCSS will certainly not be the last educational directive for instruction; therefore, a
clearly articulated change process will lessen the barriers and ease the transition process.

145
Recommendations for Future Study
Since this study examined the early stages of CCSS implementation on the part of middle
school principals, there is a need to explore the impact and sustainability of the changes made as
CCSS continues to be implemented over the next few years. Change takes time; therefore, the
researcher recommends that the following be considered for future study:
(1) This study focused on the pre-implementation and early implementation phases,
thus it will be necessary to continue studying the leadership strategies middle
school principals use to sustain those changes. A longitudinal study on the
strategies selected to implement change will demonstrate the degree of success
middle school principals have experienced with CCSS.
(2) Continued research into the shifting roles of the principal and the veracity of
Fullan’s (2014) findings will speak to the role of the principal as a key figure in
instruction and instructional change.
(3) There is a need to study the planning, program design and execution of programs
such as the creation and implementation of Professional Development for teacher
and principal learning at the district level and, in turn, how the district has shaped
the change experiences at multiple school sites within the district.
(4) Research on the effective and efficient models for collaboration at the site level
and the implementations of those models may help to mitigate the barriers during
the change process.
(5) A comparative study across the K-12 continuum to understand the vertical
articulation of the strategies and choices made by instructional leaders within and
across districts.

146
Conclusion
At the core of CCSS is the belief that students will be better prepared for college and
beyond if there is focus on key learning ideals in the K-12 setting. Among those ideals are
collaboration, critical thinking, problem solving, communication, and creativity—effectively, the
21
st
century learning themes (Jenkins & Agamba, 2013; NGA & CCSSO, 2010a; NGA &
CCSSO, 2010b). If students are expected to learn in this manner, then teachers must be prepared
to teach this. This can be achieved if leadership strategies for change and teacher learning
equally reflect the same 21
st
century learning themes. However, the emphasis on teacher learning
for increased student achievement through CCSS has relegated the principal to the sidelines—an
observer to change rather than an instrumental participant and leader. In this study, it was evident
that while the design of CCSS implementation at the district level lessened the role of the
principal, middle school principals still acted as instructional leaders and provided both action
and support to facilitate the change process.
For middle school principals, the change process followed that of John Kotter’s (2012)
eight stages of change, as their plans and action mirrored his steps for implementation of
organizational change. They acted as instructional leaders—using their beliefs of leadership as
essential components for the implementation of change. Their dedication to both direct and
indirect instructional leadership practices—action and support—underscored their role as
instructional leader. While there was a significant amount of structure and guidance provided by
the district office, these middle school principals went beyond the district provided plans,
resources, and learning opportunities. The middle school principals provided the support to their
teachers and the commitment to the change, shaping the vision of CCSS for their own contexts.
This support was manifested through communication, consistent messaging, a “just try it”

147
attitude, and trust; these intangibles extended beyond what the district could offer in terms of
facilitating the change process. Therefore, it was the middle school principals’ leadership
practices that made the transition to CCSS possible. Without the foundation they provided
through their actions and their commitment to their teachers and to CCSS, the change process
would be stifled at the early stages of change.
Effective strategies emerged from the instructional leadership practices, which echoed
not only the ideals for successful organizational change but also the ideals represented by CCSS.
While Fullan (2014) argues that the label of instructional leader is insufficient in characterizing
successful 21
st
century principals, this study demonstrated that middle school principals, through
their implementation of CCSS, are headed in the right direction, possessing the knowledge,
skills, and motivation to act as the “learning leaders” Fullan seeks and future change
implementation seems to demand.

148
References

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1996). Making time for teacher professional development. ERIC Digest.
Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.
Ball, D. L. & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher
education. Journal for Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511.
Battilana, J., Gilmartin, M., Sengul, M., Pache, A. C., & Alexander, J. (2010). Leadership
competencies for implementing planned organizational change. The Leadership
Quarterly, 21(2010), 422-438.
Bell, T. H. (1993). Reflections one decade after “A Nation at Risk." Phi Delta Kappan, 74(8),
592-97.
Bendikson, L., Robinson, V., & Hattie, J. (2012). Principal instructional leadership and
secondary school performance. Set: Research Information for Teachers, (1), 2-8.
Bernhardt, P. (2013). The advancement via individual determination (AVID) program: Providing
cultural capital and college access to low-income students. School Community Journal,
23(1), 203-222.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Fifth Edition. Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theories and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bolman L. & Deal, T. (2003). Third Edition. Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.
Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
Brighton, C. (2003). The effects of middle school teachers’ beliefs on classroom practices.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2-3), p. 177.

149
Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.) The many faces of accountability, 1-24. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Calabrese, R. L. (2002). The school leader’s imperative: Leading change. The International
Journal of Educational Management, 16(7), 326-332.
California Commission on Teaching Credentialing. (2010). Credential Requirements. Retrieved
8 April 2014 from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/requirements.html
California Commission on Teaching Credentialing. (2013). Administrative services credential
for individuals prepared in California. Retrieved 8 April 2014 from
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl574c.pdf
California Department of Education. (2010). K-12 common core standards for mathematics.
Retrieved August 7, 2012 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/
California Department of Education. (2012). Program improvement. Retrieved August 7, 2012
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/programimprov.asp.
Cardno, C. (2005). Leadership and professional development: The quiet revolution. The
International Journal of Educational Management, 19(4), 292-306.
Causey-Bush, T. (2005). Keep your eye on Texas and California: A look at testing, school
reform, no child left behind, and implications for students of color. The Journal of Negro
Education, 74(4), 332-343.
Chance, E., Cummins, C., & Wood, F. (1996). A middle school’s approach to developing an
effective school work culture. National Association of Secondary School Principals,
NASSP Bulletin, 80(576), 43.

150
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school districts.
Harvard Business Review, 55-68.
Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher
learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-304.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others don’t. New
York, NY: HarperCollins.
Cooney, T. J. (1994). Research and teacher education: In search of common ground. Journal of
Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6), 608-636.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the frog into a prince: Effective schools research, policy, and
practice at the district level. Harvard Educational Review, 54(2), 129-152.
Cubberley, E. P. (1923). The principal and the principalship. The Elementary School Journal,
23(5), 342-352
Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Instructional policy into practice: “The power of the bottom over
the top.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 339-347.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy
evidence. Arizona State University: Education Policy Analysis Archives.
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1.
Datnow, A. & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers’ responses to success for all: How beliefs,
experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research
Journal, 37(3), 775-799.

151
Dee, T. S. & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of no child left behind on student achievement.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418-446.
Desimone, L. M. (2009) Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:
Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
Dowd, A. C., (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to
assess community college performance. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts,
Lumina Foundation for Education.
Doyle, K. (2012). Powerful alignment: Building consensus around the common core state
standards. Language and Literacy Spectrum, 22, 7-23.
Earley, P. & Weindling, D. (2007). Do school leaders have a shelf life?: Career stages and
headteacher performance. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(1),
73-88.
Eilers, A. M. & Camacho, A. (2007). School culture change in the making: Leadership factors
that matter. Urban Education, 42(6), 616-637.
Elmore, R. (2000). Leadership for effective middle school practice: Introduction. Phi Delta
Kappan, 82(4), 268-271.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute.
Fenstermacher, G.D. & Berliner, D.C. (1985). Determining the value of staff development. The
Elementary School Journal, 85(3), 281-314.
Fink, A. (2013). Fifth Edition. How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Fink, E., & Resnick, L. B. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi Delta

152
Kappan, 82(8), 598-606.
Flett, J. D., & Wallace, J. (2005). Change dilemmas for curriculum leaders: Dealing with
mandated change in schools. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 20(3), 188-213.
Fowler, F. C. (2009). Policy strategies for educational leaders. Boston, MA: Pearson Education,
Inc.
Fuhrman, S. H. (2004). Introduction. In Fuhrman, S. H. & Elmore, R. J. (Eds.), Redesigning
accountability systems for education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Fullan, M. (2012). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2013). Third Edition. Introduction. In Grogan, M. (Ed.) The Jossey-Bass reader on
educational leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2008). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.
Gallucci, C. (2008). Districtwide instructional reform: Using sociocultural theory to link
professional learning to organizational support. American Journal of Education, 114(4),
p. 541-581.
Gardiner, M. E., Canfield-Davis, K, & Anderson, K. L. (2009). Urban school principals and the
‘No Child Left Behind’ act. The Urban Review, 41(2), 141-160.
Gilley, A., McMillan, H. S. & Gilley, J.W. (2009a). Organizational change and characteristics of

153
leadership effectiveness. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 16(4), 38-47.
Gilley, A., Gilley, J. W., McMillan, H. S. (2009b). Organizational change: Motivation,
communication, and leadership effectiveness. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
21(4), 75-93.
Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-Nect: Purpose, accountability, and school
leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons from comprehensive
school reforms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Good, J., Miller, V. & Gassenheimer, C. (2004). Reforming professional development at the
school site: New standards and new practices. Journal of Educational Research and
Policy Studies, 4(1), 27-45.
Grossman, T., Reyna, R. & Shipton, S. (2011). Realizing the potential: How governors can lead
effective implementation of the common core state standards. Washington, DC: NGA
Center for Best Practices.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,
Inc.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A Passing fancy that
refused to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 1-20.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A
review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1),
5-44.
Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every
school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

154
Harpell, J. V., & Andrews, J. J. W. (2010). Administrative leadership in the age of inclusion:
Promoting best practices and teacher empowerment. The Journal of Educational
Thought, 44(2), 189-210.
Helsing, D., Howell, A., Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (2008). Putting the “professional” in
professional development: Understanding and overturning educational leaders’
immunities to change. Harvard Educational Review, 78(3), 437-465.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. USCUrban ed:
The magazine of the USC Rossier School of Education, Spring/Summer, 17-19.
Hochschild, J. L., & Scovronick, N. B. (2003). The American dream and the public schools.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Hoyle, J. R., English, F. W., & Steffy, B. E. (1998). Skills for successful 21
st
century school
leaders: Standards for peak performers. Arlington, VA: American Association of School
Administrators.
Jacobson, S. (2010). Leadership effects on student achievement and sustained school success.
International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 33-44.
Jenkins, S. & Agamba, J. J. (2013). The missing link in the CCSS initiative: Professional
development for implementation. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 17(2),
69-79.
Kafka, J. (2009). The principalship in historical perspective. Peabody Journal of Education,
84(3), 318-330.
Kendall, J. S., & Marzano, R. J. (2000). Content knowledge: A compendium of standards and
benchmarks for K-12 education. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

155
Kirst, M.W. (2013). The common core meets state policy: This changes almost everything.
Stanford, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.
Kistler, M. (2014). Effective leadership practices used by elementary school principals in the
implementation of instructional change (Dissertation in progress). University of Southern
California, Los Angeles.
Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2011a). Common Core State Standards: Progress and challenges in
school districts’ implementation. Washington, DC: Center on Educational Policy.
Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2011b). States’ progress and challenges. Washington, DC: Center
on Educational Policy.
Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2012). Year two of implementing the Common Core State
Standards: States’ progress and challenges. Washington, DC: Center on Educational
Policy.
Kotter, J. (2012). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2008). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change
their organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.
Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2011). The five practices of exemplary leadership. San Francisco,
CA: Pfeiffer.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D. and Harris, A. (2006), Successful School
Leadership: What It Is and How It Influences Pupil Learning, Department for Education
and Skills, London.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times.
Changing Education Series. Florence, KY: Taylor and Francis Group.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

156
Linn, R. L., (2005). Fixing the NCLB accountability system. Los Angeles: University of
California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Mann, E. L., Mann, R.L., Strutz, M.L., Duncan, D. & Yoon, S. Y. (2011). Integrating
engineering into K-6 curriculum: Developing talent in the STEM disciplines. Journal of
Advanced Academics, 22(4), 639-658.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, J. T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. J., Yanoski, D. C., Hoegh, J. K., & Simms, J.A. (2013). Using common core
standards to enhance classroom instruction and assessment. Bloomington, IN: Marzano
Research Laboratory.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
McElroy, C. (2000). Middle school programs that work. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(4), 277-279.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mulford, B. & Silins, H. (2011). Revised models and conceptualization of successful
principalship for improved student outcomes. International Journal of Education, 25(1),
61-82.
Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1992). The principalship in an era of transformation. Journal of
Educational Administration, 30(3), 77-89.

157
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010a). Common Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in
history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010b). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Washington, DC:
Authors.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2012). Trends in state implementation of the Common Core State Standards:
Educator effectiveness. Washington, DC: Authors.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, §115, Stat. 1425–2094 (2001).
Norton Grubb, W., & Badway, N. (2005). From compliance to improvement: Accountability and
assessment in California community colleges. Higher Education Evaluation and Research
Group.
O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational
Review, 72, 293-329.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Third Edition. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Pierce, P. R. (1935). The origin and development of the public school principalship. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J, & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards: the new U.S.
intended curriculum. Educational Researcher 40(3), 103-116.
Ramaley, J. (2002). Moving mountains: Institutional culture and transformational change. In
Diamond, R. (ed). Field guide to academic leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

158
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and
choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Rentner, D. S. (2013). Year 3 of implementing the common core state standards: States prepare
for common core assessments. Retrieved from: http://www.cep-dc.org/.
Robinson, V., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.
Rousmaniere, K. (2007). Presidential address go to the principal’s office: Toward a social history
of the school principal in North America. History of Education Quarterly, 47(1), 1-22.
Sanzo, K. L., Sherman, W. H., & Clayton, J. (2011). Leadership practices of successful middle
school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(1), 31-45.
Sawchuk, S. (2012). Many teachers not ready for common core. Education Week, 31(April 25,
2012), 16-22.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119.
Schein, E. H. (1994). Organizational and managerial culture as a facilitator or inhibitor of
organizational learning. MIT: Society for organizational learning. Retrieved November
22, 2013 from www.sol-ne.org/res/wp/10004.html.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of learning organization. New
York, NY: Doubleday.
Senge, P. M. (1997). The fifth discipline. Measuring business excellence, 1(3), 46-51.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2009). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. Boston, MA:
Pearson Education, Inc.

159
Smit, R. & Humpert W. (2012). Differentiated instruction in small schools. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 28(2012), 1152-1162.
Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Introduction. In B. Stecher & S. N. Kirby, Organizational
improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other sectors (pp. 1-7).
Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Retrieved November 14, 2005 from
http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG136/
Subotnik, R. F., Tai, R. H, Rickoff, R. & Almarode, J. (2010). Specialized public high schools of
science, mathematics, and technology and the STEM pipeline: What do we know and
what will we know in 5 years? Roeper Review, 32(1), 7-16.
Thomas, J. & Williams, C. (2011). The history of specialized STEM schools and the formation
and role of the NCSSMST. Roeper Review, 32(1), 17-24.
Tienken, C. H. (2011). Common core standards: The emperor has no clothes, or evidence. Kappa
Delta Pi, 47(2), 58-62.
Toll, C., Neirstheimer, S., Lenski, S. & Kolloff, P. (2004). Washing our students clean: Internal
conflicts in response to teacher’s beliefs and practices. Journal of Teacher Education,
55(2), 164-176.
Ulrich, D. (1998). Champions of change: How CEOs and their companies are mastering the
skills of radical change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of quantitative interview
studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of
teacher quality. Princeton, N.J.: Education Testing Service.
http://www.ets.org/research/pic

160
Youngs, P. & King, M. B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build
school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 643-670.

161
Appendix A: Recruitment Letter
[Date]
Dear [Principal Name],
We are doctoral students at USC, and we are working on a dissertation about principal leadership
during the change process. We are conducting a research study about effective leadership
practices used by elementary and middle school principals in the implementation of instructional
change especially, at this time with the initial implementation of Common Core State Standards
(CCSS).

Our committee members have extensive knowledge and experience working with leaders such as
you at the local, state, and national level. Each is a USC professor who works with principals and
superintendents as well as doctoral candidates. They are: Dr. Rudy Castruita, Dr. Michael
Escalante, and Dr. Pedro Garcia. Under their guidance and with their support, we wish to
examine the leadership practices at the site level as schools sit at this important crossroad of
instructional and curricular change.

The purpose of this study is to identify strategies principals in elementary and middle school
settings have found to be effective while implementing curricular and instructional change based
on directives such as CCSS. By examining the processes for implementing successful change,
we are hoping to identify those traits and trends that are indicators of success along with best
practices so that we can share our knowledge with elementary and middle school practitioners.

The study procedures include a survey; depending upon your answers in the survey, you may be
invited to also participate in an interview. Participation is voluntary and responses will be
confidential. To be eligible to participate in the follow-up interview, you must meet the
following criteria:

1. The school and the district has begun the planning process for implementing CCSS.
2. There has been documentation of a plan at the site level.
3. The principal has been a principal for at least two years and understands accountability
under student achievement systems.
If you have questions, comments, or concerns, please email either Kristen Shultz or Melissa
Kistler at kshultz@usc.edu and mkistler@usc.edu. Your information will remain confidential
and pseudonyms will be used in the study.
Thank you for your time; your prompt response is appreciated. To participate in the survey
please click on the following link: https://usc.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8JnwV0N0DG65Rjf
Sincerely,
Kristen Shultz and Melissa Kistler

162
Appendix B: Information/Facts Sheet for Exempt Non-Medical Research

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Philips Hall
347 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

The Effective Leadership Practices Used by Elementary and Middle School Principals in
the Implementation of Instructional Change

You are invited to participate in a research study for a Doctorate of Education dissertation.
Research studies include only people who voluntarily choose to take part. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.

You are eligible to participate in this study if you are a K-8 principal in a public school setting
and meet the following criteria:

1. The district is seen as a leader in the implementation of the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS).
2. The school and the district have begun the planning process for implementing CCSS.
3. There has been documentation of a plan at the site level.
4. The principal has been a principal for at least two years to understand accountability under
student achievement systems.
5. The principal has some training (formal and/or informal) in preparation for CCSS.
6. The principal has qualities of transformational leadership.
7. The principal has oversight of resources needed to implement CCSS.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this research study is to understand the leadership practices used by principals in
implementing the Common Core State Standards. More generally, we are looking at how
organizational change is implemented and sustained at the school site. We are asking you to
participate because you have been identified as a key leader.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey that is
anticipated to take about 15 minutes. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want
to, click “next” or “N/A” in the survey to move to the next question.

Following the survey, you may be asked to participate in a one face-to-face interview at the
location of your choice. The interview should take about one hour and will be audiotaped with

163
your permission, to make sure that our conversation is recorded accurately. You may still
participate in the research even if you decide not to be taped.

The discussion topics include leadership practices, Common Core, planning and programs, as
well as organizational barriers due to the changes brought about by Common Core. We will also
discuss school culture, Professional Development, and other site-specific issues and programs
surrounding Common Core.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate in this study; your relationship with your employer or USC
will not be affected, whether or not you participate.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential.
Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The
audio-tapes will be destroyed once they have been transcribed; identifiable information will be
destroyed upon completion of the research study.

Data will be stored on a password protected computer in the researcher’s office. The de-
identified data and transcripts will be stored indefinitely and may be used in future research
studies. If you do not want your data used in future studies, you should not participate in this
study.

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

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

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions about this research, including questions about the scheduling of the
interview or your participation, you can contact us via email or phone at kshultz@usc.edu or
(310) 748-2344, mkistler@usc.edu or (818) 825-9254 or the dissertation chair, Dr. Rudy
Castruita at rcastrui@usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

164
Appendix C: Survey Instrument

Q1. What is your gender?
☐ Male
☐ Female

Q2. What degrees do you hold? Select all that apply.
☐ B.A. or B.S.
☐ Master’s Degree
☐ Ed.D.
☐ Ph.D.

Q3. Please provide information regarding your educational background such as your major or
emphasis as well as any institutions you attended.

Q4. What is your background primarily in?
☐ Elementary education
☐ Secondary education
☐ Business
☐ Other (please specify)

Q5. What credential(s) have you earned. Select all that apply.
☐ Multiple Subject
☐ Single Subject. Please specify subject(s) below:

☐ Administrative
☐ Special Education

Q6. Prior to becoming an administrator, what was your most recent position in education?
☐ Teacher, PreK/TK/K-5
☐ Teacher, 6-8
☐ Teacher, 9-12
☐ Teacher on Special Assignment
☐ Special Education Teacher
☐ School Counselor
☐ Athletic Coach
☐ Other (please specify)

165
Q7. What grade levels does you site serve?
☐ Elementary (PreK/TK/K-5 or PreK/TK/K-6
☐ Middle School (6-8 or 7-8)
☐ K-8
☐ Other configuration. Please specify:

Q8. What is the total number of students at your school site?
☐ Fewer than 100 students
☐ 100-200 students
☐ 200-300 students
☐ 300-400 students
☐ 400-500 students
☐ 500-600 students
☐ 700-800 students
☐ 800-900 students
☐ More than 900 students

Q9. How many years have you been a principal?
☐ 0-1
☐ 2-4
☐ 5-7
☐ 8-10
☐ More than 10 years

Q10. How many years have you served in your current position (please include this year)?
☐ 2-3
☐ 4-6
☐ 7-10
☐ More than 10 years

Q11. How did you gain knowledge about the Common Core State Standards? Select all that
apply.
☐ District Office trainings, meetings or workshops
☐ Research
☐ Peers and/or colleagues
☐ Media

Q12. How long have you been implementing CCSS at your site?
☐ 0-3 months
☐ 4-6 months
☐ 7-9 months

166
☐ 10-12 months
☐ More than 12 months

Q13. What does training consist of? Select all that apply.
☐ On-site training for principals, teachers and/or staff
☐ Off-site district office or county trainings for principals, teachers and/or staff
☐ Off-site conferences or workshops for principals, teachers and/or staff

Q14. Please describe the type of training at your site based on your response to item 13.
☐ On-site training:

☐ Off-site district office or county training:

☐ On-site conferences or workshops:

Q15. For the following items, please select the number or statement below that best represents
how you feel about your knowledge and preparation of CCSS as well the receptiveness to CCSS
at your site.
Question Very
Little
Some Quite
a bit
A Great
Deal
Not
Applicable
(N/A)
What level of knowledge about CCSS did you
possess a year ago?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
What level of knowledge about CCSS did you
possess two years ago?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Your district provided principal training for
CCSS

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Your district provided teacher training for CCSS

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
The training had direct benefit for your staff in
implementing CCSS

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
You have trained your teachers and staff in
order to implement CCSS.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
You have used trainers or consultants from
outside of the district in order to train teachers
and staff in CCSS.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
You have been given sufficient materials to
implement CCSS at your site.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
You have been provided sufficient funds to
implement CCSS at your site.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

167

A school-wide plan has been created and
adopted for CCSS implementation.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
As principal, you communicated the plan to
school stakeholders.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
As principal, you have observed teachers
implementing CCSS in their classrooms.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Have you looked for CCSS instructional
resources?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
How much have you impacted the decisions that
are made regarding implementation of CCSS at
your site?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
As principal, you have the ability to freely offer
your views on CCSS implementation to district
office personnel.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
As principal, you have the ability to freely offer
your views on CCSS implementation to your
teachers and staff.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
How ready are you to implement CCSS in
English Language Arts?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
How ready are you to implement CCSS in
mathematics

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Q16. How will your implementation plan and/or programs change the most in the next six
months to one year?

Q17. Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. You may add any additional
comments that you think may be relevant to the study in the space below.

Q18. Would you be willing to be contacted for a follow-up interview related to this topic?
☐ Yes. If yes, please provide your email or preferred contact information below.
Remember, your information will remain confidential; all names and other identifiers will
be replaced with pseudonyms for this study.

☐ No

168
Appendix D: Interview Protocol

Principal Leadership and Implementation of Instructional Change

Interviewer:______________________ Date:___________________

Job Title:________________________ Phone: _________________

Start Time:_______________________ End Time: ______________

Introduction:
During this conversation, we are hoping to learn more about the leadership practices used during
implementation of instructional change such as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). We
will be discussing topics ranging from Common Core to leadership. We will also be discussing
some of the barriers you may have faced due to the change process. However, the focus is on the
leadership practices you have used.

I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. We will not identify you or
your organization by name. I would like to tape-record this interview in order to have an
accurate record of our conversation. Would that be okay?

The interview should take approximately 60 minutes. Do you have any questions before we
begin?

I. Background
Before we ask you specific questions about the specific leadership practices during instructional
change, we would like to start by asking you some background questions about your role as
principal.
- How long have you been in your position? What is your prior experience and training?
Possible probes
Tell me about your school site (demographics, mission statement etc.)

- To get a sense of your role as principal, can you describe your duties as site leader as it pertains
to instruction?
Possible probes
Talk a little bit about day-to-day jobs
Talk a little bit about implementing directives/district vision etc.
Who are other key site leaders?
Who else makes and implements decisions regarding instruction at this site?

3. What do you know about the Common Core State Standards?
Possible probes
History?
Content?
Assessment & accountability?

169
II. Planning & Program Design
- Can you describe to me/walk me through the process you used in implementing the switch from
NCLB to CCSS at your site?
Possible probes
Year one of implementation or when you first head of the standards?
Year two? Year three?
Now?

- How did you prepare as an instructional leader for the change?
Possible probes
Year one? Year two? Year three?
Now?

- How were those decisions made?
Possible probes
Vision?
Relation to directives?
Who influenced you/who was involved?
What has been the role of the district office? Other directives?
Whom did you consult?
What resources were accessed?

- What planning was necessary?
Possible probes
Who was involved?
Can you describe any models that were set in place?
How did you get the necessary information?

- What kinds of programs have you implemented during the process?
Possible probes
Ask about: Professional Development, leadership teams, CCSS teams
Can you describe how those functions in the school site to bring about instructional
change?

- What role do you take during implementation of these programs?
Possible probes
Facilitator? Director? Colleague?

III. Leadership Practices
Leadership is often the catalyst for effective change. I would like to turn now to the leadership
practices you have used during this change process. We can begin discussing leadership in the
context of planning and program design and then move into other areas of leadership. But first, I
would like to ask you:
- Can you describe to me your idea of leadership?
Possible probes
Is there an underlying theory you subscribe to?

170
Who has influenced you and how?

- What did you do to prepare your school site for CCSS?
Possible probe
How has leadership played a role in the planning and program design for instructional
change?

- What leadership strategies have you found to be necessary in implementing such change here at
your site?

- Can you tell me about a time in which you have used your leadership skills during the
instructional change process to CCSS?
Possible probe
How has that shaped your practice and decision making skills?

IV. Organizational Barriers
- Can you describe some of the organizational barriers you have encountered during the change
to CCSS?
Possible probes
Stakeholders: teachers, other admin, district, parents etc.
Resources: curriculum, funds etc.

- Can you describe a specific barrier(s) and how that has influenced you as an instructional
leader?
Possible probes
Have you had to make adaptations? Adapted process and planning? Adapted leadership?
How has this affected you decision making process?

- Looking ahead, based on the barriers you have faced surrounding CCSS, what do you perceive
to continue to be an influencing barrier or conflict?
Possible probes
Why?
How will this affect your leadership?
How will this affect your school site?

How does this impact school culture?
Possible probes
How do you measure school culture or school climate?
How do you define it?
Who impacts school culture and how?
Probes: Role of stakeholders?

V. Reflections
- What do you think will be some of the lessons learned from implementing CCSS that are
perhaps a bit more unique?

171
- What measures will you use to gauge the success of the implementation?
Possible probe
How does this differ from past gauges?

- How do you think CCSS will shape leadership practices in the future?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to identify and examine the effective strategies used by middle school principals to implement instructional change. More specifically, the study sought to determine various facets of instructional change implementation including the (1) planning and program design, (2) context-specific leadership practices and (3) the organizational barriers encountered. Using the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) as a vehicle to explore instructional change, this study delved into the organizational change process at the site level, integrating John Kotter’s eight stages of change as a framework to understand the arc of change as experienced by middle school principals. The current literature on instructional change—including the research on CCSS—is not inclusive of the role of the principal. Instead, CCSS research focuses on the standards, the role of the district, and teacher learning. The role of the principal is, therefore, undefined despite the fact that research indicates principals have a significant influence on student achievement. This study used a mixed-methods approach in which 59 elementary and middle school principals completed a survey, included 14 middle school principals. This was followed by semi-structured interviews with five of the surveyed middle school principals as well as analysis of relevant site and district documents. Through the process of triangulation, the study’s findings indicate that middle school principals facilitated the change process at their site through direct and indirect instructional leadership practices. Middle school principals worked with the district office to build the internal capacity of their staff, increasing the knowledge and skills of teachers through the creation of CCSS and leadership teams as well as district and site professional development opportunities. They also implemented change through ongoing communication, coordination, trust, experimentation, presence, and support of their teachers. However, the transition to CCSS was not without barriers as middle school principals felt they lacked time and funding to implement fully the district directives. This study hopes to guide and inform middle school principals as they take on a more active instructional leadership role when implementing such change.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

A case study of the instructional leader's role in leading change: preparing for the implementation of Common Core State Standards in elementary schools

PDF

Use of Kotter’s change model by elementary school principals in the successful implementation of inclusive education programs for students with disabilities in K-6 elementary schools in Southern ...

PDF

Shifting educator’s paradigm from the practice of implementing standards based learning and assessments to project based learning and assessments for the Common Core State Standards

PDF

Instructional leadership: the practices employed by elementary school principals to lead the Common Core State Standards and 21st century learning skills

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals

PDF

Getting to the Core: an examination into the resources, strategies and skills superintendents employed as they implemented the Common Core state standards and the politics in play

PDF

Common Core State Standards: implementation decisions made by middle school English language arts teachers

PDF

An examination of the leadership practices of Catholic elementary school principals

PDF

Data-driven decision-making practices that secondary principals use to improve student achievement

PDF

An exploration of leadership capacity building and effective principal practices

PDF

A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st century skills

PDF

The leadership skills, knowledge, and training required of high school principals to effectively evaluate classroom teachers

PDF

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

PDF

Elementary principal leadership and learning outcomes for low socioeconomic status Hispanic English learners

PDF

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

PDF

A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st century skills

Asset Metadata

Creator Shultz, Kristen L. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 09/23/2014

Defense Date 09/09/2014

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

Tag Common Core State Standards,effective leadership strategies,instructional change,middle school principals,OAI-PMH Harvest,school leadership practices

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy Max (committee chair), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member), García, Pedro Enrique (committee member)

Creator Email klshultz84@gmail.com,kshultz@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-485395

Unique identifier UC11287800

Identifier etd-ShultzKris-2985.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-485395 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ShultzKris-2985.pdf

Dmrecord 485395

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Shultz, Kristen L.

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