University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 1

LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY K–12 URBAN SUPERINTENDENTS TO
IMPROVE THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

by
Charles D. Smith
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2014
Copyright 2014 Charles D. Smith

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 2

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank all of the individuals who supported, challenged, and encouraged
me throughout my dissertation experience at the University of Southern California, Rossier
School of Education. I would like to recognize the significant contribution of my dissertation
chair, Dr. Rudy Castruita, my committee members, Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. John Roach, who
provided feedback and challenged me to go above and beyond. Their expertise and inspiration
served as the motivation needed to complete my work in a timely manner.
I would like to thank of all of the superintendents who participated in this study,
especially those who afforded me additional insight through interviews that added a rich depth of
complexity to the study. Their willingness to participate in the study presented true inspirational
models of educational professionals.
I would like to thank my amazing writing partners, Tiffani Curtis, Gretchen Janson, and
Raul Ramirez, who worked with me throughout the writing process. I could not have been with
a better team of passionate educators.
I would like to acknowledge my deceased grandfathers, Willie J. Johnson and John E.
Limbrick, and deceased uncles, George, Albert, and Thomas, who were not able to live long
enough to see me obtain my doctoral degree. To my mother, Mary E. Limbrick-Jones, thank you
for the many sacrifices. To my best friend, Davian Freeman, thank you for being there through
this entire process. To my sisters, LuShonda, Mary, ArDonna, and Lisa, thank you for being
understanding when I was not available. To the Line of Hodari, thank you for the eight weeks
and two days as those life lessons have carried me through many of life’s obstacles. To all of my
family and friends who have continued to support me, thank you.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 3

To my students, faculty, staff, and colleagues in the Los Angeles Unified School District,
thank you for continuing to motivate and encourage me to be the best educator I could possibly
be by challenging me to reach my maximum potential.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 4

Table of Contents
List of Tables 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 8
Introduction 8
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 11
Significance of the Study 12
Assumptions 13
Limitations 13
Delimitations 13
Definition of Terms 13
Organization of the Study 15
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 17
Introduction 17
The Role of the Superintendent 18
Theoretical Framework 21
Equity and Access for English Language Learners 24
Creating a Collaborative Culture 27
Building Capacity 30
Conclusion 32
Chapter Three: Methodology 33
Introduction 33
Purpose of the Study 34
Research Questions 35
Rationale for Mixed-Methods Study Design 35
Research Design 36
Sample and Population 36
Instrument Validity 37
Instrumentation 38 Quantitative Instrumentatio Qualitative InstrumentationData Collection
Quantitative Instrumentation 38
Qualitative Instrumentation 38
Data Collection 39 Qualitative Data Collection
Quantitative Data Collection 39
Qualitative Data Collection 40
Data Analysis 40
Quantitative Data Analysis 40
Qualitative Data Analysis 41 Qualitative Data Analysis
Summary 41
Chapter Four: Results 42
Introduction 42

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 5

Purpose 43
Response Rate 43
Quantitative Demographic Data 44
Qualitative Demographic Data 50
Research Question One 52
Teacher Expectations 54
Access to Highly Qualified Teachers 55
Instructional Leadership 56
Discussion 57
Research Question Two 58
Teachers 59
District-Level Personnel 60
School-Level Administrators 61
Discussion 62
Research Question Three 63
High Expectations for Student Achievement 66
Clearly Defined District-Wide Academic Goals for ELL Students 67
On-Site Teacher Collaboration 68
Discussion 69
Research Question Four 69
Valid and Reliable Assessment Instruments 72
Analyzing Subgroup Assessment Data 73
Established Instructional Norms 74
Discussion 75
Summary 76
Chapter Five: Conclusion 78
Introduction 78
Statement of the Problem 78
Purpose of the Study 79
Research Questions 80
Review of the Literature 80
Methodology 83
Findings 84
Implications 87
Recommendations for Future Study 88
Conclusions 88
References 90
Appendix A: Research Question/Instrument Connection 96
Appendix B: Survey Instrument 99
Appendix C: Interview Protocol 101
Appendix D: Survey Cover Letter 102
Appendix E: Interview Letter 103
Appendix F: Information Letter 104

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 6

List of Tables
Table 1: Quantitative Survey: Response Rate 44
Table 2: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Gender 44
Table 3: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Ethnicity 45
Table 4: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Age 46
Table 5: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Education 46
Table 6: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Experience in Current District 47
Table 7: Quantitative Survey: Overall Superintendent Experience 48
Table 8: Quantitative Survey: District Characteristics 49
Table 9: Qualitative Interview: Characteristics for Superintendents and Districts 50
Table 10: Superintendent Rating of Factors that are Important in ELL 53
Academic Achievement

Table 11: Superintendent Rating of Stakeholder Importance in ELL Academic Decisions 59

Table 12: Superintendent Rating of Factors that are Important in Implementing Plans 64
to Improve ELL Academic Achievement

Table 13: Superintendent Rating of Factors that are Important in Monitoring 71
and Evaluating the Plans to Improve ELL Academic Achievement
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 7

Abstract
Through their specific leadership strategies, today’s superintendents continue to confront
extraordinary pressure to close the academic achievement gap that persists for all students,
including and especially those classified as English language learners. Superintendents continue
to seek successful leadership strategies being employed by K–12 urban superintendents that are
improving the academic achievement of English language learners. This mixed-method study
design was developed to answer 4 research questions related to leadership strategies employed
by K–12 urban superintendents to improve academic achievement of ELL students. Data
collected through a quantitative survey of 14 superintendents and a qualitative interview
conducted with 8 superintendents were used to support the 4 research findings.
First, teacher expectations, access to high quality teachers, and instructional leadership
stood out as key factors to consider in developing strategies to improve academic achievement
for ELL students. Second, teachers, district-level personnel, and school-level administrators
were identified as critical stakeholders involved in developing a plan and process to reach the
desired academic gains. Third, high expectations for student achievement, clearly defined
district-wide academic goals for ELL students, and on-site teacher collaboration were key
strategies for implementing plans to improve academic achievement. Fourth, superintendents
used valid and reliable assessment instruments, analyzed subgroup assessment data, and
established instructional norms to monitor and evaluate the academic achievement of ELL
students.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 8

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
The need to compete in a global market and strengthen our economic power continues to
directly impact American public education. In an effort to maintain economic power, America
must focus on strengthening the nation in the areas of race, equity, and class by closing the
academic achievement gap that persists between White and non-White students, as reflected in
the results of standardized tests in reading, writing, and mathematics (Friedman & Mandelbaum,
2011). More specifically, minority students in large urban school districts in the United States
continue to fall short of national targets and national averages. And, such shortfalls directly relate
to that fact that America is lagging behind many countries, including Korea, Shanghai,
Singapore, Hong Kong, Finland, and Switzerland (Friedman & Mandelbaum, 2011).
The demographics of large urban school systems continue to shift and become
increasingly complex, with an increasing amount of immigrant students from Mexico, Central
America, South America, and Asia (Contreras, 2002). From 1989 through 2009, the number of
White students in US public schools went from 68 to 55%, while Hispanic enrollment increased
from 11 to 22%. With this rate of immigration, the percentage of students classified as English
language learner (ELL) has increased significantly in public schools (Gándara, Rumberger
Maxwell-Jolly, & Callahan, 2003).
According to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, during the
period from 1996 to 2006, the nation’s K–12 ELL population rose by over 60%, while the size of
the nation’s overall student population remained essentially unchanged. Furthermore,
approximately 32% of the nation’s students classified as ELL are concentrated in California,
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 9

where they represent 25% of the students in California public schools. Due to the unique needs
of ELL students and to the current educational system in America, ELLs are not succeeding in
school (Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 2005). As indicated on the results of national tests
conducted in 2007, 44% of 4th-grade students in the ELL category scored “below basic” in
mathematics, and 70% of 4th-grade ELL students scored “below basic” in reading. The national
academic challenge, as noted on a national level, is consistent with the academic challenges of
urban school districts (ARRA, 2009).
Large urban school districts continue to work to combat the shortfalls and academic
achievement of all students at the national and local levels. These districts face significant
political pressure and challenges related to the achievement of all students and specifically to
those identified as ELL. These pressures and challenges often come from the media, parent
community, school board, accountability mandates, and tenure of term. In the face of these
pressures, school districts must continue to work to improve overall student achievement to
ensure students meet and exceed federal and state accountability measures as they relate to the
academic proficiency levels of students.
The bureaucratic accountability measures associated with public education today stem
from the federal legislation of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). This legislation
was adopted to address—and redress—the continuing struggle by public schools nationwide to
improve the academic performance of their students. The mandates of NCLB have held schools
and districts accountable by using performance data to weigh the impact of classroom instruction
on the academic performance of significant subgroups in schools and school districts (Borkowski
& Sneed, 2006). These accountability policies have increased the pressure on administrators and
district superintendents to improve efficiency, equity, and effectiveness in the school system in
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 10

an effort to avoid sanctions (Lauen & Gaddis, 2012). Additionally, NCLB accountabilities
support an enhanced system that highlights the academic disparities and inequities of various
subgroups represented in public schools. School district superintendent leadership plays a key
role in the educational shift required to improve student achievement and meet academic
performance expectations (Bredeson, Klar, & Johansson, 2011).
Given the complexities and academic pressures associated with a student’s academic
success, strong district leadership is necessary to improve student achievement (Waters &
Marzano, 2007). Such work requires increased focus on the role the superintendent plays and the
necessity to shift from a system of management to a system of instructional leadership. This shift
indicates a greater need for district superintendents to have leadership skills that will guide
academic growth through analysis of student achievement data that determines areas of need;
identifies successful research-based instructional strategies to address needs; and acquires the
support of staff, students, parents, and community members to ensure proper implementation of
successful strategies to improve student achievement and close the achievement gap (Byrd,
Drews, & Johnson, 2006). Furthermore, with consistent growth in the number of students
classified as EL, today’s district superintendents must be able to identify and implement effective
leadership strategies to close the achievement gap.
Statement of the Problem
In large urban schools districts in America, students continue to score below the national
average in reading, writing, and mathematics (Friedman & Mandelbaum, 2011). Additionally,
the academic achievement gap between White and non-White students continues to grow
rapidly. Furthermore, school boards and superintendents continue to face a great deal of
accountability pressure from local, state, and federal legislation via mandates identified by the
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 11

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and various measures, including the School Accountability
Report Card (SARC). Ultimately, the school districts are held accountable for their students’
achievement as well as for closing the gap in learning. In K–12 education, the leadership
strategies of urban superintendents are critical, serving as the entity responsible for improving
student achievement for all students and responding to the achievement gap that persists among
English language learners.
Tasked with closing the achievement gap for all students, urban superintendents must
adopt specific leadership practices essential to increasing students’ ability to read, write, and
understand mathematical concepts. As noted by Northouse (2010), leadership is a highly sought
after and highly valued commodity about which researchers continue to seek information in their
effort to determine what constitutes an effective leader. By understanding which leadership
strategies of urban superintendents have made an impact on the student achievement of English
language learners, we can work strategically to close the achievement gap in all of our urban
school districts.
During this study, the researcher examined the leadership strategies used by urban
superintendents to close the achievement gap that persists among students identified as English
language learners. The information gained from this study will benefit urban superintendents
seeking effective practices to engage within their school district to positively impact students
identified as English language learners.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to identify superintendent leadership strategies that impact
the academic achievement of students identified as English language learners in large urban K-
12 school districts. Specifically, the study considered the approaches employed by
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 12

superintendents in developing, implementing, and monitoring improvements to student academic
outcomes.
The following questions guided this study:
1. What factors do urban superintendents consider when developing strategies to
improve the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
2. Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban superintendents to assist in
improving academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
3. What strategies do urban superintendents execute when implementing plans to
improve the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
4. What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor and evaluate the academic
achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Significance of the Study
This study adds to the body of scholarly literature by identifying strategies used by
successful urban superintendents responding to the need to improve the academic achievement of
students classified as English language learners. It provides guidance to current and aspiring
superintendents in planning and executing similar goals. Additionally, school board members
can use this information to improve the academic performance of English language learners.
Moreover, the findings have the potential to provide guidance to superintendents-in-training so
that they may be better equipped to meet the challenges of increasing overall student
achievement.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 13

Assumptions
The study assumed the following:
1. Superintendent leadership can impact student achievement.
2. Superintendents can identify and communicate strategies used to improve student
achievement.
3. The chosen procedures and methods are appropriate.
4. The information gathered will sufficiently address the research questions.
Limitations
The study included the following limitations:
1. The validity of the data was reliant upon the chosen instruments of measurement.
2. Inherent challenges to the isolation of specific leadership strategies that impact
student achievement from other variables.
3. The ability or willingness of superintendents to provide accurate responses.
4. The ability to gain access to superintendents of large urban school districts.
Delimitations
The delimitations of this study were:
1. Data collection was limited to urban superintendents in California with student
populations of more than 20,000.
2. Districts must serve populations with more than 20% ELL students.
3. Interviews were limited to four to eight urban superintendents.
Definition of Terms
Academic Performance Index: Comprehensive annual measurement of the academic
performance of individual schools and districts in California.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 14

Academic achievement: Quantifiable mastery of grade-level standards as measured by
mandated annual standardized tests.
Accountability: A means by which to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of an
agreement between a director and a provider.
Achievement gap: Disparity in achievement among various groups of students.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): A federal measure of students meeting or exceeding
“proficient” status on mandated annual standardized tests in English language arts and
mathematics.
Assessments: Tools to measure student achievement.
At-risk students: Minority students, students who are learning English as a second
language, and students from families with low socioeconomic status.
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE): An exam that California students must
pass to earn a high school diploma.
California Standards Test (CST): Annual standardized summative exam given to
California students in grades 2–11.
Charter school: A public school operated independently from local school board control.
English language learners: Students from families reporting that a language other than
English is spoken in the home.
Global economy: Interdependent economies of the world’s nations.
Instructional leadership: A leadership style that generates both the will and the capacity
for student achievement improvements within an institution.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): The most recent reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which ushered in an era of federal accountability.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 15

Program Improvement (PI): A status assigned to schools that fail to meet federal student
achievement targets for two consecutive years under the provisions of NCLB.
Sanctions: Penalties designed to encourage compliance.
School Accountability Report Card: Annual public disclosure of school-level data.
School Choice: A requirement of NCLB to allow families to select another campus
within the district.
Stakeholders: Individuals and groups that occupy formal and informal roles within an
organization.
Subgroup: An identifiable group of students within a student population.
Superintendent: The highest-ranking administrator in a district.
Supplemental Educational Services: Services paid for by the district to outside
educational entities.
Urban schools: Schools serving a disproportionately high number of at-risk students.

Organization of the Study
Chapter One introduces the study and presents the statement of the problem, the purpose
of the study, the research questions to be answered, the significance of the study, the
assumptions, the limitations, the delimitations, and the definitions of terms. Chapter Two is a
review of the literature relevant to the topic of the study. It addresses the role of the
superintendent, the theoretical framework, equity and access for English language learners,
creating a collaborative culture, and building capacity within school districts. Chapter Three
defines the research methodology used in the study, and discusses the researcher’s interest in the
study and relevant background information. It also includes the rationale for selection of the
participants and research objects. Chapter Four details the findings of the study and includes an
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 16

analysis and discussion of the data. Chapter Five is a summary of the purpose, methodology,
findings, and conclusions of the study. Additionally, it presents implications for practice and
topics for possible research in the future.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 17

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Public education now faces challenges with the global economy, external and internal
political pressure, and, ultimately, the academic achievement of all students—including those
identified as English language learners. Like some other countries, America still struggles to
provide adequate access to high quality education that meets the needs of students (Jackson,
2005). In an effort to maintain economic power, America must focus on strengthening the nation
in the area of race, equity, and class by closing the unrelenting academic achievement gap
between White and non-White students in reading, writing, and mathematics (Lunenburg, 1992).
In the United States, many indicators show great inequality in the educational inputs and outputs
between Whites and non-Asian minorities (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
According to Friedman and Mandelbaum (2011), change in education must occur in
order to close the achievement gap and to promote long-term economic vitality and improve our
society. Failure to meet the educational demands of America’s children may ultimately result in
a bleak economic future; therefore, urban school superintendents must mobilize their forces to
focus on the immediate needs of children in urban schools (Lunenburg, 1992).
With increasing immigration, the percentage of students classified as English language
learner (ELL) has grown significantly in public schools (Gándara et al., 2003). From 1989
through 2009, the number of White students in US public schools went from 68 to 55%, while
Hispanic enrollment increased from 11 to 22%. Of the 22% of Hispanics enrolled, approximately
12.5% was identified as limited-English proficient (Lunenburg, 1992). This information
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 18

translates to a greater need to understand the complexities of implementing strategies to improve
academic achievement.
This literature review will present the relevant information in five key areas directly
related to superintendent leadership strategies and to the impacts on academic achievement of
English language learners. The five areas are (a) the role of the superintendent; (b) the theoretical
framework; (c) equity and access for English language learners; (d) creating a collaborative
culture; and (e) building capacity. The five areas are meant to provide background, contextual
knowledge, and practices related to superintendents’ leadership that impact the academic
achievement of ELLs. The first area covers the roles and responsibility of superintendents, and
how the work of a superintendent is relevant to academic achievement. The second area will
provide a theoretical framework supported by the work of Bolman and Deal (2003) and their
four frames of leadership. The third area attends to literature that discusses the achievement gap
that persists with English language learners as directly related to equity and access. The fourth
and fifth areas include research on creating a collaborative culture through the kind of capacity
building that is necessary to accomplish the ultimate goal of academic achievement for all
students.
The Role of the Superintendent
There are approximately 14,500 school districts in the United States of America (Kowalski,
2005). Within the districts, the school superintendents’ roles and responsibilities differ from district
to district. Additionally, roles and expectations today have changed from the responsibility loads of
previous superintendents. Today’s superintendents are responsible for the fiscal and maintenance
operations along with increasing focus on the instructional components (Glass, Bjork, & Brunner,
2000). Ultimately, student learning is the goal of all districts, where both superintendents and
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 19

principals are required to be “leaders of learning” and where direct connections and relationships
are forged with the instructional components (Jackson, 2005). To balance these responsibilities, the
superintendents are required to be skilled communicators (Kowalski, 2005).
According to Kowalski (2005), communication has become increasingly important for all
school administrators. More specifically, effective communication used by superintendents
influences both school culture and productivity. The responsibilities of superintendents as
communicators are critical to meeting the current educational demands of the superintendent’s
work to improve academic achievement (Kowalski, 2005). According to Marzano, Waters, and
McNulty (2005), communication involves developing clear lines of transmission throughout the
district, school, and community to ensure that work is being undertaken collaboratively so as to
pursue a collective vision and path toward student achievement. The level of communication
differs between small rural school districts with roughly 300 students and large urban district that
serve an excess of 400,000 students or more (Glass et al., 2000).
Another essential role of superintendents is collaboration. The role of the superintendent
involves the ability to analyze student achievement data to determine areas of need; to identify
successful research-based instructional strategies to address recognized needs; and to seek
collaborative support from all stakeholders including staff, students, parents, and community
members (Byrd et al., 2006). Additionally, the superintendent has to establish a collaborative
working relationship with the school board, or the educational priorities may fail (Yee & Cuban,
1996). School boards and superintendents who collaboratively advocate academic success for all
students can develop district-wide goals that represent the community’s vision (Glass et al., 2000).
Furthermore, Walters and Marzano (2006) found that superintendents and boards that
collaboratively set non-negotiable goals for academic achievement, continually monitored
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 20

instruction, and focused on the allocation of resources along with superintendent longevity
positively correlated with increased academic achievement for students.
Understanding that curriculum and instruction are essential components of student
achievement, successful superintendents adopt a hands-on approach to instruction (Byrd &
Johnson, 2007). As instructional leaders, superintendents must initiate and support change within
the organization to ensure that both schools and district offices support the curriculum, instruction,
and assessment necessary to increase student achievement (Bredeson & Kose, 2007; McRel, 2001).
Carter and Cunningham (1997) described the current roles of the superintendent as follows:
1. Superintendents serve school boards as the chief operating officer and primary
advisor to the board for all district issues.
2. Superintendents serve as the primary educational leader of the district.
3. Superintendents serve as the chief administrative officer.
4. Superintendents serve as a catalyst for implementing policy change.
5. Superintendents develop a process for long-term strategic planning to achieve
school site and district success.
6. Superintendents interpret the needs of the school system for the school board.
7. Superintendents present policy options along with specific recommendations.
8. Superintendents develop and inform the board of administrative procedures to
implement policy.
Walters and Marzano (2006) identified some essential characteristics of evolving district
leaders. As mentioned in other research, these elements include collaboratively setting goals for
achievement and instruction; collaboration between the superintendent and board members;
continually monitoring progress toward goals; and focusing allocation or resources to support
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 21

goals. Additionally, Walters and Marzano (2006) found a positive correlation between
superintendent tenure and increased academic achievement.
Theoretical Framework
Leadership is a highly sought after, highly valued commodity, and researchers continue
to seek information about what constitutes an effective leader (Northouse, 2010). Wheatley
(2006) has asserted that leaders need the ability to make intelligent decisions based on their
comprehension of a given situation. Furthermore, leaders need to be able to trust that their
constituents will make good use of resources, and value their unique input rather than enforce
compliance to one-size-fits-all model (Wheatley, 2006). Bolman and Deal (2003) have argued
that leaders foster purpose, passion, and imagination. Hence, the domain of leadership is very
complex and can be understood from many perspectives; and yet, a common motif among
researchers is that leaders inspire, articulate a vision, set standards for performance, and create
focus while monitoring direction (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
According to Bolman and Deal (1994), leadership is learned through experiences with
both positive and negative interactions. The frames of organizational leadership as presented by
Bolman and Deal (2008) characterize leadership through four categories: Structural, Human
Resources, Political, and Symbolic. A metaphor of a factory captures the essence of the
structural frame. The structural frame depicts a rational world and emphasizes organizational
architecture, including goals, structure, technology, specialized roles, coordination, and formal
relationships. Structures are commonly depicted by organization charts designed to fit an
organization’s environment and technology. The image of leadership from the perspective of the
structural frame deals in social architecture. The leadership challenge deals with the structure to
task, technology, environment (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 22

The human resources frame may be understood through the metaphor of a family,
focusing as it does on interpersonal relationships. The human resource perspective sees an
organization as an extended family, made up of individuals with needs, feelings, prejudices,
skills, and limitations. From this perspective, leaders find ways for people to get the job done
while feeling good about themselves and their work. The central idea may be described as
focusing on needs, skills, and relationships. The image of leadership is empowerment. The
leadership challenge deals with aligning organizational and human needs (Bolman & Deal,
2008).
The third frame of organizational leadership is the political frame, which can be
described through a jungle metaphor. The political frame regards the organization as an arena,
contest, or jungle because of extensive conflict that exists due to enduring differences in needs,
perspectives, and lifestyles among contending individuals and groups. Solutions to conflict arise
from political skill and how the conflict is managed. The central idea is directly connected to
power, conflict, competition, and organizational politics. The image of leadership deals with
advocacy and political astuteness. The leadership challenge comes in developing an agenda and
power base (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
The symbolic frame emphasis is on culture, symbols, and spirit as key to the
organization’s success. The metaphor that describes this frame relates to temples and carnivals.
The central idea focuses on culture, meaning, ritual, ceremony, stories, and heroes. The leader in
the symbolic frame is considered inspirational, with challenges centered on faith, beauty, and
meaning (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Furthermore, Bolman and Deal (2008) have communicated to the exigency of having
existing lines of authority, clear organizational goals, and a system of management and power to
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 23

create solutions. Most problems within the organization are due to inadequate systems. Bolman
and Deal (2008) have explained that effective leadership entails the ability to identify the
purpose of an organization, make and communicate a vision, and take or create conflict to direct
everyone toward achieving the purpose. In their article “Leading with Soul and Spirit,” Bolman
and Deal (2002) have discussed five necessary qualities rooted in faith, soul, and spirit that an
effective leader ultimately acquires throughout life’s journey.
Bolman and Deal (2002) have offered that over the course of an individual’s journey,
three fundamental questions emerge: (a) Where did you come from, and where are you going?
(b) What is your life about, and what are you here to do? (c) What makes life worth living and
work worth doing? The answers are directly tied to the five fundamental qualities of an effective
leader, which include focus, passion, wisdom, integrity, and courage.
According to Bolman and Deal (2002), great leaders are focused and have the ability to
identify where they are going and to articulate a clear vision. Secondly, great leaders have
passion and care deeply about their work and have a strong desire to make a difference. Thirdly,
great leaders have gained wisdom from life experiences, both good and bad (Bolman & Deal,
2002). Additionally, great leaders have courage and take risks when facing challenging
decisions and conflict pressures. Lastly, great leaders have integrity and morals prioritizing
qualities like honesty, sincerity, trust, and loyalty (Bolman & Deal, 2002). These qualities
evolve throughout life’s journey. Furthermore, by inheriting such qualities, an effective leader
has a strong foundation to manage decisions about right and wrong, as discussed by Kidder
(1995).
Just as Bolman and Deal (2002) have outlined the five qualities, Kidder (1995) has
challenged the leader’s foundation by considering four ethical paradigm pairs, including: (a)
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 24

truth versus loyalty; (b) individual versus community; (c) short-term versus long-term; and (d)
justice versus mercy. The aforementioned paradigms may provoke a struggle in the foundation
of a leader’s core beliefs, challenge his or her assumptions and provoking a better understanding
of which one holds greater value at a specific time for a particular situation. To better analyze
and resolve an ethical dilemma, Kidder (1995) has offered nine checkpoints for ethical decision
making.
Equity and Access for English Language Learners
Public education now faces challenges with the global economy, political pressure, and—
ultimately—the academic achievement of all students including those identified as English
language learners (Friedman & Mandelbaum, 2011). Furthermore, globalization is changing the
world’s economy from industry-based to education-based (Bloom, 2004). America struggles to
provide adequate access to high quality education that meets the needs of students (Jackson,
2005). To maintain economic power, America must focus on strengthening the nation by closing
the academic achievement gap that persists between White and non-White students in reading,
writing, and mathematics (Lunenburg, 1992). In the United States, many indicators reveal great
inequality in the educational inputs and outputs between Whites and non-Asian minorities
(Darling-Hammond, 2007).
According to Friedman and Mandelbaum (2011), education must change in order to close
the achievement gap, promote long-term economic vitality, and improve our society. Failure to
meet the educational demands of America’s children may ultimately result in a bleak economic
future; therefore, urban school superintendents are responsible for mobilizing their forces to
focus on the immediate needs of children in urban schools, which includes those identified as
ELL (Lunenburg, 1992).
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 25

With an increase in migration into the United States, the percentage of students classified
as English language learner (ELL) has amplified significantly in public schools (Gándara et al.,
2003). From 1989 through 2009, the number of White students in US public schools went from
68 to 55%, while Hispanic enrollment increased from 11 to 22%. Of the 22% of Hispanics
enrolled, approximately 12.5% was identified limited-English proficient (Lunenburg, 1992).
Thus, English language learners (ELL) are the fastest growing student population in the United
States, but among the country’s lowest performing students (Waxman, Rivera, & Powers, 2012).
The achievement gap between English learners and their English-only counterparts can
be attributed, in part, to a number of inequitable conditions that affect the latter’s opportunities to
learn (Gándara et al., 2003). Essentially, Gándara et al. (2003) identified seven primary areas in
which these students appear to receive an inferior educational experience; they include:
1. Inequitable access to appropriately trained teachers.
2. Inadequate professional development opportunities to help teachers address the
instructional needs of English learners.
3. Inequitable access to appropriate assessment to measure English learners
achievement, gauge their learning needs, and hold the system accountable for
their progress.
4. Inequitable instructional time to accomplish learning goals.
5. Inequitable access to instructional materials and curriculum.
6. Inequitable access to adequate facilities.
7. Intense segregation into schools and classrooms that place them at particularly
high risk for education failure.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 26

The increasing number of English Language Learners underperforming today, along with
the inequities enumerated above, have led to the achievement gap educators now face. The No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001—the reauthorization of the Education Act—requires high student
achievement for all students and deliberately includes ELLs in state accountability for schools
and students (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2005). NCLB requires states to
report the performance of all students, including students in major ethnic groups, economically
disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and English language learners (Abedi &
Gándara , 2007).
Furthermore, the NCLB addresses seven critical topics: (a) Accountability systems; (b)
Determination of School Improvement Status; (c) Public School Choice and Supplemental
Educational Services; (d) Highly Qualified Teachers; (e) School Improvement Funding; (f)
English language learners; and (g) Resources and Funding (Crawford, 2004). Of these critical
topics, accountability systems linked to student achievement is one of the most pressing
(Darling-Hammond, 2007). Darling-Hammond (2007) has highlighted the connections between
“highly qualified teachers” and student performance. Furthermore, Rueda (2005) has pointed out
that many socioeconomically disadvantaged and minority students are not exposed to the same
level of rigor in curriculum or instruction and do not receive the same quality of teaching as their
peers in nonurban schools.
The literature cites several factors that contribute to the performance gap, as indicated by
performance data, including parent education levels, poverty, the challenge of second language
learning, inequitable schooling conditions, and that measurement tools are not equipped to assess
students’ actual skills and abilities (Abedi & Gándara, 2007). According to Abedi and Gándara
(2007), the ELL performance gap endures because students begin school already significantly
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 27

behind their English-speaking peers; ELL students must take standardized achievement tests that
have been constructed for mainstream students; and they are impacted by the linguistic
complexities of assessments.
Weiss (2010) has suggested that to experience academic growth and success, a school
must maintain strategic focus on instruction. Furthermore, Weiss (2010) outlined a cycle of
instructional improvement. This cycle consists of five steps:
1. Set goals and align resources;
2. Instruct students;
3. Gather and share data;
4. Analyze data; and
5. Use information to create action plans
This plan coincides with work by Schmoker (2011), who has discussed the importance of
simplicity, clarity, and priority when it comes to education. Schmoker (2011) has cited three
main elements required to experience results:
1. What we teach as it relates to curriculum and content
2. How we teach, which refers to instructional practices
3. The use of authentic literacy, which holds the two together
These are instructional components to consider when working to close the achievement gap that
persists with English language learners.
Creating a Collaborative Culture
Waters and Marzano (2006) identified several key elements in the evolving district
leader’s role. The elements include the collaborative setting on non-negotiable goals for
achievement and instruction. Ultimately, superintendent leaders who reach a level of success
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 28

understand the importance of setting goals, communicating the organization’s vision, and
fostering a culture of collaboration (Dolph & Grant, 2010). Researchers found that effective
superintendents include all stakeholders—including central office and building-level
administrators, and board members in establishing district goals (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Furthermore, when defining the district’s mission, vision, and goal setting, accomplished
superintendents engage in an inclusive process with the district constituency, including the
community (Dolph & Grant, 2010).
Goldberg and Morrison (2003) have described the role of the school community as
critical. Superintendents must continuously nurture relationships within the school community to
create a collaborative culture as it relates to all stakeholders including students, parents, teachers,
administrators, and community members. As explained by Goldberg and Morrison (2003),
relationships that are nurtured assist with the reform shift. Additionally, emphasis on the school
as an organization in a larger system understands that the school is not a community to be
created, but an organization to be changed based on outcomes. The outcomes are centered on the
philosophy of high academic standards for all students whereby standards-based assessments are
designed to measure the degree to which students have mastered content (Goldberg & Morrison,
2003).
According to Goldberg and Morrison (2003), school reform occurs when local school
leadership facilitates change in the organization and culture of schools. Effective
superintendents work collaboratively with the stakeholders to develop goals that focus on
improving teaching and learning in an effort to gain academic success within the organization
(Dolph & Grant, 2010). The superintendent not only communicates the vision and develops
goals, but also establishes a collaborative organizational structure and promotes an instructional
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 29

framework for academic success (Petersen, 1999). The structural frame, as outlined by Bolman
and Deal (2008), supports the implementation process whereby the structure is necessary to
understanding the organizational framework for managing the entire collaborative process.
When the superintendent effectively addresses the specific responsibilities within the
organization, district leaders are better equipped to positively impact student achievement
(Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Furthermore, Dolph and Grant (2010) have suggested that superintendents use data to
drive decisions and monitor progress toward academic achievement goals. Using the
performance data, the superintendent is able to understanding how learners within the
organization are performing and what is needed in the future to ultimately accomplish the goals
of the district (Dolph & Grant, 2010). Furthermore, by analyzing data, the superintendent is
equipped to educate the stakeholders and, based on data, allocate resources (Dolph & Grant,
2010).
To make appropriate resource allocations of money, time, and personnel, the
superintendent must be directed, guided, and held accountable for student achievement (Dolph &
Grant, 2010). By understanding the political frame as presented by Bolman and Deal (2008), the
superintendent is informed to make thoughtful decisions to allocate resources, which results in
meeting prioritized needs within the organization (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Furthermore, the
superintendent aligns with the constituencies to collaboratively negotiate decisions to reach
reasonable compromises (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Such compromises allow the superintendent
to make conscious decisions about the allocation of school resources to reach the ultimate
effective organizational goal (Dolph & Grant, 2010). The practices of such superintendents are
aligned with the political frame (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 30

Understanding that superintendents play a key role in communication and building
relationships, the human resource frame, as presented by Bolman and Deal (2008), describes the
relationship between people and the organization. Additionally, research explains that
superintendents must value their staff and continue to build positive relationships within their
constituency (Dolph & Grant, 2010). As superintendents gain more experience, knowledge, and
skill, human capital will flourish. Furthermore, increased human capital through building and
maintaining positive relationships will lead to overall school improvement and academic gain in
proficiency (Dolph & Grant, 2010). Within the human resource frame, the superintendent as
instructional leader uses his or her ability to connect with the human perspective of stakeholders,
using their relationships to inspire and motivate staff to maximize their full potential (Dolph &
Grant, 2010).
Lastly, district superintendents recognize the significance of creating a sustainable culture
within the organization (Dolph & Grant, 2010). This leadership skill allows connection to the
symbolic frame, as presented by Bolman and Deal (2008). The superintendent implements
structure while honoring the traditions, values, and customs of the school community (Dolph &
Grant, 2010). By validating the existing culture, the superintendent communicates that the
community is valued (Dolph & Grant, 2010).
Building Capacity
According to Petersen (1999), superintendents place a high value on the hiring and
placement of key people within the district. Similarly, Collins (2001) has discussed placing
people in the right place in the organization. Understanding this concept, superintendents should
hire people who are competent and share in the belief and overall vision. According to Jackson
(2005), the district and schools should be lead by an instructional leader who has the capacity to
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 31

implement desired changes around instruction and sustain them over time. This belief and
understanding is the most important job of an urban superintendent, as it focuses on improving
academic achievement (Byrd et al., 2006). Therefore, the superintendent has a responsibility to
place the appropriate instructional leaders and principals at the school site (Petersen, 1999).
According to scholars in education, principals are the critical figure for creating successful
change for the instructional success of the school (Petersen, 1999).
Superintendent success is related to the leadership of the school site principals, just as the
principal’s leadership is directly related to student achievement (Miller, 2004). According to
Fullan, Bertani, and Quinn (2004), the leadership of the school site principal has a responsibility
to build capacity within the team to ultimately drive the school’s professional achievement goals.
In turn, effective superintendents give autonomy to the principal to carry out the district’s
expectations. Waters and Marzano (2006) have stated that the superintendent must set clear,
non-negotiable goals for instruction. Moreover, the district must create an organizational
structure that promotes the ability to access data needed to effectively monitor and evaluate the
necessary instructional components (Fullen et al., 2004).
To build capacity within the district, superintendents must develop a strong
organizational structure and clearly communicate the principal’s role within the organization
(Spanneut & Ford, 2008). According to research, it is the responsibility of the district
superintendent to value and place emphasis on developing the leadership abilities of school site
principals (Spanneut & Ford, 2008). To ensure this development is warranted, the superintendent
must maintain continuous opportunities for development and support (Spanneut & Ford, 2008).
Understanding the value and importance of the school site principal for overall student
achievement, the superintendent is to ensure that the principal promotes the district goals and
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 32

objectives, observes and evaluates classroom teachers, and provides strategic school site
professional development (Petersen, 1999). Furthermore, the superintendent must create positive
working conditions that support school site principals to accomplish the work (Miller, 2004).
Understanding the role of the principal and the importance placed on his/her leadership,
according to Fullen and Quinn (2004), means that the superintendent is valued on not only
student achievement, but also the impact he or she can make by building capacity throughout the
district.
Conclusion
A review of the literature in this chapter revealed trends related to the role of the
superintendent; the theoretical framework as it connects to the four frames of organizational
leadership as outlined by Bolman and Deal (2008); equity and access for English language
learners; the necessity for a collaborative culture and accountability; and the importance of
building capacity within the organization. To understand the urgency that superintendents
improve student achievement for all students—and specifically those identified as English
language learners—further research is needed to determine the strategies to be used by urban
superintendents. More information is needed to clearly recognize what superintendent strategies
are effective.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 33

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOGY
1

Introduction
Expectations to improve student academic achievement continue to present new and
added challenges to school leaders (Borkowski & Sneed, 2006). Researchers have posited that if
American students do not possess the skills needed for employment upon the completion of
compulsory education, the United States may not be able to effectively compete in the global
economy (Schmidt & McKnight, 1998). School leaders are obligated to address this concern to
ensure the nation’s future economic viability (Schneider, 2009). In considering student academic
achievement in the United States, a significant population whose needs must be addressed is the
group of students designated as ELL—a subgroup that has seen significant population growth
over the past 10 years, and continues to grow (ARRA, 2009). Coupled with the increase in the
ELL population is its distinct academic achievement gap (Gándara et al., 2005).
As a result, the superintendents of large urban school districts are compelled to ensure the
academic success of their student bodies, with distinct consideration for the ELL subgroup.
Although these leaders may be logistically distanced from classrooms, their actions still have a
direct impact on student achievement (Marzano et al., 2005). The superintendent role has
evolved into the ultimate instructional leader of the school district (Lauen & Gaddis, 2012). Vital
to student success is a superintendent’s awareness of issues relating to ELL equity and access,
increased stakeholder collaboration, and greater leadership capacity (Fullan et al., 2004; Gándara
et al., 2003; Waters & Marzano, 2006). In addition to these major themes, this study’s

1
Authors: Tiffani Gilmore, Gretchen Janson, Raul Ramirez, Charles D. Smith. This chapter was jointly
written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this chapter; authors are listed alphabetically.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 34

researchers analyzed superintendent actions through the theoretical framework on leadership
defined by Bolman and Deal (2008) to determine which leadership strategies were related to
structural, human resource, political, and symbolic frames.
The preceding chapters provided an overview of the study and a review of the literature
relating to the research topic. This chapter provides an outline of the study and the methodology
used. It specifically includes the purpose of the study, research design, sample population, data
collection protocols, and the data analysis process used.
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to identify the superintendent leadership strategies that positively
impact the academic achievement of students identified as ELL in large urban K–12 school
districts. Specifically, the study considered the approaches employed by superintendents in
developing, implementing, and monitoring improvements to ELL student academic outcomes.
The increasing focus on bureaucratic accountability for student academic outcomes has
highlighted the need for school leaders to improve student academic achievement. The media,
politicians, community members, school boards, and parents are calling for increases in high-
stakes assessment results (Borkowski & Sneed, 2006). Superintendents must navigate these
demands and ensure that they meet the needed improvements to student achievement.
Accountability demands create a critical contextual lens for this challenge. Superintendents are
required to ensure that all student groups acquire the knowledge needed to pass high stakes
standardized exams and, ultimately, become educated and employable members of their
communities. Existing literature points superintendents in the right direction for improving
overall student achievement, but there is a lack of information on this leadership role’s impact on
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 35

ELL students specifically. This study aimed to identify tangible strategies that can be employed
to support this subgroup.
Research Questions
The following questions guided this study:
1. What factors do urban superintendents consider when developing strategies to
improve the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
2. Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban superintendents to assist in
improving the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
3. What strategies do urban superintendents execute when implementing plans to
improve the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
4. What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor and evaluate the academic
achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Rationale for Mixed-Method Study Design
For the purpose of this study, a mixed-methods approach was utilized, which employed
triangulation through sequential data collection and analysis (Maxwell, 2013). Quantitative data
provided the means for identifying the strategies urban superintendents in large districts
employed to improve the academic achievement of English language learners. This data set
allowed assertions to be made about the work of superintendents in addressing the academic
outcomes of this student subgroup; however, it failed to provide the depth of knowledge required
to fully address the purpose of the study. The compiled qualitative data provided insight into the
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 36

school district context and the relationships required to gain a full understanding of the actions
undertaken by superintendents. Qualitative data provided rich information, allowing the
researcher to understand the underlying elements of superintendent responses to the demand for
increased achievement for students classified as English language learners. The joint use of
quantitative and qualitative methods served to ensure complementarity and expansion within the
study (Maxwell, 2013). Triangulation allowed a more secure understanding of the issues within
the investigation by enabling the researcher to align the data from the closed-ended survey
questions to the authentic responses provided by the open-ended qualitative interview
methodology (Maxwell, 2013).
Research Design
Identifying the leadership strategies urban superintendents have employed to increase the
academic achievement of English language learners is a complex enterprise. As a result, a
mixed-methods study design was deemed appropriate to thoroughly address the research
questions. The study began with a quantitative survey of selected superintendents, based upon
the study criteria. Following the quantitative survey, select superintendents were engaged in
qualitative interviews.
Sample Population
To identify superintendents for both quantitative and qualitative inquiry, the study used
purposeful, criterion sampling (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Purposeful criterion sampling
allowed the researcher to select active school superintendents in large urban districts that served
student populations with a significant subgroup of students classified as English language
learners. Quantitative sampling criteria utilized to determine superintendent participation focused
on district leaders from (a) California school districts; (b) districts with a comprehensive
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 37

enrollment of grades K–12; (c) districts with an enrollment equal to or greater than 20,000
students; and (e) districts with an English language learner population equal to—or greater
than—20%. The quantitative and qualitative sampling selection criteria for the study were
identical. Superintendents who agreed to participate in the qualitative interview were selected
from those who indicated their willingness on the quantitative survey.
Data used for the purpose of sampling were restricted to information reported by the
California Department of Education for 2012. School districts throughout the state of California
were included in the examination; however, 34 districts met the aforementioned criteria of the
study. The researcher elected not to extend the scope of the study beyond the state of California
due to the variance among states in accountability formulae and assessment tools to monitor the
achievement of students classified as English language learners. Consequently, determining
equivalent performance levels of student achievement for comparative purposes extends beyond
the aim of the research study.
Instrument Validity
Support for survey and interview instrument validity was determined by the similarity of
the chosen instruments used in prior studies (Glass et al., 2000). Questions were informed by the
research on superintendents, superintendent leadership, and English language learner populations
in the body of scholarly literature. The instruments of the study were gender neutral and field-
tested on education professionals at the district-office level and above to ensure that the
questions were presented in a cogent and concise manner, while confirming expected time
commitments for participants in the study—namely district superintendents.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 38

Instrumentation
The quantitative and qualitative instruments listed below facilitated the research and
ensured that a consistent approach to collecting data was developed for the inquiry process. The
alignment between the four research questions and the quantitative and qualitative instruments
used in the course of this study is outlined in Appendix A.
Quantitative Instrumentation
A review of the literature informed the quantitative survey question design. The survey
questions follow three major themes that emerged from the literature review: (a) equity and
access for English language learners; (b) creating a collaborative culture; and (c) building
capacity. The theoretical framework of Bolman and Deal’s (2008) multilens leadership approach
of symbolic, human resource, structural, and political frames were aligned to the strategies
employed by superintendents in developing, implementing, and monitoring improvements to
student academic outcomes. The quantitative instrument used by the researcher included 39
questions (Appendix B) organized in the following way: (a) six demographic questions; (b) one
question to determine willingness to participate in a follow-up interview; and (c) a survey
consisting of 39 Likert-style items aligned with the four research questions.
Superintendents responded to the 39 Likert-style survey items with a value of 1-4, 1
representing strongly agree, 2 representing disagree, 3 representing agree, and 4 representing
strongly agree. The Likert-style format allowed the researcher to measure the level of support for
each survey item.
Qualitative Instrumentation
The qualitative interview protocol consisted of 11 open-ended questions that reflected the
research questions and body of scholarly literature relevant to the topic (Appendix C). The
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 39

protocol was consistently implemented among interview participants but was not limited to these
questions alone. In addition to the predesigned interview protocol, the researcher asked follow-
up questions either to gain clarity or to acquire more elaborate information about specific
statements or sentiments. The questions were designed to allow opportunities for the
superintendents to share strategies they have engaged to respond to demands for student
achievement reform.
Data Collection
Data collection was divided into two distinct and linear phases. The first phase involved
gathering quantitative survey data from superintendents (Appendix B). The second phase
entailed conducting qualitative interviews with selected superintendents. In accordance with the
provisions of the Institutional Review Board at the University of Southern California,
applications were submitted to ensure that the research subjects were protected during the course
of the study. All identifiable data were protected from access beyond this study, and the
participant’s identities remain confidential. Participation in the study was voluntary.
Quantitative Data Collection
Surveys were sent to 34 California superintendents identified as meeting the sampling
criterion. Surveys were delivered using Survey Monkey, an online survey tool designed to
collect and report survey data. Surveys were delivered via email, along with a survey cover letter
explaining the purpose of the study and the potential risks and benefits of responding (Appendix
D). Participants electing to participate in the study were directed to follow a survey link
contained in the email (Appendix B). After 10 calendar days, the researcher phoned and sent
follow-up emails to participants who did not respond to the initial survey request.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 40

Qualitative Data Collection
The researcher conducted interviews with four to eight California superintendents who
met the sampling criterion. Only superintendents who answered yes to a follow-up interview on
the initial quantitative survey were contacted to participate in a 45-minute interview.
The interviewee conducted the interview using the previously designed interview
protocol (Appendix C). At the start of the interview, the survey participant was asked to confirm
his or her willingness to be audio recorded and was provided an information letter (Appendix F).
At the time of the interview, superintendents were offered an opportunity to receive a copy of the
final dissertation. Audio recordings of the interview were transcribed via a professional
transcription service.
Data Analysis
To identify the strategies employed by superintendents in developing, implementing, and
monitoring improvements to student academic outcomes, the researcher strategically analyzed
quantitative and qualitative data. To further validate the significance of the study, research
findings were compared to the body of literature.
Quantitative Data Analysis
The researcher collected surveys from 34 participants. The data from each survey was
analyzed using the four research questions. Survey Monkey, an online survey tool, was used to
quantify the mean for each survey item, allowing the researcher to identify the level of
agreement with each research question.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 41

Qualitative Data Analysis
Transcriptions of the interviews and the accompanying field notes were analyzed using
the step-by-step process of analysis as outlined by Merriam (2009). The data analysis process
included:
1. Data Management: Data was coded by assigning a designation that was easy to
retrieve specific pieces of data.
2. Category Construction: Categories were used to assign data to specific categories to
compare codes from the data and to identify similar themes and recurring patterns.
3. Categories Sorted: Data were sorted into categories and subcategories based on
themes; thus conclusions were drawn.
4. Theorizing: The researcher was able to derive meaning by making inferences and
theorizing the data to draw conclusions based on the data collected.
Summary
This chapter explained the purpose of the study, research design, sample population, data
collection protocols, and the data analysis process used in the study. The all-encompassing
research goals dictated the need for a mixed-method study design. The study included a
quantitative survey and a qualitative interview of superintendents of large urban school districts
in California deemed applicable to the study through purposeful, criterion sampling. The
researcher strove to be transparent in the process so as to limit the appearance of impropriety
(Merriam, 2009). Chapter Four presents an analysis of the data collected and the major findings.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 42

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Introduction
Public education continues to face challenges with the global economy, external and
internal political pressures, and—ultimately—the academic achievement of all students,
including those identified as English language learners. Demands for improved academic
achievement for all students continues to intensify. High stakes accountability measures require
success or immediate intervention. These mandates for the advancement of student outcomes call
for improvement among all student subgroups (Lauen & Gaddis, 2012). This study looked
specifically at the growing subgroup of students classified as English language learners (ELLs)
and the efforts of school superintendents to support them. The ELL student subgroup continues
to grow in the United States (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011), and a school
district must consider the needs of these students when making instructional decisions.
Significant gaps persist between ELL students and their native English-speaking counterparts;
thus, to make progress, school districts need to consider the unique needs of this group (Gándara
et al., 2005). The United States’s ability to compete in the global marketplace may be
compromised if this group is not sufficiently supported (Schmidt & McKnight, 1998).
This chapter presents the findings from a mixed-method study comprised of a
quantitative survey completed by 14 superintendents and qualitative interviews conducted with
eight superintendents, which aligned with the following research questions:
1. What factors do urban superintendents consider when developing strategies to
improve the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 43

2. Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban superintendents to assist in
improving the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
3. What strategies do urban superintendents execute when implementing plans to
improve the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
4. What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor and evaluate the academic
achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to identify superintendent leadership strategies that
positively impacted the academic achievement outcomes of students identified as ELL in large
urban K–12 school districts. The study specifically considered approaches employed by
superintendents to develop, implement, and monitor improvements to ELL student academic
outcomes.
Response Rate
Based on the purposefully designed criteria for this study, 34 superintendents from large
urban K–12 school districts qualified to participate in the quantitative survey. Table 1 indicates
that of the 34 potential participants, 14 elected to participate. This number resulted in a response
rate of 41.2% of superintendents. This response rate satisfied the goal of the researcher, which
was a response rate of 40% or more based on the average return rate for a survey conducted
through email (Dillman, 2000).

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 44

Table 1
Quantitative Survey: Response Rate
Measure No. Invited to
Participate

No.
Participated
%
Participated
Superintendents

34 14 41

Of the 34 superintendents who elected to participate in the quantitative survey, 14
respondents met the criteria to participate in a qualitative interview; however, 8 superintendents
agreed to an interview, and all 8 superintendents were interviewed by the researcher. Reasons
reported by superintendents for declining participation included the lack of time, retirement, and
having left the school district of study.
Quantitative Demographic Data
Table 2 shows the gender of the 14 superintendents who participated in the quantitative
survey. Respondents were 64.3% male and 35.7% female.
Table 2
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Gender
Measure Male

Female Total
No. of Superintendents

9 5 14
% of
Superintendents

64.3 35.7 100

These values align with the findings of Kowalski, McCord, Peterson, Young, and
Ellerson (2010), who reported that 24.1% of the 1,867 superintendents who participated in a
nationwide survey of superintendents was women; 11.6% more women participated in this study.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 45

Table 3 shows the ethnic breakdown of the 14 superintendents who participated in the
quantitative survey. Superintendents surveyed were 7.1% Asian, 7.1% Black/African-American,
28.6% Hispanic, and 57.2% White.
Table 3

Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Ethnicity
Measure Asian Black/
African-
American
Hispanic/
Latino
White Two or
More
Other Total
No. of
Superintendents

1 1 4 8 0 0 14
% of
Superintendents

7.1 7.1 28.6 57.2 0 0 100

These values did not align with the research of Kowalski et al. (2010), who reported that
94.1% of the 1,800 respondents in their survey were White. However, further evaluation of the
data presented by Kowalski et al. (2010) showed that as the percentage of minority students
increased, the likelihood of having a minority superintendent also increased. Thus, that this
research concentrated on districts with 20% or more students identified as ELL may have
influenced the ethnic distribution of superintendents and skewed the number of non-White
superintendents in the sample upward from the overall national trend.
Table 4 shows the distribution of superintendents by age, broken down into bands of 10
years. Of the 14 superintendents surveyed, 7.1% was 30–39, 35.7% was 40–49, 35.7% was 50–
59, and 21.5% was 60 or more years old.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 46

Table 4

Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Age
Measure 29 and under

30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70 and over Total
No. of Superintendents

0 1 5 5 3 0 14
% of
Superintendents

0 7.1 35.7 35.7 21.5 0 100

The number of superintendents over 60 aligned with the research of Kowalski et al.
(2010), who reported that 18.1% of the 1,842 superintendent respondents in their nationwide
survey were older than 60. The superintendents in this study were only 3.4% more likely to be
over 60.
Table 5 presents the highest level of education attained by the 14 superintendents who
participated in the quantitative survey. Superintendents with a master’s degree were 28.6% and
doctoral degree was 71.4%.
Table 5

Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Education
Measure Bachelor’s
Degree

Master’s
Degree
Other Professional
Degree
Doctoral
Degree
Total
No. of
Superintendents

0 4 0 10 14
% of
Superintendents

0 28.6 0 71.4 100

Kowalski et al. (2010) reported that of the 1,867 superintendents who participated in their
nationwide study, only 45.3% had earned doctoral degrees. This finding indicates that the
superintendents identified for this study earned doctoral degrees at a rate 26.1% above projected
national rates.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 47

Table 6 shows the distribution of years of experience as a superintendent in his or her
current district, as reported by the 14 respondents. The superintendent tenure in his or her current
district was skewed heavily toward the lower range, with 100% of the respondents having
maintained tenure in their current district for duration of four years or fewer.
Table 6

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

2–3 4–5 6–7 7–8 9 or
more
Total
No. of
Superintendents

5 8 1 0 0 0 14
% of
Superintendents

35.7 57.2 7.1 0 0 0 100

The data showed that 57.2% of superintendents were in their current district for two to
three years. This data did not align with the research of Kowalski et al. (2010), which indicated
that the 1,867 superintendents who participated in a nationwide survey had an average tenure of
3.6 years.
Table 7 indicates the distribution of years of experience as a superintendent, reported by
the 14 respondents. Interestingly, 85.7% of the superintendents had an experience level of nine
years or fewer.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 48

Table 7

Quantitative Survey: Overall Superintendent Experience
Measure 2 or
fewer
years

3–5 6–8 9–11 12–14 15 or
more
Total
No. of
Superintendents

6 4 2 0 0 2 14
% of
Superintendents

42.8 28.6 14.3 0 0 14.3 100

Superintendents had an average of 6.1 years of experience. This result is important
because it indicates that—on average—superintendents surveyed had taken their positions during
the era of high stakes accountability for student outcomes and codified requirements for student
achievement reform as imposed by NCLB.
Table 8 shows the total student enrollment and percent of ELL data for each district
whose superintendent participated in the quantitative survey. Districts surveyed ranged from
20,690 to 57,250 students in attendance and had an average of 38,792. Percentage of ELL
ranged from 20% to 51.3%, and had an average of 28.2%.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 49

Table 8
Quantitative Survey: District Characteristics
District Total
Enrollment

% English
language learners
1

57,250 51.3
2

56,222

29.2
3

54,378 29.2
4

53,170 20.2
5

47,999 45.9
6

40,592 34.1
7

38,810 27
8

35,690 23
9

32,829 20.2
10

30,136 22.7
11

26,228 25.3
12

25,593 24.4
13

23,507

22.3
14

20,690 20
Average

38,792 28.2

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 50

Qualitative Demographic Data
Superintendents who participated in the quantitative survey were given the option to
participate in a qualitative interview. Of the 14 respondents, eight of the respondents stated their
willingness to participate in a qualitative interview. All eight superintendents who communicated
their interest participated in the qualitative interview.
Table 9 shows the demographics profile of each superintendent who participated in a
qualitative interview, along with the characteristics of the district he or she led. This information
provides a snapshot of the leaders interviewed and lends context to the responses provided.
Table 9

Qualitative Interview: Characteristics for Superintendents and Districts
Superintendent Profile

District
A

Gender: Female
Ethnicity/Race: Asian
Age: 60-69
Education level: Doctorate
Years as superintendent: 2
Years in current position: 2

Enrollment: 20,690
English learner: 20%
B

Gender: Male
Ethnicity/Race: White
Age: 60-69
Education level: Doctorate
Years as superintendent: 17
Years in current position: 3

Enrollment: 53,170
English learner: 20.2%
C

Gender: Female
Ethnicity/Race: White
Age: 40-49
Education level: Masters
Years as superintendent: 5
Years in current position: 5

Enrollment: 35,690
English learner: 23%
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 51

Table 9, continued

Superintendent

Profile

District
D

Gender: Female
Ethnicity/Race: Black/African-
American
Age: 50-59
Education level: Doctorate
Years as superintendent: 3
Years in current position: 3

Enrollment: 40,592
English learner: 34.1%
E

Gender: Male
Ethnicity/Race: White
Age: 50-59
Education level: Doctorate
Years as superintendent: 8
Years in current position: 3

Enrollment: 39,829
English learner: 20.2
F

Gender: Female
Ethnicity/Race:Hispanic/Latino
Age: 40-49
Education level: Doctorate
Years as superintendent: 0
Years in current position: 0

Enrollment: 47,999
English learner: 45.9
G

Gender: Male
Ethnicity/Race: White
Age: 30-39
Education level: Doctorate
Years as superintendent: 1
Years in current position: 1

Enrollment: 25,593
English learner: 24.4%
H

Gender: Male
Ethnicity/Race: White
Age: 50-59
Education level: Doctorate
Years as superintendent: 6
Years in current position: 2

Enrollment: 23,507
English learner: 22.3%

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 52

Of the superintendents interviewed, five were male and three were female. The ethnic
distribution was five White, one Asian, one Black/African America, and one Hispanic/Latino.
One superintendent was 30–39 years old, two were 40–49 years old, three were 50–59 years old,
and two were 60–69 years old.
Five of the superintendents had five years or less of total experience as superintendent,
and one superintendent had 17 or more years of total experience as superintendent. They had an
average of 8 years as a superintendent.
Five of the eight superintendents were in their first superintendency. The other three
superintendents had served as superintendent in at least one other district, but had an average
tenure of 2 to 3 years. Together they had an average tenure of 3 years in their current position.
Research Question One
What factors do urban superintendents consider when developing strategies to improve
the academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Ultimately, superintendent leaders who reach a certain level of success understand the
importance of setting goals, communicating the organization’s vision, and fostering a culture of
collaboration (Dolph & Grant, 2010). Collins (2001) has written that leadership does not begin
just with vision; it begins with confronting the facts and acting on the implications.
Understanding what superintendents must consider when developing strategies to improve
student achievement will provide additional support to school leaders working to improve
student achievement for all students—specifically students identified as English language
learners.
Table 10 shows superintendent responses to the question: To what extent do you agree
that the following factors influence the academic achievement of English language learners?
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 53

Superintendents were asked to indicate level of agreement using a Likert-type scale in which 1
indicates strongly disagree, 2 indicates disagree, 3 indicates agree, and 4 indicates strongly
agree.
Table 10

Superintendent Rating of Factors that are Important in ELL Academic Achievement
Factor Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree
(2)
Agree
(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Bureaucratic
accountability

2 7 3 0 2.08 12
Demands from
the community

1 7 4 1 2.38 13
Access to highly
qualified teachers
0 1 2 8 3.64 11

Culturally
responsive
curriculum

0

2

6

4

3.17

12
Standardized
assessment
design
0 7 3 2 2.58 12
Teacher
expectations for
ELL performance

0 0 1 10 3.91 11
Data-driven
decision making

0 0 4 6 3.6 10
Instructional
leadership

0 1 3 9 3.62 13
Professional
development
focused on ELL
instruction

0 1 4 8 3.54 13

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 54

The response mean range for all categories within this item is 2.08 to 3.91. “Teacher
expectations” was rated most favorably (3.91), whereas “bureaucratic accountability” received
the lowest response mean (2.08).
Teacher Expectations
“Teacher expectations” recorded the highest response mean (3.91) from superintendents.
Additionally, several of the eight superintendent interviewees discussed the relevance of teacher
expectations as a factor in developing strategies. Each of those superintendents who mentioned
teacher expectations cited that the impact teachers have on overall student achievement is highly
valued. More specially, Superintendent B spoke about teachers who maintained a high level of
confidence by employing strategies that work for English learners and how those same strategies
enhance instruction for non-English learners, leading to better gains due to these expectations.
Furthermore, higher level of confidence in the delivery of instruction promotes greater
opportunities for their students to raise their overall achievement and minimizes the potential
achievement gap. Additionally, Superintendent B communicated, “Teacher training and
expectations combined with direct explicit instruction leads to greater student achievement.”
Teacher expectations addressed the ultimate goal and philosophy of the classroom
teacher. Superintendent A stated, “Good instruction is for every kid. We called it achievement
for all. Understanding the theme of achievement for all and moving from great to extraordinary.”
This statement reiterates the necessity to believe that all students can accomplish great things
when the classroom teacher is invested and ready to encourage the students to achieve. When
understanding the factors that contribute to academic achievement for English learners,
superintendents seek to ensure that schools within their district cultivate a culture in which
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 55

teachers have high expectations for all students and believe that students will accomplish
greatness, as communicated by Superintendent D.
Access to Highly Qualified Teachers
“Access to high quality teachers” recorded the second highest response mean (3.64) from
superintendents. Several superintendents spoke of the necessity of having highly qualified
teachers in the classroom to provide rigorous instruction, intervention, and enrichment for
English learners (EL) and their counterparts. To provide highly qualified teachers, the
superintendents communicated general areas of interest. The two interest areas are: providing
the necessary training and development and hiring teacher candidates that are highly qualified in
instructional practice and content knowledge.
Superintendent D spoke about how her district had brought in an outside consulting
agency to equip the teachers with the necessary tools to provide high quality instruction for
students identified as English learners. In preparing teachers within the district, the consulting
agency strategically modeled strategies in the classroom that helped the EL population, as well
as other populations in subgroups that were not performing at grade level. Superintendent D
stated, “The consulting team taught teachers strategies to use language more, helping with
students to development language through sharing and oral language development.” This
approach was intended to ensure that highly qualified teachers were trained explicitly in how to
teach students.
Superintendent B communicated that he had worked directly with human resources to
place highly qualified teachers in the classroom to make sure that all students, including English
learners, get good first instruction in the classroom. Furthermore, Superintendent E

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 56

communicated the strong necessity to have highly qualified teachers that met the unique needs of
the district. More specially, he stated;
This is not an easy school district to teach in because we do expect a lot. We have
incredibly good teachers who work very, very, very hard and luckily, we can be really
selective about who comes to teach here.

These words confirm the need to access highly qualified teachers.
Instructional Leadership
“Instructional Leadership” recorded the third highest response mean (3.62) from
superintendents. The superintendents interviewed overwhelmingly agreed that instructional
leadership was a factor when developing strategies to improve student achievement for English
language learners. One area of instructional leadership that was consistent across superintendents
interviewed was capacity building at the school site and the district. Superintendent D discussed
the important of building capacity at the school site. Furthermore, she spoke in detail as to her
thoughts on building capacity and how it impacts instructional leadership within her schools:
Building capacity for school leaders is the ability to be motivated enough to care enough.
I don't think that people are going to build on what they don't care about, so you have to
motivate them to care about every single student, and because our English learner
population continues to grow in our district, they need to know that this is whom we are.
You need to do it. The second part of building the capacity is giving them strategies, so it
goes back to the staff development. It actually requires during the summer to do some
professional development. You build capacity. Then it's the walkthroughs. When you
walk through with them and you bring things to their attention, good subsidized
strategies, this is the capacity.

As communicated by Superintendent D, building capacity provides the school site with the
instructional leadership needed to continue instructional development.
Superintendent A spoke about how she had worked in her school district to build capacity
and instructional leadership, whereas her teachers and administrators felt comfortable bringing
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 57

new initiatives to not only their school site, but also their district. Superintendent A spoke of a
particular instance of bringing Thinking Maps to her district. She stated:
What is fascinating is that we believe in bottom-up initiatives that schools feel that they
experiment with something. I’m going to give you an example, Thinking Maps. You
might know about Thinking Maps. Thinking Maps came to us from the schools.
Somebody decided, “We heard about this great program in another school district, and
we want to experiment with that.” We’re probably the kind of district that would never
say no. We would always say, “We’ll give it a try.” That is new so that if that’s
something that’s effective, we will share the news and broadcast it, and say, “Hey! This is
something that’s working for us. You might want to try them.”
In both districts, under different superintendent leadership, instruction was the focus, and
instructional leadership was valued and strengthened by building the capacity of instructional
agents at the school site. These examples speak to the importance of factors that superintendents
consider when developing strategies to improve student achievement for English language
learners.
Discussion
Schools and districts are increasingly being held accountable for meeting the
achievement demands and expectations set for all students and—more specifically—those in
various subgroups, including English learners (Borkowski & Sneed, 2006). Superintendents are
placed under even greater pressure to increase student achievement (Fuller et al., 2003). The
superintendents who participated in the study were able to shed light on some of the factors
considered when developing strategies to improve academic achievement for English learners.
Teacher expectations, access to high quality teachers, and instructional leadership stood
out as major themes both in the quantitative survey and qualitative interviews of superintendents
regarding strategies to improve academic achievement for ELL. Superintendents generally
supported all of the survey items as important and relevant to the study, but qualitative
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 58

interviews provided additional information and clarity through specific examples and
experiential evidence.
Research Question Two
Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban superintendents to assist in
improving the academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Researchers have found that effective superintendents include all stakeholders, including
the central office, building-level administrators, and board members in establishing district goals
(Waters & Marzano, 2006). Furthermore, when defining the district’s mission, vision, and goal
setting, accomplished superintendents engage in an inclusive process whereby the district
constituency, including the community, is included in the process (Dolph & Grant, 2010). To
accomplish success in student achievement, superintendents consider specific stakeholders to
assist in the development of a plan.
Table 11 shows superintendent responses to the question: To what extent do you agree
that the following stakeholders should be included in decisions made to improve the academic
improvement of students classified as English language learners? Superintendents were asked to
indicate level of agreement using a Likert-type scale, in which 1 indicates strongly disagree, 2
indicates disagree, 3 indicates agree, and 4 indicates strongly agree.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 59

Table 11
Superintendent Rating of Stakeholder Importance in ELL Academic Decisions
Stakeholder Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree
(2)
Agree
(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Community
members

0 3 7 1 2.82 11
District-level
personnel

0 0 3 8 3.73 11
Parents

0 0 7 4 3.36 11
School-level
administrators

0 0 4 8 3.67 12
Teachers

0 0 3 11 3.79 14
Unions

1 5 7 0 2.46 13
School boards

1 1 7 4 3.08 13

The response mean range for all categories within this item is 2.46 to 3.79. Teachers were rated
most favorably (3.79), whereas the unions received the lowest response mean (2.46).
Teachers
Superintendents who were surveyed and interviewed overwhelmingly supported
involving teachers as critical stakeholders in improving the academic achievement of students
classified as ELL. Teachers recorded the highest response mean (3.79) from superintendents in
the quantitative survey. Furthermore, most of the superintendents who participated in the
qualitative interviews identified teachers as a critical stakeholder group. The superintendents
addressed the various capacities in which teachers were a key stakeholder group. Superintendent
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 60

B mentioned how teachers were responsible for the delivery of instruction and were key in
student achievement, stating:
Teachers are a group of stakeholders that are critical as they are the ones who are
delivering the methodology. Imbedded in the achievement of ELL is that we don’t spend
enough time talking about basic instructional methodology. We will do, a lot of us,
looking at the data and saying the kids aren’t achieving, but what specific methodology
am I to implement as a teacher that will change that picture.
Furthermore, Superintendent G reaffirmed the belief in teachers as a critical stakeholder group
by emphasizing their importance in teaching our students and by placing value on how a
teacher’s delivery of instruction serves English language development. To add value of the
teacher stakeholder, Superintendent G gave an example of what happens when a disservice is
done:
There are in many cases English language learners that are not receiving targeted ELD
instruction for a lot of different reasons. Sometimes it’s that they’re on the cusp of
reclassification and then the instructional teams feel like they don’t need ELD anymore,
but other times it’s an oversight. Other times it’s in an elementary self-contained class
where the teacher says that they’re doing ELD, but when you did into it, you find that the
materials are still in the shrink-wrap and the instruction is not observed, so there’s no
evidence that it’s occurring.
Overall, teacher stakeholders are valued in the processes of instruction delivery and decision-
making. If classroom teachers are not adequately informed and delivering adequate instruction,
the ELL may not reach his or her maximum potential.
District-Level Personnel
Superintendents who were surveyed and interviewed supported involving district-level
personnel as critical stakeholders to assist in improving the academic achievement of students
classified as ELL. District-level personnel recorded the second highest response mean (3.73)
from superintendents in the quantitative survey. Most of the superintendents interviewed spoke a
great deal about the role of district-level personnel in creating plans to center the decision-
making process on the academic achievement of ELLs. Superintendent A discussed how the
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 61

academic achievement of ELLs was a clear district focus. She explained how her cabinet was on
board, stating:
I have a very dynamic cabinet. On that cabinet are representatives of curriculum
instruction. EL students and EL instruction or ELD instruction is not a separate entity. It
is just included in our overarching umbrella of academic, what we call academic services.
When we plan, we incorporate in all of our cabinet meetings a focus on the areas of our
strategic plan. Every year, we will bring in the people who are responsible for those
particular areas. In some cases, it would be in Special Education. In this case, it would be
on ELL.

Additionally, Superintendent A mentioned how strategic her district cabinet was and how crucial
they were:
My cabinet includes not only the curriculum instructional leaders; it also includes our
Chief Financial Officer, Human Resources. It has to be interwoven, where if we need
more support in terms of ELD teachers or the budget for it, the supplemental budgets for
it, Title II funds or how we are going to be spending Title III funds; all the right people
are around the table to talk about it.

Superintendent D further validated the necessity to include district-level personnel as key
stakeholders by explaining how she utilized critical members of her cabinet to support ELL. She
communicated how her organizational chart flowed, and how she made decisions and
communicated the decisions throughout the organization. Ultimately, the superintendents
interviewed communicated a need to have key district personnel as members of the cabinet to
assist in the decision-making process. The interviews clearly indicated an overwhelmingly
consistent use of district cabinet members in large urban school districts.
School-Level Administrators
Superintendents who were surveyed and interviewed supported involving school-level
administrators as another critical stakeholder group to assist in improving the academic
achievement of students classified as ELL. School-level administrators recorded the third highest
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 62

response mean (3.67) from superintendents on the quantitative survey. The superintendents
communicated that school site principals had the ability to create, establish, and execute a vision.
In executing their vision at the school site, principals develop plans and establish an
implementation process. Understanding this method, Superintendent F described the importance
of involving site-level administrators in decision-making as it related to the academic
achievement of English language learners:
I think one of the most important ways for transparency, a lot of discussions about what
we’re doing, why we’re doing it, what we’re here to do is very important. For school
leaders, it’s really important that they’re critically involved even though we're a
centralized district, that they understand the why. Why are we doing this? What does it
look like? How did we come up with this? It’s not just something, “Thou shalt.” It's
actually a discussion. It’s actually a discussion of why we’re doing this, why is this a
good approach and also getting feedback from folks. I want to think our site level folks
are involved to the extent that they provide feedback and the input in the process.
Because they want students to make academic gains, superintendents are challenged with the
responsibility of ensuring that principals understand that their decisions and practices at the
school site will make a difference in students’ academic success.
Discussion
Superintendents surveyed and interviewed acknowledged the value of involving various
critical stakeholders in improving the academic achievement of students classified as ELL.
Teachers, district-level personnel, and school-level administrators were identified as being of the
greatest importance because they contribute a specific level of expertise necessary to effectively
developing a plan and process to reach the desired academic gains. Other groups were discussed
as contributing stakeholders, but varied in value.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 63

Research Question Three
What strategies do urban superintendents execute when implementing plans to improve
the academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
The work of the superintendent focuses on ensuring that students are making consistent
academic progress. To this end, the superintendents’ plans and implementation processes vary.
Effective superintendents continually monitor and evaluate district progress toward attaining
achievement and instructional targets to ensure that organizational actions remain aligned with
the plans designed to achieve them (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Table 12 shows superintendent responses to the question: To what extent do you agree
that the following are important to superintendent implementation of plans to improve the
academic achievement of students classified as English language learners? Superintendents
were asked to indicate level of agreement using a Likert-type scale in which 1 indicates strongly
disagree, 2 indicates disagree, 3 indicates agree, and 4 indicates strongly agree.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 64

Table 12
Superintendent Rating of Factors that are Important in Implementing Plans to Improve ELL
Academic Achievement
Stakeholder Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree
(2)
Agree
(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Creation of a
vision

0 0 4 8 3.67 12
High
expectations for
student
achievement

0 0 0 11 4.0 11
Analyzing
subgroup
assessment data

0 0 5 7 3.58 12
Collaboration
among
stakeholders

0 0 6 7 3.54 13
Resource
allocation

0 0 4 7 3.64 11
Clearly defined
district-wide
academic goals
for ELL
students

0 0 2 9 3.82 11
Instructional
leadership

0 0 3 8 3.73 11
Professional
development for
school-site
administrators

0 0 5 6 3.55 11
Professional
development for
teachers

0 0 3 8 3.73 11
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 65

Table 12,
continued

Stakeholder Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree
(2)
Agree
(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total

Professional
development
facilitated by
the district
office

0 1 6 4 3.27 11
Professional
development
facilitated by
the school-site

0 0 7 4 3.36 11
Two-way
communication
between district
and school-site
staff

0 0 4 7 3.64 11
Alignment
between district
vision and
school vision

0 0 4 7 3.64 11
On-site teacher
collaboration

0 0 3 9 3.75 12
Alignment of
instruction with
curricula
frameworks

0 0 5 6 3.55 11

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 66

The response mean range for all categories within this item was 3.2 to 4.0. High expectations for
student achievement was rated most favorably (4.0), whereas professional development
facilitated by the district office received the lowest response mean (3.2).
High Expectations for Student Achievement
Superintendents who were surveyed and interviewed communicated “High expectations
for student achievements” as one of the strategies used by urban superintendents when
implementing plans to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners. “High expectations for student achievement” recorded the highest response
mean (4.0) from superintendents on the quantitative survey. All of the superintendents surveyed
agreed that “High expectations for student achievement” were necessary with implementing
plans to improve academic achievement of students classified as ELL. Moreover, several
statements provided examples and evidence of how superintendents communicated high
expectations for students, more specifically, ELLs. Superintendent E communicated how his
district had high expectations by stating the following:
I think the core belief that I have and I think is shared in the district, is that we really
believe in this idea of high expectations for all. In the state of California, a lot has been
done historically and this is just my opinion that gives permission for dumbed down
curriculum for English learners and make all kinds of excuses about why they can’t
achieve that high level and I think that’s kind of the lens or a factor that we use is
everything we’re doing. I mean even if you look at the same . . . (inaudible), the state
comes up with these ELD standards, which are English language art standards dumbed
down for English learners. I don’t really follow that. We really say that our expectations
are going to perform at grade level, it’s our job to give them the support in order to get
them to grade level, and I think that’s probably been a foundational belief. It’s just to say,
“No, we’re not going to look at watered down programs or dumbed down programs when
we do intervention programs after school.”
Furthermore, Superintendent D discussed how her expectations for student achievement were
directly connected to how she analyzed data and established goals and clear expectations for all
ELL students. She stated, “My expectation is that our students progress at least one level a year.”
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 67

All eight superintendents consistently communicated this or a similar statement about expecting
ELL to advance at least one level a year in their interviews.
Clearly Defined District-Wide Academic Goals for ELL Students
Superintendents who were surveyed and interviewed communicated that “Clearly defined
district-wide academic goals for ELL students” was one of the strategies used by urban
superintendents when implementing plans to improve the academic achievement of students
classified as ELL. “Clearly defined district-wide academic goals for ELL students” recorded a
response mean of 3.82 from the superintendents surveyed in the quantitative study, which was
the second highest mean. Most of the superintendents who participated in the qualitative
interviews provided evidence to specifically support how clearly defined district-wide academic
goals of ELL students improved the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners. Superintendents described using accountability measures and mechanisms to
drive the goal-setting process in the different districts. Superintendent G communicated the goal
setting process with the following statement:
We have seven goals as a district. One of those seven is that we want to see our
reclassification rate increase. In particular, we look at the percentage of kids that are
reclassified after five years because we don't want to have an expectation that it will take
10 years or so to reclassify. So that is the one measure that we look at, at the board level,
but we clearly drill deeper and we look then at overall reclassification rates, we look at
how that compares with the county and the state, and some of our neighboring districts as
well. We look at the achievement of the kids that have reclassified as a sub-group when
we look at any of our other goals, which ties graduation, A through G, ELA and math
proficiency, but then if you go from the board to the Superintendent to the C&I
department, we're looking at data tied to English learners weekly, looking at things like
CELDT scores, looking at CST scores, looking at grade distributions, looking at
CAHSEE outcomes.

Additionally, important committees within each district provided feedback to the district in an
effort to help articulate goals that truly meet the needs of ELLs. One of the committees
mentioned throughout the interviews was the District English Learner Advisory Council, or
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 68

DELAC, which was characterized as a major contributor to district-wide goal setting.
Superintendent D summarized DELAC’s involvement with the process, stating:
The DELAC, our district advisory council for English learners assist in looking at the
school districts plan and they also look at the individual school plans. This gives us an
opportunity to educate our parent stakeholders on the entire process and they understand
how we create goals for student achievement and get the necessary expected results.

Ultimately, superintendents involved various members and stakeholders in the process of
designing goals for ELL students. The interviewees communicated the necessity to plan and
clearly define district-wide goals in an effort to accomplish achievement goals.
On-Site Teacher Collaboration
Superintendents who participated in the survey and were interviewed cited “On-site
teacher collaboration” as one of the strategies used by urban superintendents when implementing
plans to improve the academic achievement of students classified as ELL. “On-site teacher
collaboration” recorded the third highest response mean of 3.75 from the superintendents
surveyed in the quantitative study. Superintendent D shared the process to provide district-level
support providers to facilitate on-site collaboration among teachers. Superintendent D
communicated:
We have a professional development team in our district that's an office and each one of
the professional development directors are assigned to a school. There's 12 people that
are assigned to the 37 schools, so you might have each with three schools. They're
responsible for providing professional development for each one of our sub-groups in
English language learning. When they actually provide the on-site professional
development, they will look at the leading research to deal with English language and
then talk about what are some of the strategies to help with the English learner
population. Not only do they provide the professional development, but they go out to
the schools and do demonstration reference and the culture on campus.
It was evident that Superintendent D understood the unique differences at each school, and how
the unique qualities supported teacher collaboration for the sole purpose of strengthening
instruction for ELL students. Ultimately, superintendent interviewees consistently shared the
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 69

need to create balance between district-led collaboration and site-based collaboration to support
classroom instruction and support school site collaboration.
Discussion
Superintendents who were surveyed and interviewed expressed widespread support for a
variety of strategies when implementing plans to improve the academic achievement of students
classified as ELL. Three areas stood out: high expectations for student achievement, clearly
defined district-wide academic goals for ELL students, and on-site teacher collaboration. Most of
the superintendents who participated in the qualitative interviews provided insight by citing
examples in each category and detailing how their respective districts used these strategies
successfully.
Superintendents, on average, agreed with the strategies offered on the quantitative survey.
The qualitative interviews provided a more comprehensive perspective by allowing participants
to further articulate their experiences.
Research Question Four
What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor and evaluate the academic
achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Gaining more knowledge of the strategies used by urban superintendents to monitor and
evaluate the academic achievement of ELL students will provide educational leaders additional
tools to strengthen their practice. The superintendent participants provided additional
information related to their practices. Togneri and Anderson (2003) have asserted that successful
districts use student achievement data to evaluate student achievement and monitor practice.
These finding will provide additional strategies to monitor and evaluate achievement.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 70

Table 13 shows superintendent responses to the question: To what extent do you agree
that the following are important in monitoring and evaluating academic achievement of students
classified as English language learners? Superintendents were asked to indicate level of
agreement using a Likert-type scale in which 1 indicates strongly disagree, 2 indicates disagree,
3 indicates agree, and 4 indicates strongly agree.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 71

Table 13
Superintendent Rating of Factors that are Important in Monitoring and Evaluating the Plans to
Improve ELL Academic Achievement
Stakeholder Strongly
Disagree
(1)

Disagree
(2)
Agree
(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Valid and
reliable
assessment
instruments

0 0 4 8 3.67 12
Reclassification
rates

0 1 6 5 3.33 12
Analyzing
subgroup
assessment data

0 0 5 8 3.62 13
Site
administrator
classroom
observations

0 1 6 5 3.33 12
Established
instructional
norms

0 1 5 5 3.36 11
Site
administrator
collaboration at
the district level

0 0 8 3 3.27 11
Superintendent
visibility at
school site

0 1 9 2 3.08 12

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 72

The response mean range for all categories within this item is 3.08 to 3.67. “Valid and reliable
assessment instruments” were rated most favorably (3.67), whereas “Superintendent visibility at
school site” received the lowest response mean (3.08).
Valid and Reliable Assessment Instruments
The superintendents who were surveyed and interviewed communicated “Valid and
reliable assessment instruments” as one of the strategies used by urban superintendents to
monitor and evaluate the academic achievement of students classified as ELL. “Valid and
reliable assessment instruments” recorded a response mean of 3.67 from the superintendents
surveyed in the quantitative study. Several of the superintendents who participated in the
qualitative interviews provided evidence to specifically support how valid and reliable
assessment instruments were used. The superintendents interviewed spoke about the various
assessment instruments, and how those instruments promoted opportunities to monitor and
evaluate the instructional practices used to improve student achievement. Superintendent A
spoke of about how she analyzed data to monitor progress in her district. She discussed her most
recent opportunity to analyze data:
I think we’re making progress. As we’re looking at the conventional ways of measuring
academic growth or academic achievements of English learners through the State tests
like the California Standard Test or even the CELDT, I think we have still a long way to
go in terms of looking at it as being a success for our District. It’s definitely a growth
area for our District that I’ve been emphasizing, and I will continue to emphasize in our
strategic plan.
For example, when I look at the English Language Arts for just this week, when they just
released the CST results, 54% . . . more than 54% of our EL students are considered to be
proficient. For some districts, that might be something to be happy about, but for us,
they’re not at the same rate where the regular or the other students are at, which is over
60% to 70%. We know that we’ve got some areas of growth there. Then in Mathematics,
our EL students are performing at 52% who are proficient. Again, that sounds like it’s a
large percentage of the EL students, but still it’s I think an area of growth for us.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 73

Superintendent A communicated how the assessment instruments provided her viable
information to proceed in establishing new targets. These assessment tools provide a systematic
way for superintendents to monitor the academic achievement of students in individual districts.
Superintendent D further validated this information by stating the she, too, used reliable
CELDT data to monitor and evaluate ELL students’ progress. She explained:
I continue to use assessments, such as CELDT data and also soft data to monitor
progress. When I go to schools I speak to students, I listen to how they are speaking to
me. Because I expect to hear the conversations change. I expect to be able to dialogue
with our English learners that are at a higher level . . . and so I depend on formal
assessments, benchmarks, and observations.
Ultimately, superintendents monitored and evaluated academic achievement for ELL students
using valuable and reliable assessments instruments—both formal and informal—as
communicated by these superintendents.
Analyzing Subgroup Assessment Data
The superintendents who were surveyed and interviewed cited “Analyzing subgroup
assessment data” as another strategy used by urban superintendents to monitor and evaluate the
academic achievement of students classified as ELL. “Analyzing subgroup assessment data”
recorded the second highest response mean (3.62) from the superintendents surveyed in the
quantitative study. Many of the superintendents who participated in the qualitative interviews
spoke of how they monitored subgroup assessment data on a regular basis.
Analyzing subgroup data allowed superintendents to monitor student academic progress,
but also promoted opportunities to create plans for student achievement and success.
Superintendent E spoke about analyzing subgroup data at least four times a year with a specific
focus. He stated the following:
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 74

At least four times a year, I’ll have them go through with me school-by-school periodic
assessment group. Then of course, in addition to that obviously, we connect the
classification rates and that I think for the most important piece of data is for periodic
assessments and how kids are doing on those periodic assessments. We do a public board
report on the inclusive about what’s happening with English learners. We do a board
report on our RTI and that’s done once a year. I think you saw that on the district website,
this data dashboard which is 25-key indicators of how we’re doing. We do public
reporting out of that. I’ve gone to a lot of community groups, every and group, everybody
who will have me, I go out and do public reports of the data in how the district is doing.
One of the really fun, challenging, obviously I haven’t accrued on this enrollment is
growing. Many districts around us have declining enrollment and growing enrollment,
increasing enrollment is becoming a real problem in this town because about five years,
300, 300, 300 last year, 600 years students.
Additionally, utilizing data allowed a thorough evaluation of action plans and indicators of
success. Superintendent G viewed data analysis for ELL assessments as an integral part of the
overall strategy of district-wide data analysis:
A lot of the best practices for English learners, like monitoring their student achievement
outcomes, that's a best practice for any sub-group, not subgroup, for any group of
students. We should be discussing the evidence we have that reflects how students are
learning. So there are some components of that system that should be for all kids and then
there should be parts of it that are maybe more intensive for particular groups of students
with specifically identified strategies to maximize the impact.

As communicated by the interviewees, the process of analyzing data is one strategy used by
urban superintendents to monitor and evaluate the academic achievement of students classified
as ELL.
Established Instructional Norms
The superintendents who were surveyed and interviewed communicated “Established
instructional norms” as one of the strategies for monitoring and evaluating the academic
achievement of students classified as ELL. “Established instructional norms” recorded the third
highest response mean (3.36) from the superintendents surveyed in the quantitative study.
Several of the superintendents who participated in the qualitative interviews provided evidence
to support how establishing instructional norms was used to monitor instruction. Superintendent
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 75

G discussed establishing instructional norms as an important element in improving academic
achievement levels for ELLs:
Knowing what you want that instruction to look like, is there a program that you're using,
are there key strategies that you ought to see in every setting. So to that end, we have
identified different curriculum resources that we expect to see in different settings,
elementary, middle school and high school, and then with different proficiency levels as
well. Then there are some strategies . . . we've used Kate Kinsella as a consultant quite a
bit, so the use of modeling academic vocabulary, for example, that we ought to see at
every level.

Superintendent B spoke about how he used instructional norms as an accountability strategy
within the management as well. He explained how he clearly communicated the objectives and
how they aligned with his expectations. He stated the following:
I give them very specific objectives whenever we launch something new. I keep track of
those objectives. There are some other things that are part of the school system that
people don't utilize. I still evaluate everyone. The evaluation is done with some quality to
it. We have preconference. I'm sorry. Not management. We have a preconference’s.
I have a midpoint conference. I have a final conference. Then, I meet again and we go
over the evaluation. I think we miss the opportunity to really improve the systems, by not
really defining objectives for people. This is what I want you to accomplish in your role
this year. I do that every year for every management employee.
Ultimately, the superintendents communicated the necessity of establishing instructional
norms at the school site level and the district level in an effort to ensure that the expectations
were clearly defined and attainable. Through such examples, the superintendents provided
evidence to support how establishing instructional norms were used to monitor instruction to
improve the academic achievement of ELL students.
Discussion
The continuous process of understanding what strategies are used to monitor and evaluate
the academic achievement of ELL students is clearly of great concern to superintendents in large
urban school districts. To maintain progress and overcome barriers, they will continue to
strengthen the practices of using valid and reliable assessment instruments, analyzing subgroup
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 76

assessment data, and establishing instructional norms throughout their respective districts.
These strategies by no means offer a comprehensive list; however, they do provide a framework
for how superintendents monitor and evaluate systems within their district to improve academic
achievement for ELL students.
Summary
Superintendents who were interviewed and surveyed cited a variety of strategies they had
employed to achieve success in improving the academic achievement of ELL students. The data
suggest the following findings related to the four research questions.
Research question one asks, What factors do urban superintendents consider when
developing strategies to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners? Superintendents considered teacher expectations, access to highly qualified
teachers, and instructional leadership when developing strategies to improve the academic
achievement of students classified as English language learners.
Research question two asks, Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban
superintendents to assist in improving the academic achievement of students classified as
English language learners? Teachers, district-level personnel, and school-level administrators
were the critical stakeholders enlisted by urban superintendents to assist in improving the
academic achievement of students classified as English language learners.
Research question three asks, What strategies do urban superintendents execute when
implementing plans to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners? High expectations for student achievement, clearly defined district-wide
academic goals of English language learners, and on-site teacher collaboration were all strategies
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 77

that urban superintendents oversaw when implementing plans to improve the academic
achievement of students classified as English language learners.
Research question four asks, What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor
and evaluate the academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Valid and reliable assessment instruments, analyzing subgroup assessment data, and established
instructional norms are all strategies that urban superintendents use to monitor and evaluate the
academic achievement of student classified as English language learners.
Chapter Five follows with a summary of this research study including conclusions and
implications.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 78

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
Introduction
Strong district leadership is necessary to improving student achievement (Waters &
Marzano, 2007). Such work requires increased focus on the role of the superintendent and the
necessity to shift from a system of management to a system of instructional leadership. This shift
demands that district superintendents have leadership skills that guide academic growth by
analyzing student achievement data to determine areas of need, identify successful research-
based instructional strategies to address the identified needs, and acquire the support of staff,
students, parents, and community members to ensure the proper implementation of successful
strategies for improving student achievement and closing the persistent achievement gap (Byrd et
al., 2006). Furthermore, with consistent growth in the amount of students classified as ELL,
district superintendents today must be able to identify and implement effective leadership
strategies.
This chapter provides a summary of the study, including a statement of the problem,
purpose of the study, research questions, and a review of the literature and methodology used,
followed by findings related to the four research questions. In closing, implications and
recommendations for future study will be detailed.
Statement of the Problem
In large urban schools districts in America, students continue to score below the national
average in reading, writing, and mathematics (Friedman & Mandelbaum, 2011). Additionally,
the academic achievement gap between White and non-White students continues to grow at a
rapid rate. Furthermore, school boards and superintendents continue to face a great deal of
accountability pressure from local, state, and federal legislation through mandates identified by
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 79

the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and through various measures including the School
Accountability Report Card (SARC). Ultimately, the school districts are held accountable for
their students’ achievement as well as for closing the gap in learning. In K–12 education, urban
superintendents are critical, as they serve as the entity that is responsible for improving student
achievement for all students and for responding to the achievement gap that persists among
English language learners.
With the onus on urban superintendents to close the academic achievement gap for all
students, their specific leadership practices are essential to increasing students’ ability to read,
write, and understand mathematical concepts. As noted by Northouse (2010), leadership is a
highly sought after and highly valued commodity about which researchers continue to seek
information so as to determine what constitutes an effective leader. By understanding the
leadership strategies of urban superintendents that have made impacts on the student
achievement of English language learners, we can work strategically to close the achievement
gap in our urban school districts.
During this study, the researcher examined the leadership strategies used by urban
superintendents to close the achievement gap that persists among those students identified as
English language learners. The information gained from this study will be beneficial to urban
superintendents seeking effective practices for their school districts to support students identified
as English language learners.
Purpose of the Study
The study sought to identify superintendent leadership strategies that impact the academic
achievement of students identified as English language learners in large urban K–12 school
districts; specifically, the study considered approaches employed by superintendents in
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 80

developing, implementing, and monitoring improvements to student academic outcomes.
Research by Waters and Marzano (2006) has indicated that superintendent leadership impacts
student achievement; as such, superintendents must create a district culture focused on
continuous improvement (Elmore, 2002).
Research Questions
The following questions will guided this study:
1. What factors do urban superintendents consider when developing strategies to
improve academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
2. Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban superintendents to assist in
improving academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
3. What strategies do urban superintendents execute when implementing plans to
improve the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
4. What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor and evaluate the academic
achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Review of the Literature
The review of the literature sought to capture relevant knowledge related to the
background, context, and successful strategies of superintendents to improve the academic
achievement of students; more specifically, students classified as English language learners.
Four major themes related to superintendent strategies emerged from the literature: (a) the role of
the superintendent; (b) equity and access for English language learners; (c) creating a
collaborative culture; and (d) building capacity. In addition, the four frames of organizational
leadership as presented by Bolman and Deal (2008) was discussed as the theoretical framework.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 81

Public education continues to face with challenges with the global economy, external and
internal political pressure, and—ultimately—the academic achievement of all students, including
those identified as English Language Learners. To maintain economic power, America must
strengthen national issues related to of race, equity, and class by closing the academic
achievement gap (Lunenburg, 1992). To close the achievement gap, superintendents are
required to be courageous in the increasingly complex enterprise (Fuller et al., 2003).
Superintendents are expected to embark on organizational change efforts that challenge current
practices and improve student achievement outcomes for a school district (Vakola & Nikolaou,
2005). Creating successful models of school district change has proven difficult (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2003). Change is difficult for any organization, but successful change through
top-down public sector policy that impacts schools and districts has proven to be an even more
daunting task (Doyle Claydon, & Buchanen, 2000).
According to Waters and Marzano (2006), evolving district leaders share some essential
characteristics. As mentioned in other research, these elements include collaboratively setting
goals for achievement and instruction, collaboration between the superintendent and board
members, continual monitoring of progress toward goals, and focusing allocation or resources to
support goals. Additionally, their study found a positive correlation with superintendent tenure
and increased academic achievement.
Weiss (2010) has suggested that to experience academic growth and success, a school
must maintain strategic focus on instruction. Furthermore, Weiss (2010) outlined a cycle of
instructional improvement. This cycle consists of five steps:
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 82

1. Set goals and align resources;
2. Instruct students;
3. Gather and share data;
4. Analyze data; and
5. Use information to create action plans
This plan coincides with work by Schmoker (2011) that discusses the importance of
simplicity, clarity, and priority when it comes to education. Schmoker (2011) added three main
elements needed to experience results:
1. What we teach as it relates to curriculum and content
2. How we teach, which refers to instructional practices
3. The use of authentic literacy, which holds the two together.
Educators must consider these instructional components when working to close the achievement
gap that persists with English Language Learners.
Ultimately, the review of the literature revealed trends related to the role of the
superintendent, the theoretical framework as it connected to the four frames of organizational
leadership as outlined by Bolman and Deal (2008), equity and access for English language
learners, the necessity for a collaborative culture and accountability, and the importance of
building capacity within the organization. Understanding the urgency that superintendents
improve student achievement for all students—and specifically those identified as English
language learners, the research in this study provides a deeper understanding of the strategies
urban superintendents may use to improve academic achievement for ELLs.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 83

Methodology
The study employed a mixed-methods design consisting of 14 quantitative surveys and
eight qualitative interviews completed by successful urban superintendents in California who
met the specific criteria. This approach was selected for increased rigor and complex evidence,
which allows for comparisons among findings and provides greater depth and complexity to the
data collected (Patton, 2002).
Based on the purposefully designed criteria for this study, 34 superintendents of large
urban K–12 school districts qualified to participate in the quantitative survey. Of the 34 potential
participants, 14 elected to participate in the quantitative survey. This number resulted in a
response rate of 41.2% of superintendents, thus satisfying the goal of the researcher, which was
to achieve a response rate of 40% or more based on the average return rate for a survey
conducted through email (Dillman, 2000). From these participants, eight superintendents
volunteered to participate n the qualitative interview.
The quantitative survey used queried demographic data, willingness to be interviewed,
and level of agreement with 39 Likert-style survey items related to strategies employed by
superintendents in developing, implementing, and monitoring improvements to student academic
outcomes. The qualitative interviews were conducted using an interview protocol of 11 open-
ended questions accompanied by follow-up questions to clarify responses. All interviews were
recorded and transcribed for accuracy.
The instrument design was informed by the body of scholarly research and was
subsequently aligned to the research questions in order to enhance instrument validity. Data
gathered through surveys and interviews were analyzed and used to support the significant
research findings as they related to each of the four research questions.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 84

Findings
The superintendents who were interviewed and surveyed cited a variety of strategies they
had employed to improve the academic achievement of ELL students. The data suggest the
following findings related to the four research questions.
Research question one asks, What factors do urban superintendents consider when
developing strategies to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners? Teacher expectations, access to highly qualified teachers, and instructional
leadership were salient themes in both the quantitative survey and qualitative interviews. The
response mean range for all categories within this item is 2.08 to 3.91. “Teacher expectations”
recorded the highest response mean (3.91) from superintendents, whereas “bureaucratic
accountability” received the lowest response mean (2.08). Several of the eight superintendent
interviews referenced the relevance of teacher expectations in developing strategies to improve
the academic achievement of students classified as English language learners. “Access to high
quality teachers” garnered the second highest response mean (3.64) from superintendents.
Several superintendents spoke of the necessity to have highly qualified teachers in the classroom
to provide rigorous instruction, intervention, and enrichment for English learners (EL) and their
counterparts. “Instructional Leadership” recorded the third highest response mean (3.62) from
superintendents. The superintendents interviewed overwhelmingly agreed that instructional
leadership was a factor in developing strategies to improve student achievement for English
language learners.
Research question two asks, Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban
superintendents to assist in improving the academic achievement of students classified as
English language learners? Based on the data gathered from the superintendents surveyed and
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 85

interviewed, teachers, district-level personnel, and school-level administrators were the critical
stakeholders cited by urban superintendents as improving the academic achievement of students
classified as English language learners. The response mean range for all categories within this
area was 2.46 to 3.79 on the quantitative survey. Teachers were rated most favorably (3.79),
whereas unions received the lowest response mean (2.46). Most of the superintendents who
participated in the qualitative interviews identified various capacities in which teachers were a
key stakeholder group. District-level personnel recorded the second highest response mean
(3.73) from superintendents in the quantitative survey. Most of the superintendents interviewed
spoke a great deal about the role of district-level personnel in creating plans to support the
decision-making process center around the academic achievement of ELL. School-level
administrators recorded the third highest response mean (3.67) from superintendents on the
quantitative survey. The superintendents communicated that school site principals had the ability
to create, establish, and execute a vision.
Research question three asks, What strategies do urban superintendents execute when
implementing plans to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners? High expectations for student achievement, clearly defined district-wide
academic goals for English language learners, and on-site teacher collaboration were all
strategies that urban superintendents enlisted when implementing plans to improve the academic
achievement of students classified as English language learners. The response mean range for all
categories within this item was 3.2 to 4.0. “High expectations for student achievement” was rated
most favorably (4.0), whereas professional development facilitated by the district office received
the lowest response mean (3.2). All of the superintendents surveyed agreed that “High
expectations for student achievement” was necessary for implementing plans to improve
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 86

academic achievement of students classified as ELL. “Clearly defined district-wide academic
goals for ELL students” recorded a response mean of 3.82 from the superintendents surveyed in
the quantitative study, which was the second highest mean. Most of the superintendents who
participated in the qualitative interviews provided evidence to specifically support how clearly
defined the district-wide academic goals were for ELL students. “On-site teacher collaboration”
recorded the third highest response mean (3.75) from the superintendents surveyed in the
quantitative study. During the qualitative interviews, superintendents communicated the
necessary to provide opportunities for teacher to collaborate and share practices at the school
site.
Research question four asks, What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor
and evaluate the academic achievement of students classified as English language learners? The
superintendents surveyed and interviewed identified valid and reliable assessment instruments,
analyzed subgroup assessment data, and established instructional norms as strategies that urban
superintendents use to monitor and evaluate the academic achievement of student classified as
English language learners. The response mean range for all categories within this item is 3.08 to
3.67. “Valid and reliable assessment instruments” were rated most favorably (3.67), whereas
“Superintendent visibility at school site” received the lowest response mean (3.08).
Valid and reliable assessment instruments recorded the highest response mean (3.67)
from the superintendents surveyed in the quantitative study. Several of the superintendents
validated these beliefs by providing evidence of the various assessment instruments used and
how those instruments promoted opportunities to monitor and evaluate the instructional practices
for improving student achievement. “Analyzing subgroup assessment data” recorded the second
highest response mean (3.62) from the superintendents surveyed in the quantitative study. Many
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 87

of the superintendents who participated in the qualitative interviews spoke of monitoring
subgroup assessment data on a regular basis. “Established instructional norms” recorded the third
highest response mean (3.36) from the superintendents surveyed in the quantitative study.
Several of the superintendents who participated in the qualitative interviews provided evidence
that established instructional norms were used at all levels, including the classroom, school site,
and district offices.
Implications
The significant finding associated with this study contributes to the body of scholarly
literature by identifying the strategies used by urban superintendents to improve the academic
achievement of English language learners. The insights herein are useful to current or aspiring
superintendents seeking to gain knowledge of strategies to improve the achievement levels of the
EL student population.
Understanding that successful models are difficult to replicate, the researcher suggests
that superintendents engage in many of the same or similar strategies with the intent to improve
academic achievement. Identifying common strategies can provide guidance to superintendents
and aspiring superintendents as they consider how to most effectively impact academic
achievement for ELL students during this time of increasing enrollment of immigrant students in
public schools.
Additionally, school districts can employ the findings to increase awareness and validate
the best practices used to improve the academic achievement of English language learners at
various school sites. School boards can also use this information to guide their decision making
in developing superintendent performance criteria.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 88

Recommendations for Future Study
In the pursuit to secure a better understanding of the leadership strategies employed by
K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners,
the researcher recommends the following for future study:
1. This study suggested that superintendents involve stakeholders, including
teachers, district-level personnel, and school-level administrators to improve the
academic achievement of ELL students. These efforts have led to a need for more
focused case studies of districts and school sites specifically to understand the
various intricacies involved in the collaboration process. Based upon the results
of this study, teachers, school-level administrators, and district-level personnel
should be included in the inquiry process.
2. Identifying the strategies utilized by successful superintendents in large urban K–
12 districts highlights the need for a comparison between superintendents in large
urban districts and those in small districts with large populations of English
language learners.
3. There is a need to analyze the implementation process used by districts to develop
plans to establish defined goals that promote high expectations for all students and
increased on-site teacher collaboration. This study identified these areas as
strategies implemented to improve academic achievement for English language
learners.
Conclusion
Superintendents today continue to confront extraordinary pressure to modify and improve
their specific leadership practices in order to close the academic achievement gap that persists for
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 89

all students, including those classified as English language learners. The particular leadership
strategies used by urban superintendents to close the achievement gap are critical. As such, the
information gained from this study will be beneficial to urban superintendents seeking effective
practices to use in their school districts to positively impact students identified as English
language learners—because superintendents are ultimately the responsible change agent within
the school district.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 90

References
Abedi, J., & Gándara, P. (2006). Performance of English language learners as a subgroup in
large-scale assessment: Interaction of research and policy. Educational Measurement:
Issues and Practice, 25(4), 36–46.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). (2009, March). The American Recovery
Reinvestment Act: Recommendations for addressing the needs of English Language
Learners.
Bloom, D. E. (2004). Globalization and education: An economic perspective. In M. Suarez-
Orozco (Ed.), Globalization: Culture and education in the new millennium (pp. 56–77).
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1994). Looking for leadership: Another search party’s report.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(1), 77–96.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2002). Leading with soul and spirit. The School Administrator (AASA)
web edition (pp. 1–10). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Borkowski, J. W., & Sneed, M. (2006). Will NCLB improve or harm public education? Harvard
Educational Review, 76(4), 503–525.
Bredeson, P., Klar, H. W., & Johansson, O. (2011). Context-responsive leadership:
Examining superintendent leadership in context. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 19(18), 28–28.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 91

Bredeson, P., & Kose, B. (2007). Responding to the education reform agenda: A study of school
superintendents’ instructional leadership. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15(5), 1–
23.
Byrd, J., Drews, C., & Johnson, J. (2006). Factors impacting superintendent turnover: Lessons
from the field. NCPEA Education Leadership Review, 7(2) 11.
Carter, G. R., & Cunningham, W. G. (1997). The American school superintendent: Leading in a
age of pressure. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Collins, J. (2001) Good to great. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Contreras, A. R. (2002). The impact of immigration policy on education reform: Implication for
the New Millennium. Education and Urban Society, 34(2), 134–155.
Crawford, J. (2004, September). No Child Left Behind: Misguided approach to school
accountability for English language learners. Forum on Ideas to Improve NCLB
Accountability Provisions for Student with Disabilities and English Language Learners
Center on Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Third annual Brown lecture in education research—The flat earth
and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our
future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318–334.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The total design method (2
nd
ed.). New York:
Wiley.
Dolph, D., & Grant, S. (2010). Practices of successful school leaders. International Journal
of Educational Reform, 19(4), 269–286.
Doyle, M., Claydon, T., & Buchanen, D. (2000). Mixed results, lousy process: The management
experience of organizational change. British Journal of Management, 11, S59–S80.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 92

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for
professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
Friedman, T. L., & Mandelbaum, M. (2011). Homework x 2 = The American dream. In T. L.
Friedman & M. Mandelbaum (Eds.), That used to be us: How American fell behind in the
world it invented and how we can come back (pp.99–132). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus
and Giroux.
Fullan, M., Bertani, A., & Quinn, J. (2004). New lessons for district-wide reform. Educational
Leadership, 61(7), 42.
Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language
learners: A survey of California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional
development needs. UC, Berkeley: Joint Publications, University of California Linguistic
Minority Research Institute.
Gándera, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R., (2003). English Learners in
California Schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 11(36).
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English language
learners in US schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 363–385.
Glass, T. E., Bjork, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The study of the American School
superintendency, 2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium.
Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 93

Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Con-Nect: Purpose, accountability, and school
leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Dutnov (Eds.), Leadership lessons from comprehensive
school reforms (pp. 57–82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Jackson, J. (2005). Leadership for Urban Public Schools. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 192–
202.
Kidder, R. M. (1995). How good people make tough choices: Resolving the dilemmas of ethical
living. New York, NY: William Morrow.
Kowalski, T. J. (2005). The evolution of the school superintendent position. The Contemporary
Superintendent. Preparation, Practice and Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Kowalski, T. J., McCord, R. S., Petersen, G. J., Young, P., & Ellerson, N. M. (2010) The
American school superintendent: 2010 decennial study. Lanham, MD: The American
Association of School Administrators.
Lauen, D. L., & Gaddis, S. M. (2012). Shining a light or fumbling in the dark? The effects of
NCLB's subgroup-specific accountability on student achievement. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 185–208. doi: 10.3102/0162373711429989.
Lunenburg, F. C. (1992) The urban superintendent’s role in school reform. Education and Urban
Society, 25(1), 30–44.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., and McNulty, B. A. (2005). School Leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (5th ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 94

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McRel. (2001). Leadership for school improvement. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for
Education and Learning.
Miller, D. A., Malley, L. B., & Owen, E. (2009). Comparative indicators of education in the
United States and other G-8 countries: 2009. Washington, DC: Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2011)
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership-theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Petersen, G. (1999). Demonstrated actions of instructional leaders: An examination of five
California superintendents. Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 7 No. 18, 1–24.
Rueda, R. (2005). Student learning and assessment: Setting an agenda. In P. Pedraza & M.
Rivera (Eds.), Latino education: Setting an agenda (pp. 185-204).
Schmidt, W. H., & McKnight, C. C. (1998). What can we really learn from TIMSS? Science,
New Series, 282(5395), 1830–1831.
Schmoker, M. (2011). Focus: Evaluating essentials to radically improve student learning.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Schneider, M. (2009). The international PISA test: A risky investment for states. Education
Next, 9(4), 68.
Spanneut, G., & Ford, M. (2008). Guiding hand of the superintendent helps principals
flourish. Journal of Staff Development, 29(2), 28–33.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 95

Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to
improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: Learning First
Alliance.
Vakola, M., & Nikolaou, I. (2005). Attitudes towards organizational change: What is the role of
employees’ stress and commitment? Employee Relations, 27(2), 160–174.
Waters, T. J., & Marzano, R. J. (2007). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. ERS Spectrum, 25(2), 1–12.
Waxman, H. C., Rivera, H., & Powers, R. (2012). English Language Learners’ educational
resilience and classroom learning environment. Educational Research Quarterly, 35.4,
53-72.
Weiss, J. (2010). Organizing school systems for continuous improvement. In Adams, J.E.
Editor, Smart Money: Using educational resources to accomplish ambitious learning
goals (pp. 109-122) Harvard Education Press, Cambridge MA.
Wheatley, M. L. (2006, Summer). Leadership lessons for the real world. Leader to Leader
Magazine
Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., et al. (2005). Similar students, different results: Why do
some schools do better? A large-scale survey of California elementary schools serving
low-income students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource. Retrieved from
http://www.edsource.org/pdf/SimStu05.pdf.
Yee, G., & Cuban, L. (1996). When is tenure long enough? A historical anaysis of
superintendent turnover and tenure in urban school districts. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 32 615–641.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 96

Appendix A
Research Question/Instrument Connection
Research Question 1 What factors do urban superintendents consider when developing
strategies to improve academic achievement of students classified as
English language learners?

Interview 1. How do you feel about the academic performance levels of English
language learners in this district?

3. What strategies have you employed in meeting the academic needs of
English language learners in your district?

4. What factors do you consider in establishing a plan to improve the
academic achievement of English language learners?

5. How have state and federal accountability measures influenced your
approach to English language learner achievement?

6. What professional development opportunities related to the academic
achievement of English language learners are offered in your district?
Survey To what extent do you agree that the following factors influence the
academic achievement of English language learners?

1. Bureaucratic accountability
2. Demands for the community
3. Access to highly qualified teachers
4. Culturally responsive curriculum
5. Standardized assessment design
6. Teacher expectations for ELL performance
7. Data-driven decision making
8. Instructional leadership
9. Professional development focused on ELL instruction

Research Question 2 Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban superintendents to
assist in improving academic achievement of students classified as
English language learners?

Interview 7. Who are the critical stakeholders involved in the development of plans to
improve the academic achievement of English language learners?

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 97

8. How do you involve key stakeholders in monitoring and evaluating plans
to increase the achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
Survey To what extent do you agree that the following stakeholders should be
included in decisions made to improve the academic improvement of
students classified as English language learners?

1. Community members
2. District-level personnel
3. Parents
4. School-level administrators
5. Teachers
6. Unions
7. School Boards

Research Question 3 What strategies do urban superintendents execute when implementing
plans to improve the academic achievement of students classified as
English language learners?
Interview 3. What strategies have you employed in meeting the academic needs of
English language learners in your district?

6. What professional development opportunities related to the academic
achievement of English language learners are offered in your district?

9. How do you build the capacity of school leaders in your district to
implement plans that improve the achievement of English language
learners?

Survey To what extent do you agree that the following are important to
superintendent implementation of plans to improve the academic
achievement of students classified as English language learners?

1. Creation of a vision
2. High expectations for student achievement
3. Analyzing subgroup assessment data
4. Collaboration among stakeholders
5. Resource allocation
6. Clearly defined district-wide academic goals for ELL students
7. Instructional leadership
8. Professional development for school-site administrators
9. Professional development for teachers
10. Professional development facilitated by the district office
11. Professional development facilitated by the school site
12. Two-way communication between district and school-site staff
13. Alignment between district vision and school vision
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 98

14. On-site teacher collaboration
15. Alignment of instruction with curricula framework

Research Question 4 What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor and evaluate
the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?

Interview 2. How does the district monitor the academic achievement of English
language learners?

8. How do you involve key stakeholders in monitoring and evaluating plans
to increase the achievement of students classified as English language
learners?

10. As the district leader, how often do you access or analyze English
language learner data for the district?

11. How do you determine the effectiveness of English language learner
instruction throughout the district?

Survey To what extent do you agree that the following important in monitoring and
evaluating academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?

1. Valid and reliable assessment instruments
2. Reclassification rates
3. Analyzing subgroup assessment data
4. Site administrator classroom observations
5. District level administrator classroom observations
6. Established instructional norms
7. Site administrator collaboration at the district-level
8. Superintendent visibility at school sites

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 99

Appendix B

Survey Instrument

Gender?
Male
Female

Ethnicity?
American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Native
Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, White, Two or More, Other: ____________

Age Category?
29 and under
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70 and over

Highest Educational Attainment
Bachelor’s Degree
Master’s Degree
Other Professional Degree
Doctoral Degree

Years of experience as the superintendent of your current district: _____

Total years of experience as a superintendent: _____

Would you be willing to participate in a 45-minute follow up interview?
Yes
No

Question 1: To what extent do you agree that the following factors influence the academic
achievement of English language learners?
(1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree)

1. Bureaucratic accountability 1 2 3 4
2. Demands from the community 1 2 3 4
3. Access to highly qualified teachers 1 2 3 4
4. Culturally responsive curriculum 1 2 3 4
5. Standardized assessment design 1 2 3 4
6. Teacher expectations for ELL performance 1 2 3 4
7. Data-driven decision making 1 2 3 4
8. Instructional leadership 1 2 3 4
9. Professional development focused on ELL instruction 1 2 3 4
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 100

Question 2: To what extent do you agree that the following stakeholders should be included in
decisions made to improve the academic improvement of students classified as English language
learners?
(1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree)

1. Community members 1 2 3 4
2. District-level personnel 1 2 3 4
3. Parents 1 2 3 4
4. School-level administrators 1 2 3 4
5. Teachers 1 2 3 4
6. Unions 1 2 3 4
7. School boards 1 2 3 4

Question 3: To what extent do you agree that the following are important to superintendent
implementation of plans to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners?
(1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree)

1. Creation of a vision 1 2 3 4
2. High expectations for student achievement 1 2 3 4
3. Analyzing subgroup assessment data 1 2 3 4
4. Collaboration among stakeholders 1 2 3 4
5. Resource allocation 1 2 3 4
6. Clearly defined district-wide academic goals for ELL students 1 2 3 4
7. Instructional leadership 1 2 3 4
8. Professional development for school-site administrators 1 2 3 4
9. Professional development for teachers 1 2 3 4
10. Professional development facilitated by the district office 1 2 3 4
11. Professional development facilitated by the school site 1 2 3 4
12. Two-way communication between district and school-site staff 1 2 3 4
13. Alignment between district vision and school vision 1 2 3 4
14. On-site teacher collaboration 1 2 3 4
15. Alignment of instruction with curricula framework 1 2 3 4

Question 4: To what extent do you agree that the following are important in monitoring and
evaluating academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
(1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree)

1. Valid and reliable assessment instruments 1 2 3 4
2. Reclassification rates 1 2 3 4
3. Analyzing subgroup assessment data 1 2 3 4
4. Site administrator classroom observations 1 2 3 4
5. District level administrator classroom observations 1 2 3 4
6. Established instructional norms 1 2 3 4
7. Site administrator collaboration at the district-level 1 2 3 4
8. Superintendent visibility at school sites 1 2 3 4

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 101

Appendix C

Interview Protocol

Leadership Strategies Employed by K-12 Urban Superintendents to Improve the Academic
Achievement of English Language Learners

1. How do you feel about the academic performance levels of English language learners in this
district?

2. How does the district monitor the academic achievement of English language learners?

3. What strategies have you employed in meeting the academic needs of English language
learners in your district?

4. What factors do you consider in establishing a plan to improve the academic achievement of
English language learners? Follow up: How did you develop the plans?

5. How have state and federal accountability measures influenced your approach to English
language learner achievement?

6. What professional development opportunities related to the academic achievement of English
language learners are offered in your district?

7. Who are the critical stakeholders involved in the development of plans to improve the
academic achievement of English language learners? Follow up: How do you select these
stakeholders?

8. How do you involve key stakeholders in monitoring and evaluating plans to increase the
achievement of students classified as English language learners?

9. How do you build the capacity of school leaders in your district to implement plans that
improve the achievement of English language learners?

10. As the district leader, how often do you access or analyze English language learner data for
the district?

11. How do you determine the effectiveness of English language learner instruction throughout
the district?

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 102

Appendix D

Survey Cover Letter

Date

Dear (Superintendent’s Name),

Based on your success with supporting students classified as English Language Learners in your
district, we would like to invite you to participate in our research study. The study is being
conducted under the guidance of Dr. Rudy Castruita as part of our doctoral studies at the Rossier
School of Education at the University of Southern California. This study seeks to identify the
strategies employed by the superintendents of large, urban school districts to improve the
academic achievement of students classified as English Language Learners.

We understand that your time is both extremely valuable and limited. The survey has been
piloted and will take approximately fifteen minutes to complete. Your voluntary participation
would be much appreciated. It will provide an important contribution to the research on
superintendent implementation of leadership strategies to close the achievement gap associated
with English Language Learners. Your relationship with the University of Southern California
and parties associated with the study will not be affected whether you choose to participate in
this study or not. There are no known risks associated with participation in this study.

Thank you in advance for your time. Please contact any of us should you have any questions
regarding this study.

Sincerely,

Tiffani Curtis
Doctoral Candidate
tbgilmor@usc.edu
(213) 393-3777

Gretchen Janson
Doctoral Candidate
gjanson@usc.edu
(310) 863-3675
Raul Ramirez
Doctoral Candidate
rramirez@usc.edu
(213) 700-3128

Charles D. Smith
Doctoral Candidate
smithcd@usc.edu
(562) 685-6621

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 103

Appendix E

Interview Letter

Date

(Superintendent Name), Superintendent
Unified School District
1234 Main Street
Anywhere, CA 00000

Re: Request for Interview

Dear (Superintendent Name),

My name is Charles D. Smith and I am a doctoral student in the Rossier School of Education at
the University of Southern California. I am conducting a research study as part of my
dissertation, under the guidance of Dr. Rudy Castruita. My study focuses on the leadership
strategies employed by the superintendents of large, urban school districts in an effort to support
the academic achievement of English Language Learners.

You have been identified as an outstanding superintendent of a large, urban school district. The
size and demographic constitution of your school district is ideal for my study. Participation in
this study would require one interview with a length of approximately one hour.

Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity as a participant will remain
confidential during and after the study. All interviews will take place in a private location of
your choice.

Please let me know if you are willing to participate or if you have any further questions
regarding my study. I can be reached via email at smithcd@usc.edu or via phone at (562) 685-
6621.

Thank you in advance for your consideration,

Charles D. Smith
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 104

Appendix F

Information Letter

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Leadership Strategies Employed by K-12 Urban Superintendents to Improve the Academic
Achievement of English Language Learners

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study was to ascertain the superintendent leadership strategies that positively
impact the academic achievement of students identified as English language learners in large
urban K-12 school districts. Specifically, this study considers the approaches employed by
superintendents in developing, implementing, and monitoring improvements to English language
learner student outcomes. Participation is voluntary.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete a 46 item survey (6 demographic
questions, 39 questions pertinent to the literature, and 1 question regarding availability to
participate in the qualitative portion). The instrument will take approximately 15 minutes to
complete. You may also be asked to participate in a 45 minute, 11 item interview with follow up
questions. This interview will be audio recorded with your permission.

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

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

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

Tiffani Curtis: tbgilmor@usc.edu

Gretchen Janson: gjanson@usc.edu
Raul Ramirez: rramirez@usc.edu Charles D. Smith: smithcd@usc.edu

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

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Through their specific leadership strategies, today’s superintendents continue to confront extraordinary pressure to close the academic achievement gap that persists for all students, including and especially those classified as English language learners. Superintendents continue to seek successful leadership strategies being employed by K‐12 urban superintendents that are improving the academic achievement of English language learners. This mixed‐method study design was developed to answer 4 research questions related to leadership strategies employed by K‐12 urban superintendents to improve academic achievement of ELL students. Data collected through a quantitative survey of 14 superintendents and a qualitative interview conducted with 8 superintendents were used to support the 4 research findings. ❧ First, teacher expectations, access to high quality teachers, and instructional leadership stood out as key factors to consider in developing strategies to improve academic achievement for ELL students. Second, teachers, district‐level personnel, and school‐level administrators were identified as critical stakeholders involved in developing a plan and process to reach the desired academic gains. Third, high expectations for student achievement, clearly defined district-wide academic goals for ELL students, and on‐site teacher collaboration were key strategies for implementing plans to improve academic achievement. Fourth, superintendents used valid and reliable assessment instruments, analyzed subgroup assessment data, and established instructional norms to monitor and evaluate the academic achievement of ELL students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of small, mid-sized, and large school district superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of small, mid-sized, and large school district superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams

PDF

Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of middle school principals in the support of English language learners

PDF

Effective practices employed by superintendents' leadership teams that impact student achievement

PDF

Strategies employed by middle school principals successful in increasing and sustaining the mathematics achievement of African American students

Asset Metadata

Creator Smith, Charles D. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/26/2014

Defense Date 10/22/2013

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

Tag academic achievement,English language learners,leadership strategies,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy Max (committee chair), García, Pedro Enrique (committee member), Roach, John A. (committee member)

Creator Email cdsmith922@yahoo.com,smithcd@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-365510

Unique identifier UC11288220

Identifier etd-SmithCharl-2268.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-365510 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SmithCharl-2268.pdf

Dmrecord 365510

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Smith, Charles D.

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