Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Superintendents' viewpoint of the role stakeholders can play in improving student achievement
(USC Thesis Other)
Superintendents' viewpoint of the role stakeholders can play in improving student achievement
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 1
SUPERINTENDENTS’ VIEWPOINT OF THE ROLE STAKEHOLDERS CAN
PLAY IN IMPROVING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
by
Barry L. Stockhamer
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 2013
Copyright 2013 Barry L. Stockhamer
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 2
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my mother, Ann Stockhamer and to my late
father, Nathan Stockhamer. I am grateful to my mom for her wisdom, inspiration, and
humor; for giving me a sense of adventure; and for life’s lessons. These are treasured
gifts, and she has been a shining star in my life. My father provided daily encourage-
ment. From the age of 2, I knew I was college bound. He supported me and helped me
to see a world without limits.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 3
Acknowledgments
I wish to express my appreciation to my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Rudy
Castruita, for his guidance and thoughtful support throughout the doctoral program.
Special thanks go to Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. Laurie Love for serving on my committee
and for their encouragement and insights.
I would like to acknowledge my professors, staff, and peers at USC who pre-
sented such an incredible lifetime learning experience during my 3 years in the EdD
program.
I am grateful to my fourth-grade teacher, Ben Strasser, for his creative spirit,
believing in his students, and the exciting projects the likes of which are rich memories
50 years later.
Finally, I thank my two sons, David and Scott Stockhamer, for being extraordi-
nary young men. I am proud of who they are and their bright future. I share this mo-
ment with them.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgments 3
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter 1: Introduction 10
Statement of the Problem 15
Purpose of the Study 17
Research Questions 17
Importance of the Study 18
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumption 18
Limitations 18
Delimitations 18
Assumption 19
Chapter 2: Literature Review 20
U.S. Laws and Need for Community Stakeholders 20
The Stakeholders and the Nature of Partnerships 22
What Learning Theories Support Stakeholder Roles in Student
Academic Achievement? 25
Successful Academic Stakeholder Roles 27
How Stakeholders Are Mobilized and Monitored 32
Conclusion 33
Chapter 3: Methodology 35
Research Design 35
Sample and Population 38
Instrumentation 39
Quantitative Stage 39
Qualitative Stage 40
Data Collection 41
Data Analysis 41
Summary 42
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 5
Chapter 4: Findings 43
Organization of Data Analysis 43
Descriptive Characteristics of Survey Respondents 44
School District Community Profile 44
Size and Community Profile of Districts 44
Superintendents’ View of Stakeholders as a School Board Priority 46
Interviewed Superintendents’ Demographics 46
Findings by Research Question 46
Research Question 1 46
Research Question 2 57
Research Question 3 63
Research Question 4 69
Final Analysis 79
Chapter 5: Summary, Implications, and Conclusions 81
Summary 81
Underlying Theory and Theory of Action 83
Key Findings 84
Implications of Findings 89
Limitations 90
Recommendations for Future Research 91
Conclusion 92
References 94
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 6
List of Tables
Table 1: Surveyed School Districts by Size and How Many Years
Superintendents Had Served 47
Table 2: Superintendents’ View of Stakeholders as a School Board
Priority, by Years of Service 48
Table 3: Demographic Summary of Superintendents Interviewed (n = 5) 48
Table 4: Stakeholders Providing Assets to Improve Student Achievement,
by Superintendents’ Years of Service in Current Position 50
Table 5: Respondents’ Rating of Stakeholders’ Capacity to Contribute at
Higher Than Current Level, by Years of Service in Current
Superintendent Position 52
Table 6: Superintendents’ Ranked Needs of School District Where
Stakeholder Partnerships Could Assist (N = 74) 66
Table 7: Frequency of Respondents’ Communication With Stakeholders,
by Number of Years in Current Position as Superintendent (N = 74) 70
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 7
List of Figures
Figure 1: Superintendents’ years of service in current school district (N = 74) 45
Figure 2: Type of community of surveyed school districts 45
Figure 3: Annual stakeholder-generated cash revenues 51
Figure 4: Superintendents’ impact rating of stakeholders 53
Figure 5: Superintendents’ use of stakeholders 57
Figure 6: Impact of Various Entities on Student Success in School 83
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 8
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to gain insight and understanding from the superin-
tendent’s viewpoint as to the role that various stakeholders can play in student academic
and school success. Joyce Epstein’s theory of overlapping spheres of influence was the
underlying theory supporting stakeholder impact.
School districts in K-12 education are asked to raise academic outcomes for all
students and within subgroups. The challenges have never been greater. Districts must
achieve this annual academic growth with reduced, flat, and uncertain budgets. Long-
term planning is severely compromised, yet the downward pressure at the federal and
state level requires continual academic growth. It is the school district’s leadership, the
superintendent, who has authority to mobilize the district-wide vision in meeting chal-
lenges of improving student academic outcomes.
A mixed-methods approach was utilized. Study data were collected from 74
California superintendents. Qualitative data were obtained from 5 superintendent
interviews.
The study examined the stakeholder role and how superintendents identified and
mobilized stakeholders. Data analysis identified the untapped potential of stakeholders
and the multidimensional roles that stakeholders support, which range from traditional
parents and teachers to clubs, businesses, neighborhood groups, and faith-based groups.
The findings demonstrated how stakeholders self-determined their role within the
district and were not aligned by superintendents or schools to meet the greatest needs of
schools. The data revealed socioeconomic factors enhancing participation and the bar-
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 9
riers low-income communities must overcome to enhance parent participation. Also
revealed were the lack of district capacity and infrastructure to maximize and sustain
stakeholder participation. Varying levels of communication with potential stakeholders
illustrated how some districts overlooked stakeholder categories utilized by other
districts.
Implications from this study support the viability of stakeholders to impact and
support student success through a focused, superintendent-driven initiative. Utilizing
local stakeholders to help support school districts’ greatest needs requires superinten-
dents to embrace structures and strategies to identify, mobilize, and nurture these rela-
tionships. Targeted deployment of stakeholders and monitoring community programs
ensure that maximum results from these partnerships are realized. The data support a
proactive district initiative with a unified district vision shared by all school sites.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 10
Chapter 1
Introduction
Education is under a microscope of analysis and political pressures unparalleled
in the history of public education in the United States. Under enormous legislative and
market-driven forces to improve student outcomes, there still exists a significant dispar-
ity in K-12 public education student academic outcomes. The outcomes reveal impres-
sive gaps in academic proficiency within subgroups such as English language learners
(ELLs) and Students With Disabilities (SWD), as well as between various ethnic and
demographic groups (National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP], 2007).
The urgency to address this disparity has never been greater. The implications of failure
negatively impact quality of student life and lifetime earnings, communities, and the
nation in general (U.S. Government and Accountability Office [USGAO], 2002). There
are enormous costs borne by society for systematic failure and significant societal gains
for effectively closing the academic disparity and increasing student outcomes (Alliance
for Excellent Education, 2011).
The superintendent, as the leader within a school district, is best positioned to
shape school vision, policies, and resource allocation and to work with partnerships
(Norton, Webb, Dlugosh, & Sybouts, 1996) to focus on academic outcomes. With the
power, responsibility, and authority to impact student outcomes, the superintendent has
control over facilities, personnel, budgeting, and, sustaining a focused vision (Norton et
al., 1996). The superintendent can create innovative stakeholder partnerships to en-
hance student academic outcomes in all student subgroups.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 11
Numerous academic studies identify the positive role of stakeholders on student
achievement (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Traditionally, these stakeholders have been
the parents, the school staff, and the community. Increasingly, more studies have
focused on the nature of these partnerships. Epstein (1995) indicated the increasing
attention on the components of school, family, and community partnerships. A study for
the U.S. Department of Education by Westat and Policy Studies Associates in 2001
indicated that the value of teacher outreach to parents with Title I schools increased test
scores by as much as 40% compared to low-level outreach by teachers. Christianson
and Christianson (1998) discussed family–school partnerships that positively impacted
attendance, math, and writing scores. Henderson and Mapp (2002) identified a number
of studies that supported the role of partnerships with parents and community, including
improved school facilities, higher quality learning, and new resources and programs to
improve teaching and student outcomes.
Today’s environment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB; 2003) as well as in-
creased academic accountability and growth coupled with reduced or flat education
budgets require a more sophisticated and strategic understanding of stakeholder partner-
ship.
The urgency to improve student outcomes has gained political and market-
driven momentum over the past 50 years in the United States. Numerous events and
laws contributed to the current urgency to fix education. For example, the National
Defense Education Act (1958) responded to the Soviet Union’s launch of a satellite into
space and committed billions of dollars to improving math and science in U.S. schools.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 12
A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) alarmed
policy makers and the nation as to the high stakes for failure to improve education and
its impact on society and future generations of Americans. Under the 2002 landmark
NCLB (2003) law, the federal and state government imposed mandates, sanctions, and
increased political pressures to improve all student academic outcomes. These included
subgroups such as ELLs and SWD, with annual accountability at the school and district
levels.
The challenges have never been greater. U.S. school districts and schools are
increasingly accountable for higher testing scores in meeting the learning needs of all
students. This growth measurement includes 7 million SWD and more than 5.3 million
ELL students. The number of ELL students reveals a 50% increase since 1998 and rep-
resents an increasingly growing percentage of the public K-12 student population.
Nationwide, only 12% of students with limited English scored at or above proficient in
mathematics in the fourth grade (NAEP, 2007), compared with 42% of students not
classified as ELL. In eighth-grade math, 5% of ELLs were proficient or above, com-
pared with 35% of non-ELL students (NAEP, 2007).
In the tested area of reading, significant gaps remain among various demo-
graphic groups of Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics at the fourth-, eighth-, and l2th-grade
levels. These gaps indicate a margin in excess of 20 points. The gaps between White
and Black students and between White and Hispanic students have only marginally
improved since 1992. Core areas such as mathematics showed gaps of more than 20
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 13
points between various demographic groups in 2010 (National Center for Education
Statistics [NECS], Institute of Education Sciences, 2012).
School districts are required to be more effective and more efficient in spending
precious and diminishing resources. Schools are expected to meet their annual yearly
growth (AYP) and Annual Performance Index (API) or face sanctions including a
change in school administration and possible loss of federal funds (NCLB, 2003). Con-
founding the accountability and academic goals, schools are mandated to achieve more
with fewer resources per student (NCES, Institute of Education Sciences, 2012; Oliff &
Leachman, 2011). State funding in 2011–2012 is below the 2008 state funding level in
30 of 46 states surveyed; 27 states have reductions of more than 2% as federal dollars
and state revenues have been reduced (NCES, Institute of Education Sciences, 2012;
Oliff & Leachman, 2011). As a nation, from 2005 to 2010, the K-12 student academic
achievement has leveled off. Over the past 20+ years, since 1990, overall proficiency of
students has exhibited flat or little growth in core areas such as mathematics, reading,
and science (NCES, Institute of Education Sciences, 2012). Along with reduced per-
student spending, local school districts have cut 278,000 jobs on a national level com-
pared to 2008 (U.S. Department of Education [USDOE], 2011). The trend in reduced
spending at the state level must reconcile with the USDOE (2011) projections that
currently there are 280,000 more K-12 students than in 2008.In short, schools must
accomplish more with fewer resources.
The stakes are very high. If schools are unable to meet the academic needs of
students by improving scores and closing academic gaps and if schools fail to improve
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 14
student readiness for college and the workplace, then the economic outlook for students,
communities, and the nation is significantly compromised. The negative outcomes
include higher unemployment, higher crime rate, fewer dollars spent in the community,
and greater reliance on public and governmental assistance (USGAO, 2002; NCSET,
2002). Failure has an economic cost to local communities and causes a diminished
quality of life for citizens. As a nation, the U.S. leadership role in a competitive global
economy is impacted by stagnant academic student proficiency (Oliff & Leachman,
2011).
School districts must evolve in the strategies and tactics that they deploy in
support of the overall academic goal. It is incumbent upon all school districts and
schools that an important part of their vision is ensuring that along with NCLB (2003),
no resource is left behind. Stakeholders are a resource that has traditionally included
parents, teaching and school staff, and community. These stakeholder categories have
been recognized in academic studies (Epstein & Sheldon, 2006) as having impact on
student academic outcomes. It is an appropriate initiative for the focus of this study to
explore how these roles and traditional categories are currently utilized and how the
roles might be expanded to meet the needs of today’s students.
There is great urgency in reaching out and doing a better job of identifying tra-
ditional and nontraditional stakeholders who have the capacity to improve and support
student academic achievement. Stakeholders have a range of assets to support school
needs, including hard and soft dollars, internal expertise, and spheres of influence
(Epstein, 1995) in surrounding students with a culture of success.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 15
Successful implementation of a stakeholder initiative at the school site level
requires strong, ongoing support at the district and superintendent level. This support is
critical. Lezotte (2003) recognized that school improvement resulting in increased
student achievement can only be sustained through strong district direction and support.
Because stakeholder contributions can take many forms and may have significant
district-wide impact, it is appropriate that the district provides the knowledge and
support for schools to identify and deploy stakeholders to meet school needs. The dis-
trict’s collaborative monitoring of stakeholder involvement will help drive effectiveness
and consistent deployment of best practices. The district office can manage stakeholder
relationships in creating partnerships that go beyond a single school site and can grow in
size and impact.
Statement of the Problem
School districts in K-12 education are asked to raise academic outcomes for all
students and within subgroups, including ELLs, SWD, and various demographic groups.
Districts must achieve this with reduced, flat, and/or uncertain budgets. Long-term
planning is severely compromised, yet the downward pressure at the federal and state
level requires continual academic growth (NCLB, 2003). It is the leadership of the
school district, the superintendent, who has the authority and responsibility to meet the
challenges of improving student academic outcomes. The superintendent’s viewpoint is
critical in establishing the vision and priorities for the school district.
The untapped potential of various stakeholders is multidimensional. How
school districts identify stakeholders, determine stakeholder roles, mobilize new
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 16
stakeholders, and evaluate their impact on academic goals is not clearly understood or
formalized. The deployment of stakeholders in traditional and nontraditional ways is
not clearly known beyond the role of parents and teaching staff. There are significant
gaps in knowledge in terms of evaluating community stakeholders’ impact on academic
achievement. The lack of definitive stakeholder roles and contributions suggests an
uneven application of these resources. Adding to the challenge is the lack of knowledge
as to the scale and scope of stakeholders’ potential contributions to academic achieve-
ment that is underutilized in support of district and school site academic initiatives
(Henderson & Mapp, 2002).
During times of reduced budgets, stakeholders have the capacity to contribute on
many different levels focused on academic achievement and to help bridge diminishing
resources (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). It is critical that stakeholders are an import part
of the district vision.
The overlapping spheres of influence (Epstein, 1995) represented by all of the
stakeholders have the capacity to make a difference in academic outcomes. A better
understanding of how stakeholders are identified, mobilized, and directed to meet the
needs of all students should be examined and formalized. Are superintendents success-
ful in their efforts? Stakeholders have a range of assets to offer, and students have a
range of assets to be developed to help ensure academic success. Addressing these sub-
group academic needs and improving student outcomes benefits all stakeholders.
Society gains as a result of academically proficient students and enlightened
citizens. Students gain the potential for a better quality of life, advanced degrees, and
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 17
higher lifetime income (NCSET, 2002). Students who do not graduate high school
suffer increased poverty levels, are more involved in crime and resulting incarceration,
and have fewer job opportunities. In general, these students are less likely to be able to
afford to purchase a home. The cost to communities also comes in the form of in-
creased welfare and reliance on government services. Effective improvement in aca-
demic outcomes leads to citizens who are enlightened and employed. It contributes to
citizens who engage in civic responsibility in ways that lead to the betterment of com-
munities. As a nation, addressing these academic gaps and graduating proficient high
school students contribute to the competitive positioning of the United States in a global
economy (NCSET, 2002).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to increase the body of knowledge in K-12 public
education in terms of better understanding of the roles that stakeholders can play in
impacting student academic outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate how
superintendents identify stakeholders, mobilize and determine the capacity of stakehold-
er, define stakeholders’ roles, monitor their progress, and tie stakeholder efforts to
specific student academic outcomes.
Research Questions
The following research questions were investigated in this study:
1. Which stakeholders are valuable assets in efforts to improve student aca-
demic achievement?
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 18
2. How are stakeholders best utilized by the superintendent in support of
academic achievement?
3. How do superintendents identify stakeholders?
4. How do superintendents mobilize stakeholders’ involvement with the school
district?
Importance of the Study
This study should contribute to superintendents’ knowledge regarding the roles
of stakeholders, how they contribute to student academic achievement, and how these
roles support various subgroups. The study should add to the body of knowledge as to
how a superintendent can formulate a culture that encourages stakeholder involvement
by utilizing tactics and strategic partners who have the capacity to make a difference in
student outcomes. It should also contribute in new ways in highlighting the capacity of
stakeholders to contribute to school budgets and resources, improve academic
outcomes, increase funding sources, engage in volunteerism, and make other hard dollar
and soft dollar contributions to schools.
Limitation, Delimitations, and Assumption
Limitation
This study focused on five California school districts from the viewpoint of the
superintendent of each school district.
Delimitations
This study has constructed an expanded definition of stakeholders in order to
remove artificial barriers to the common academic definition of parent, teacher, and
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 19
community. Further stratification of the stakeholder category allows for greater latitude
in the types of meaningful contributions that each stakeholder can provide as well as the
mechanisms for managing these relationships.
Assumption
The study was based on the assumption that qualitative statements were accurate
reflections of the superintendents as to current practices.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 20
Chapter 2
Literature Review
The literature and U.S. laws support the need for and importance of community
partnerships utilizing stakeholders to impact student academic achievement. The nature
of community partnerships and stakeholders requires school districts to determine the
strengths and needs within the community for supporting school goals. Social learning
theories establish the underlying theory supporting the influence of stakeholders on
student outcomes. Additionally, a number of stakeholder roles and stakeholder activi-
ties are correlated with student academic success. To maximize stakeholder capacity to
impact student academics, stakeholders need to be mobilized with goals set, monitored,
effectively managed, and evaluated.
U.S. Laws and Need for Community Stakeholders
The downward pressure of annual accountability and student academic growth
through standardized testing to assure that no sub group of students is left behind is a
cornerstone of the landmark legislation, the NCLB Act of 2001 (2003). School districts
throughout the United States, and individual schools are assigned growth targets, AYP,
on an annual basis. Failure to consistently meet these growth targets by subgroup can
result in serious sanctions including loss of Title I funds and restructuring of the school
site administration. The NCLB Act further identifies the need and requirement for Title
I schools to support a partnership among the schools involved, parents, and the commu-
nity to impact student academic outcomes (Section 11118, 2001).
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 21
A USDOE report (as cited in Lezotte, Skaife, & Holstead, 2002) noted that high-
performing schools make use of their communities and find innovative ways to connect
with parents and private-sector partners. Epstein’s (1995) landmark theory for overlap-
ping spheres of influence identifies the community as an important part of the student’s
learning environment. Epstein stated the collaborative need for schools, families, and
communities to come together to help ensure student academic success. Sanders and
Harvey (2002) asserted in his case study that communities can play a vital role in im-
proving schools. At the school site level, Sanders (2002) claimed that the principal
needs assistance in collaborations, including identifying potential partners and providing
the infrastructure to support collaborative activities. District- and state- level support
help all schools to be more effective in these collaborative efforts to improve student
outcomes.
The study by the UCLA Center for Mental Health in Schools (2007) indicates
the important possibility for creating school–community programs and collaboration; it
also recognizes the great potential benefits. A critical underpinning is the need to fit
within a well-crafted strategy.
Community schools have emerged in many cities in bringing together students,
families, and communities in a structured partnership. Community schools use partner-
ships to mobilize community resources to produce academic success among students,
their families, and the community (Blank, Jacobson, & Melaville, 2012). The
community schools combine these partnerships with a unified vision in meeting student
needs.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 22
The NCLB law is deficient in details and penalties for failures to build commu-
nity and stakeholder partnerships; thus, the lack of clear sanctions weakens the imple-
mentation timetable for school and district compliance with this provision. Epstein’s
(1995) study, while a landmark theory supporting stakeholder collaboration among
schools, community, and parents, lacks the empirical quality that demonstrates which
stakeholder activities and roles have the greatest effect on academic outcomes. Beyond
parental influence and impact, there exists a lack of empirical studies on stakeholder
effect. The majority of research on school–community partnerships, including
Epstein’s, is based primarily dimensions of correlation, are quasi-experimental, and lack
the random selection of schools and school subjects. Additionally, Stakeholder Part-
nerships Involving Parents, Schools and Community (2012) lacks quality longitudinal
studies. There are serious gaps in the literature as to which types of partnerships work
best with select grades, as well as the impact of combinations of partnerships. The
varying definitions in research with respect to what constitutes a community result in
varying interpretations from study to study and complicate comparisons among studies.
The Stakeholders and the Nature of Partnerships
According to Epstein (1995), the types of stakeholders can vary in the types of
entities that can impact student academic outcomes. The Ohio Community Collabora-
tion Model for School Improvement (OCCMSI; Community and Youth Collaborative
Institute, 2009) identifies a range of school–community partnerships including faith-
based organizations, colleges or universities, local residents, businesses, chambers of
commerce, restaurants, media, senior citizen groups, banks, government, and citizen
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 23
groups. However, there is no limit to the types of partnerships that are strategic in sup-
porting academic goals. The essential goal is that the partnership meets the needs of the
district/school site. This issue is further addressed by Blank et al. (2012), who indicated
that any organization in the community is viable if it is focused on the education and
needs of that community’s students.
A critical aspect is that all of the stakeholders have a shared common vision and
that they align resources to meet the needs of the school goals. Blank et al. (2012) also
included improving social outcomes as a part of the common objective for academic
achievement. Blank et al. further identified the Tulsa (Oklahoma) Union School Dis-
trict; Multnomah County, Oregon; and Chicago, Illinois, as community schools. Their
sustainability, growth, and success require a strong, unified school district vision with
clearly understood school district-established goals. The partnerships require account-
ability, access and exchange of data, frequent communication, and ongoing evaluation.
The collaborative programs with stakeholders in Tulsa Union School District,
Multnomah County, and Chicago (Blank et al., 2012) have sustained through changes in
superintendents because they have been built into the culture of the district. Another
example is the Evansville (Indiana) Vanderburgh School District, where family and
community support has evolved through five superintendents. This type of
multidimensional stakeholder support surrounds students on many levels, from aca-
demic to mental and emotional. The newest superintendent, David Smith, commented
that school issues cannot be resolved in isolation and that resolution requires a commu-
nity effort (Blank et al., 2012). In Oakland, California, the school district has gone to
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 24
great efforts to institutionalize stakeholder partnerships. The details behind the funding
and details regarding the barriers impacting stakeholder participants (e.g., lack of time,
shortfalls in budgets, growth and sustainability of program issues) are not well docu-
mented in the literature, and the barriers pose formidable challenges to success.
The dimensions of identifying stakeholders are comprised of all entities in a
community, including facilities that can contribute or help address the gaps in sup-
porting student academic success (UCLA, Center for Mental Health in Schools, 2012).
The stakeholder partnerships have the capacity to address risk factors in students and
other areas that help support student academic outcomes. Blank et al. (2012) referred to
the aligning of resources to create a more effective, focused effort while providing for
cost savings. At a time when school budgets and future funding are uncertain for
schools, Blank et al. referred to the capacity of districts to leverage $3.00 from commu-
nity partners for every dollar they allocate.
Castrechini and London (2010) identified the various ways in which partnerships
can support schools. In their study of the Redwood City School District schools, the
researchers identified the critical positive impact that partnerships can have on shaping
student attitudes toward school. They also identified the improved outcomes for ELLs
through programs that engage ELL families and students to be partners in various school
opportunities. Fostering positive attitudes toward school is a critical goal that directly
impacts student academic outcomes. This is achieved through students’ perception that
the school environment provides a supportive environment.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 25
The study by Castrechini and London (2010) supports the role of community
partnerships as stakeholders in improving student outcomes. This can be done through
a variety of partnership programs that meet the social, physical, cognitive, and economic
needs of all families. These partnerships are especially impactful in support of students
from low-income families. The weakness in this comprehensive report is the inconsis-
tency that exists in data collection and definitions on a national level to compare and
evaluate academic outcomes across many schools. It is also a weakness in comparing
various academic studies. There is a lack of systematic analysis of how individual
community programs that are designed to improve and support student outcomes come
together for short- and long-term results. There is not a stated plan as to how stake-
holders and multiple community partners can work together in a synergistic way to meet
the needs of students. According to Castrechini and London, community schools are a
strategy and not a program.
What Learning Theories Support Stakeholder Roles in Student
Academic Achievement?
Overlapping spheres of influence (Epstein, 1995) is a key landmark learning
theory and framework that many school districts across the United States use as the
fundamental theory supporting stakeholder partnerships. Epstein’s theory states that
community, parents, and schools influence the growth and development of children. In
many cases, these entities function on their own and have varying and changing impact
at the child’s different ages. However, there is a shared responsibility in key areas of
student learning and development; and the collective interaction and partnerships of
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 26
community, parents, and schools will likely result in more successful student outcomes
in school. “The main reason to create such partnerships is to help all youngsters suc-
ceed in school and in later life” (Epstein, 1995, p. 701).
Epstein (1995) identified six types of family involvement that are frequently
noted in the literature: parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, deci-
sion making, and collaborating with the community. It is this last type, collaborating
with the community, which Epstein (1995) stated involves identifying and integrating
resources, services to strengthen school programs, family practices, student learning,
and development. These collaborations have the capacity to increase student–family
awareness of resources, supplement and support teaching practices, increase awareness
of careers and options for education and work, increase skills, provide an enriched cur-
riculum. Epstein’s (1995) theory and research lacks longitudinal studies and in- depth
empirical studies supporting the effects of individual collaborations or collective collab-
orations. The research also fails to address how various stakeholders impact student
academic performance by age or grade level.
The theory of change behind community schools is based on delivering support
and addressing students’ social, physical, cognitive, and economic needs. The collec-
tive support will aid schools in improving students’ academic outcomes in the long
term. At least 5,000 schools have identified themselves as community schools in deliv-
ering services beyond the walls of the school (Coalition for Community Schools, 2007).
The results-based logic model includes inputs: support and staff, resources, the various
levels of support through family engagement, health services to families, professional
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 27
development for teachers, staff partners; and others. The schools are assessed by Coali-
tion for Community Schools (2007) on both a short-term and long-term basis. The
theory of action impact is that students graduate ready for college, the work force and as
contributing members of society. The Coalition for Community Schools underscores
that the leaders of schools and districts create strategic relationships and partnerships
with various community entities such as businesses, nonprofits, and community groups
to assist in supporting the schools’ goals and initiatives. These initiatives include
instructional rigor, student motivation, services supporting student needs, building
school–family relationships, and community engagement.
The family-centered assessment and intervention model (Trivette, Dunst, Deal,
Hamby, & Sexton, 1994) provided the theoretical framework for a number of family-
based intervention studies that impact a student’s performance at school. The goal of
the model is to enable and empower families to increase their competence and ability to
mobilize resources. In the model, empowerment is defined as the family’s ability to
meet needs and achieve aspirations in a way that suggests that mastery and control over
important parts of family functioning (Dunst, Trivette, & Deal, 1988). The model
consists of four components: (a) family needs and aspirations, (b) family strengths and
capabilities, (c) social supports and resources, and (d) professional help-giving behav-
iors (Dunst et al., 1988; Trivette et al., 1994).
Successful Academic Stakeholder Roles
There is a lack of quality empirical studies covering successful academic stake-
holder roles and their relative effect on student academic outcomes. Sanders and
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 28
Harvey’s (2002) case study on principal leadership for school–community collaboration
underscores the need for an engaged community supporting schools’ enormous aca-
demic challenges. As a result of a study of more than 400 schools, Sanders (2001) iden-
tified the most likely stakeholders to support school improvement. These contributors
to student success included major categories such as (a) business corporations, (b) uni-
versities and educational institutions, (c) faith-based organizations, (d) national service
and volunteer organizations, (e) senior citizen organizations, (f) cultural and recreational
institutions, (g) other community-based organizations, and (h) individuals in the com-
munity. These classifications became the channel for various strategies of activities that
supported student-centered activities, school-centered activities, family-centered activi-
ties, and community-centered activities. The barriers that schools faced included lack of
community partners, lack of teacher participation, and lack of time. In Sanders and
Harvey’s (2002) case study, only a handful of barriers were identified. The study
indicates that understanding these barriers assists in ensuring that newly formed partner-
ships endure and are successful.
Interviews in Sanders and Harvey’s (2002) case study took 1–2 hours to
complete, after which they were recorded and transcribed. The study followed a proto-
col to determine the nature of collaborative partnerships. Parents, principal, community
partners, and students were interviewed. The demographic profile of the subject school
was primarily African American, with 360 students in a K-5 setting. While attendance
was high, the academic profile of the school revealed fewer than 50% of the students as
meeting the state’s satisfactory standard. Future case studies should include a more
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 29
diverse mix of student demographics as well as schools situated in urban settings. There
also is a need for such a study to be inclusive of middle and high school students.
Castrechini and London (2012) reviewed a Redwood City (California) Unified
School District study that examined student outcomes following four pilot schools
within a long-term strategy of building community schools in the district. The number
of students impacted was 3,666 in 2010–2011. Student demographics consisted of 89%
Latino and 5% White; 68% received free or subsidized meals, and 67% were ELLs. The
rest of the Redwood City School schools were 58% Latino and 31% White; 54% re-
ceived Title I subsidized meals, and 38% were ELLs. The partnerships implemented a
plan that focused on quality academic supports as well as family and student resources.
A school community of partnerships emerged at the district level, working with each
principal and community partners. The program’s key questions guiding the research
were how many and which students and parents accessed programs, in what combina-
tions programs were accessed at the community schools, and what the relationship was
between participation in community school services and student outcomes. The
program utilized California Standards Test (CST) math, English Language Arts (ELA),
and the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) to assess student
academic levels. Also utilized were survey data on student motivation and experiences
at school. The 250 programs and events in the school district of the community schools
classified programs according to family engagement, extended learning, and support.
The Redwood City School District study (Castrechini & London, 2012) was not
designed to capture underlying factors affecting students and families that impacted
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 30
student outcomes or decisions to participate in programming. While causality could not
be established, the study isolated the role of community schools from other factors. The
strongest links existed between the family programs in the community and improvement
in English development for ELL students. The students involved showed gains of 12
points (Level I and II, CELDT) compared to students with no family engagement in
these programs over 4 years. Math and ELA improvements were identified as more
difficult to establish. Students with extended learning opportunities were measured at
high confidence levels in their abilities. The study identified that one of its weaknesses
was that it was unable to compare students in certain areas who received services and
those who did not with a high level of reliability. Parental attitude toward school is
another underlying factor impacting establishing causality. The study established that
the students felt supported and that this had a significant effect on their motivation and
confidence. This fact supported the study’s position to establish schools as a hub for
services, including extended learning opportunities. Furthermore, the study indicated
that ELLs, in particular, have much to gain in terms of positive, long-term academic
outcomes.
The Redwood City School District put in place a balanced scorecard to evaluate
and monitor over 350 community meetings, as well as surveys and family focus groups.
The study further identified infrastructure that supported exchange of data and commu-
nication among partners as a critical part of managing and evaluating accountability and
progress toward established goals (Castrechini & London, 2012).
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 31
The Harvard Family Research Project (Harvard Graduate School of Education,
2011) identified a number of stakeholder and community partnerships that support high
school success. In this report, AT&T and the United Way were identified as community
partners who worked with the school district, schools, and parents to support a multi-
year plan to advance academic outcomes. The community partnership was reviewed
each year within the first 4 years of implementation. Targeted issues, including dropout
rates, have improved with a projected 90% of students on track to graduate and fewer
students falling below proficiency levels in reading and writing. Fewer students will
miss 10 or more days per year. The partnerships and strategies utilized are helpful
models in developing successful relationships. The study did not indicate the financial
commitment of the contributing partner or its allocation of resources, such as
manpower, time, and other details of a financial nature. Additionally, the study indi-
cated that the student and school communities impacted had characteristics, assets, and
needs that in this case meshed with the assets of the partner.
The motivational dimension of community schools impacts district and school
policies. Through professional development programs, schools help ensure that teach-
ers and schools put in practice strategies that reinforce student motivation. The motiva-
tion dimension encourages learning and achievement. This aspect, as well as others,
underscores the need to support a centralized policy and viewpoint to prioritize and
meet the needs of students within the district. The position of a united common vision
and use of data is also supported by many studies on collaborative partnerships with
schools, including the study of Blank et al. (2012).
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 32
How Stakeholders Are Mobilized and Monitored
The use of stakeholders has been used to increase student academic and social
assets. Along with parental impact as stakeholders, the community has been shown to
have a role in supporting academic outcomes. Successful integration of stakeholders
requires a thoughtful administration and definition of their role, ongoing communication
and evaluation, and assessment regarding the ongoing resources devoted to these rela-
tionships and programs. Blank et al. (2012) indicated that stakeholders working with
school districts should be aligned with the needs of the district. The challenge that this
study and other studies and literature have identified is the mobilization and alignment
of stakeholders to connect with the needs of school districts and the effective manage-
ment of these processes by the school district.
The literature indicates that either the stakeholder originates the relationship or
the district manages the initial contact. The studies reviewed focused on process,
management, and inputs and outputs impacting student academic outcomes.
The Center for Mental Health in Schools at UCLA (2007) addressed stakeholder
roles and barriers, management issues, and, evaluation processes. The document maps
the systems in place at the school site to identify gaps in support, transitions, attendance
issues, and community outreach. It provides a set of surveys for internal analysis of
assessing the current status and needs of a school site. These surveys combine with
stakeholder communication and data collection as essential elements in evaluating
community programs. Successful stakeholder partnerships require monitoring and
evaluation of stakeholder contributions to optimizing student outcomes.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 33
Conclusion
The literature indicates that stakeholders can play a role impacting the academic
environment and student academic outcomes. The literature emphasizes that there is a
need for strategic use of stakeholders. The literature further indicates that the manage-
ment of the strategy of deploying stakeholders as well as the management of stakeholder
roles are most effective when driven by the district superintendent. The question of
what constitutes a stakeholder, what are the types of effective stakeholder roles, and
how they are mobilized are research questions investigated in this study.
Superintendents of K-12 school districts who establish community stakeholder
partnerships as a district priority with a focused vision and defined goals. These set the
foundation for building a successful, sustainable stakeholder program. Waters and
Marzano (2006) indicated that it is focused superintendent leadership on student
achievement goals established at the school district level that creates the resources and
emphasis for school site success.
The literature and U.S. laws support the need for and importance of community
partnerships utilizing stakeholders to impact student academic achievement. The lit-
erature supports the fact that these partnerships require a centralized vision by the
district with common goals and data collection among the stakeholders. To sustain
these partnerships, it is critical that the superintendent establish stakeholder partnerships
as part of the district culture. It is critical for success that the stakeholder initiative is
visible in superintendent and school district policy actions and in ongoing communica-
tion.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 34
The literature supports the fact that stakeholders’ roles and activities are corre-
lated with student academic success, motivation, and school engagement. In order to
maximize stakeholder capacity to impact student academics, stakeholders are mobilized,
goals are set and monitored, and, partnerships are effectively managed and evaluated.
Gaps in the literature include a lack of longitudinal studies, a lack of research on the
relationship and impact of various stakeholders at various student grade levels, the
details involved in managing relationships during economic and budget uncertainty,
sustainability of partnerships as stakeholder personnel change, and how various stake-
holders might combine to work in a synergistic manner to increase student outcomes.
As schools prepare students for success in college and as skilled members of the
workforce, partnerships have the capacity to enhance student success and performance
(Soares & Steigleder, 2012). Many school districts across the United States are embrac-
ing these types of partnerships as a way to wrap students in community support from
kindergarten to college entry.
In Chapter 3 the methodology for this study is discussed, including the instru-
mentation, types of surveys deployed, the target sample population, and data collection
and analysis.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 35
Chapter 3
Methodology
The purpose of this study was to increase the body of knowledge in K-12 public
education in terms of better understanding of the roles that stakeholders can play in
impacting student academic outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate how
superintendents identify stakeholders, mobilize and determine the capacity of stakehold-
ers, define stakeholders’ roles, monitor their progress, and tie stakeholder efforts to
specific student academic outcomes.
The research questions for the study were as follows:
1. Which stakeholders are valuable assets in efforts to improve student aca-
demic achievement?
2. How are stakeholders best utilized by the superintendent in support of
academic achievement?
3. How do superintendents identify stakeholders?
4. How do superintendents mobilize stakeholders’ involvement with the school
district?
Research Design
The focus of the study was approximately quantitative survey responses from 74
California school district superintendents, along with five in-person interviews with
southern California school district superintendents. The theoretical framework, the
pragmatic paradigm (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Mertens, 2005), helped guide the
research. The pragmatic paradigm places the research problem as central and applies all
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 36
approaches to understanding the problem (Creswell, 2003). With the research question
central, data collection and analysis methods provided insights into the research ques-
tions.
This research study utilized a mixed-method approach that is well accepted
within the scholarly community (Creswell, 2003). The mixed method was selected as
an appropriate design option in that in involves
collecting, analyzing, and mixing both quantitative and qualitative data in a
single study or series of studies. Its central premise is that the use of quantitative
and qualitative approaches in combination provides a better understanding of
research problems than either approach alone. (Creswell, 2003, p. 5)
The inherent advantage of the mixed-method approach is that when combined, the
mixed method yields a more comprehensive viewpoint than analyzing data solely within
the quantitative or qualitative context. Utilizing a web-based online delivery channel
for the quantitative survey permitted economies of scale in reaching a significant sample
of responses within the target population in a timely manner.
Deploying both quantitative and qualitative methods allowed for a richer process
to gain insights into the data. Inasmuch as the qualitative method follows the quantita-
tive method in this study, respondents provided increased information to supplement the
already collected data. This sequence yielded more depth of analysis for the data, the
questions, and the research questions and issues raised in the study.
The purposeful sampling strategy was used to gain further insights from superin-
tendents. The researcher deployed this strategy as a key focus in gaining insights into
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 37
superintendents’ viewpoints concerning the role that stakeholders can play in student
academic achievement. The study utilized a mixed, purposeful sample (Patton, 2002)
that provided for triangulation. Triangulation refers to the use of multiple sources and
methods for collecting data; triangulation sheds light upon common themes found in
different sources and strengthens dependability and credibility (Creswell, 2003) .
Sources of data for triangulation included survey interviews, district data, and the quan-
titative survey.
The time frame for this study May 2012 through May 2013. The study unfolded
with a sequence of two phases. Phase 1 involved the deployment of an online quantita-
tive survey involving 74 active California superintendents of K-12 public school dis-
tricts. Phase 2 involved a qualitative interview survey study involving five K-12 public
school superintendents.
All survey participants involved in quantitative and qualitative surveys and
interviews participated under informed consent conditions and their identity and confi-
dentiality of their responses were protected at all times.
The quantitative standardized survey included both open-ended and closed-
ended questions. The qualitative interview survey approach allowed for in-depth in-
quiry to help in gaining rich insights into the superintendents’ viewpoints, experiences,
and practices with respect to the stakeholders’ role. It also allowed for deeper under-
standing of responses and patterns that emerged from the quantitative survey.
The analysis strategies for the study deployed a blending of a holistic perspective
and an inductive analysis and creative synthesis. According to Patton (2002), the
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 38
holistic perspective allows for a viewpoint that the study is a complex system and is
more than solely the individual parts. There is a focus on how the parts interrelate, and
the study cannot be simply reduced to a few simple variables. The inductive approach
required in-depth analysis of the data. The analysis involved seeking patterns, themes,
and interdependencies. It is an analytic process which utilized a creative synthesis of
the results.
Sample and Population
The purpose of this study was to increase the body of knowledge in K-12 public
education in terms of better understanding of the roles that stakeholders can play in
impacting student academic outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate how
superintendents identify stakeholders, mobilize and determine the capacity of stakehold-
er, define stakeholders’ roles, monitor their progress, and tie stakeholder efforts to
specific student academic outcomes. The appropriate unit of analysis (Patton, 2002)
studied was the district superintendent. Given the limitations of budgets and time for
the quantitative survey study confined its population to current superintendents active in
California. The sample population was drawn from those superintendents with a mini-
mum of 2 years of active experience and who oversaw districts with a minimum of
2,500 K-12 students. The sample population required a mixture of student demograph-
ics with a minimum of 30% minority classification, 10% ELLs, and a minimum of 5%
SWD. Both high and low API scores were considered.
For the qualitative interview, five superintendents were targeted representing a
range of demographics, district size, and API scores utilizing the same metrics as the
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 39
quantitative survey. The five superintendents were selected as a result of snowball or
chain sampling in locating key names who could contribute valuable information to the
study (Patton, 2002).
Instrumentation
This study was organized utilizing a mixed method that was presented in two
stages. In both stages, the focus of the questions addressed the research questions con-
tained in this study. Phase 1 involved an online quantitative survey sent to the sample
population. Phase 2 was represented by the qualitative, in person survey with five
superintendents. Empirical generalizability was not the focus of this study; rather, the
study sought greater insights into the trends, process and patterns that emerged from the
two surveys in response to the survey questions. The online survey was administered
through www.SurveyMonkey.com, and questions were pretested to address issues of
validity and respondent comprehension. Self-reporting has an inherent weakness in that
respondents may choose answers that they feel are most appropriate and not necessarily
the accurate answer. This type of response may be conscious or unconscious on the part
of the participant; thus, answers may be compromised—for example, if the respondent
perceives a survey question as one that involves risk in the form of a possible breach in
confidentiality (Singer, 2003).
Quantitative Stage
The 30 questions for the quantitative Phase 1 survey were developed using a 5-
point Likert scale formatting and structure, following the guidelines established by
Patton (2002). The survey design included open- and closed-ended questions, giving
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 40
consideration to the target population, length of time to respond, clarity of questions,
and bias. The survey was tested by several respondents prior to roll-out.
With respect to validity and reliability, it is noteworthy that a weakness inherent
with self-reporting surveys is the possibility of respondents under or overreporting their
answers. Accuracy in answers cannot be guaranteed (Patton, 2002).
Qualitative Stage
The qualitative stage interview survey took place with five active California
superintendents. They were purposely selected from the respondents participating in the
quantitative survey. The qualitative interviewees represented a range of school districts,
superintendent experience, and student demographics and enrollment. Utilizing the
guidelines of both Creswell (2006) and Patton (2002), the survey’s focus was to gain
greater insights into the responses from the quantitative survey to obtain a fuller under-
standing as to the dynamics of superintendent decision making. All survey questions
focused on a richer understanding as to the superintendents’ viewpoints regarding the
role that stakeholders can play in impacting student achievement as well as the superin-
tendents’ response to the study’s research questions.
Survey interviews utilized a standardized open-ended format. All interviewees
were essentially asked the same questions. This design facilitated comparison and
analysis of responses and data. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Informed
consent forms and details as well as confidentiality policy were distributed to respon-
dents in advance of the interview.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 41
Data Collection
In the study, the quantitative sample population survey respondents were con-
tacted by email and invited to participate in a brief online survey. To facilitate participa-
tion, the email provided a link to the study’s survey at www.SurveyMonkey.com. The
responses from this survey were coded and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Re-
spondents were also invited by email survey question to be interviewed face-to-face for
the qualitative portion of this study. The qualitative interview targeted five active
California superintendents representing a range of student demographics and profiles.
These interviews were conducted during the summer and fall of 2012.
Data Analysis
Analytic statistics were used by deploying Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) software. Various coded descriptive coding of the data allowed for
analysis of the responses from the survey population. The stratification of data allowed
for analysis of the variables by demographic breakdown and open text responses. Given
that this study was not a pure, randomized, controlled study, causation was not a goal;
rather, the study focused on a further understanding as to superintendents’ viewpoints
on stakeholder roles, including response patterns, trends, and correlations, as expressed
by the superintendents’ response data.
For the qualitative interview survey, Patton (2002) guided the analysis. Tran-
scripts of the responses were broken into segments, permitting the identification of
themes, patterns, and various categories. In bringing together qualitative and quantita-
tive dimensions of this study, Patton’s patterns of convergence and divergence allowed
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 42
for interpretation of the data in the comparison dimension. Tuckman’s (1999) work was
also used to help frame the process for organizing the data in categories, assigning
definitions, examination of relationships, and analyzing data for connections and corre-
lations.
Summary
This study focused on superintendents’ viewpoints regarding the roles that
stakeholders can play in impacting student achievement, including shareholder identifi-
cation, mobilization, and how stakeholder contributions might be most meaningful in
meeting the needs of the schools. The methods employed to answer the research ques-
tions permitted the researcher to consider more than one dimension of response in
analyzing the data and seeking a deeper dimension of understanding of superintendents’
responses, processes, decision making, and strategies, as related to this study.
In Chapter 4, a discussion of the findings and analysis of the data are presented
in response to the study’s research questions. Insights gained from the research study
will also be shared.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 43
Chapter 4
Findings
The purpose of this study was to gain insight and understanding from the super-
intendent’s viewpoint as to the role that various stakeholders can play in student aca-
demic and school success. The study utilized a mixed-methods approach. This chapter
reviews the survey data collected from 74 California superintendents as well as the
qualitative data gained from face-to-face interviews with five superintendents. The in-
formation gained from the two methods was analyzed within the context of this disserta-
tion’s four research questions. Within each question, the data were broken down into
thematic patterns and insights.
For the quantitative survey, Survey Monkey was used to facilitate the online
responses from superintendents. Both Creswell (2003) and Patton (2002) helped guide
the coding and analysis of the qualitative data.
Organization of Data Analysis
The focus of the data was the following four research questions:
1. Which stakeholders are valuable assets in efforts to improve student aca-
demic achievement?
2. How are stakeholders best utilized by the superintendent in support of
academic achievement?
3. How do superintendents identify stakeholders?
4. How do superintendents mobilize stakeholder’s involvement with the school
district?
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 44
Descriptive Characteristics of Survey Respondents
This section provides descriptive profiles of the survey respondents and inter-
view participants. The study’s survey was emailed in June 2012 to 400 California
superintendents of districts with a minimum enrollment of 2,500 students in a public
school setting. Ninety-eight responses qualified by district size, for 24.5% response
rate. Filtering the responses further by considering only superintendents with a mini-
mum of 2 years’ experience resulted in 74 eligible survey responses (18.5%). This
group became the active data base of quantitative responses for the study.
The number of years as superintendent with 4 or more years at their current
district was 51 or 69.9%. Superintendents with 2–3 years of service represented the
largest group with 22% of respondents (Figure 1).
School District Community Profile
The type of community setting served by these California districts ranged from
large cities of more than 50,000 to small rural communities (Figure 2). Of the total re-
spondents, 31.5% represented large urban settings with a population greater than
50,000. The remaining superintendents, 53.4%, represented a combination of small
cities, less than 50,000 population, and suburban communities near a large city.
Size and Community Profile of Districts
The superintendents represented a range of district structures that included the
following: unified school districts serving K-12, elementary K-8, and high school ninth
to 12th grades. The student enrollment within the districts ranged from 2,500 to greater
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 45
Figure 1. Superintendents’ years of service in current school district (N = 74)
Figure 2. Type of community of surveyed school districts
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 46
than 40,000 (Table 1). The majority of respondents (70.3%) represented districts of
2,500 to 10,000. Five superintendents (6.8%) represented districts with student enroll-
ments ranging from 25,000 to greater than 40,000.
Superintendents’ View of Stakeholders as a School Board Priority
Superintendents were surveyed as to their view of the importance of stake-
holders as a school board priority in impacting student academic achievement. The
largest response was 58.1% of superintendents who selected important priority (Table
2). Another 23% considered this a somewhat important priority. Thus, 81.1% of super-
intendents rated the importance of stakeholders as either somewhat of a priority or an
important priority with their respective school boards.
Interviewed Superintendents’ Demographics
Five superintendents were interviewed at their district offices during the months
of June and July in 2012. All five were White and more than 50 years of age. Each of
the superintendents had served previously in another California school district prior to
this current assignment. All of the superintendents had a minimum of 2 years at their
current position (Table 3).
Findings by Research Question
Research Question 1
Which stakeholders are valuable assets in efforts to improve student academic
achievement? The first research question required survey respondents and interviewed
subjects to assess which stakeholders provided valuable assets in improving student
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 47
Table 1
Surveyed School Districts by Size and How Many Years Superintendents Had Served
2 – 3 4 – 5 6 – 9 O v er 9
y r s. y r s. y r s. y r s. T o tals
_________ ________ ________ ________ ________
Size n % n % n % n % n %
Less than 2,500 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
2,500 to 5,000 8 34.8 6 35.3 11 55.0 6 42.9 31 41.9
5,001 to 10,000 9 39.1 5 29.4 3 15.0 4 25.6 21 28.4
10,001 to 15,000 0 0.0 4 23.5 1 5.0 4 28.6 9 12.2
15,001 to 25,000 3 13.0 1 5.9 4 20.0 0 0.0 8 10.8
25,001 to 40,000 2 8.7 1 5.9 1 5.0 0 0.0 4 5.4
40,001 or more 1 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.4
Answered question 23 17 20 14 74
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 48
Table 2
Superintendents’ View of Stakeholders as a School Board Priority, by Years of Service
2 – 3 4 – 5 6 – 9 O v er 9
y r s. y r s. y r s. y r s. Totals
_______ _______ _______ _______ _______
Priority n % n % n % n % n %
Important 12 52.2 8 47.1 15 75.0 8 57.1 43 58.1
Somewhat important 6 26.1 4 23.5 3 15.0 4 28.6 17 23.0
Average 4 17.4 4 23.5 2 10.0 2 14.3 12 16.2
Less than average 0 0.0 1 5.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.4
Not a priority 1 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.4
Answered questions 23 17 20 14 74
Table 3
Demographic Summary of Superintendents Interviewed (n = 5)
Years in District
Superintendent position Gender Age population
A 2 female 50+ 10,000
B 6 male 60+ 56,000
C 2 female 50+ 5,000
D 3 male 50+ 22,000
E 5 female 50+ 27,000
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 49
academic achievement. Respondents were permitted to rate each of nine types of
stakeholders (Table 4). An open-ended comment box permitted additional input.
Superintendents rated parents as the most valuable stakeholders (95.9%), followed by
volunteers (87.8%), community organizations (71.8%), and chambers of commerce and
local businesses (58.1%). The lowest rated stakeholder categories impacting student
academic achievement were faith-based groups (32.4%) and neighborhood groups
(17.6%).
Cash contributions by stakeholders in the district. In response to the current
total annual cash contributions by all stakeholders in the district resulted in 42.4%
reporting cash contributions ranging from $50,000 to $250,000 (Figure 3). Another
24.2% of superintendents reported stakeholder revenues of $250,000 to $500,000. At
the highest levels of revenues, 0.3% reported in excess of $5,000,000. Most districts
generated less than $750,000 (89.4%). The revenues generated were similar regardless
of the number of years that the current superintendent had been at that district.
Stakeholders that can do more to support student outcomes. Superinten-
dents responded to the survey question as to which stakeholder categories could do
more, in the superintendent’s judgment, in terms of impacting student academic
achievement. Superintendents estimated that 70.4% of parents could do more on behalf
of the students, followed by community clubs and organizations at 60.6%. Two other
categories near the 50% response rate by superintendents were volunteers at 52.1% and
chambers of commerce and businesses at 49.3% (Table 5).
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 50
Table 4
Stakeholders Providing Assets to Improve Student Achievement, by Superintendents’
Years of Service in Current Position
2 – 3 4 – 5 6 – 9 O v er 9
y r s. y r s. y r s. y r s. Totals
______ _______ ______ _______ _______
Valuable assets n % n % n % n % n %
Parents 21 91.3 17 100.0 19 95.0 14 100.0 71 95.9
Chamber of Commerce and
local businesses 14 60.9 10 58.8 11 55.0 8 57.1 43 58.1
Volunteers 21 91.3 14 82.4 18 90.0 12 85.7 65 87.8
Alumni 8 28.1 8 47.1 6 30.0 3 21.4 23 31.1
Government agencies 15 65.2 8 47.1 11 55.0 4 28.6 38 51.4
Community organizations 18 78.3 11 84.7 14 70.0 10 71.4 53 71.8
Religious/faith organiza-
tions 7 30.4 7 41.2 6 30.0 4 28.5 24 32.4
Neighborhood groups 5 21.7 2 11.8 4 20.0 2 14.3 13 17.6
Retirees 8 34.8 7 41.2 9 45.0 6 42.9 30 40.5
Other (specify) 5 3 6 0 14
Answered question 23 17 20 14 74
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 51
Figure 3. Annual stakeholder-generated cash revenues
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 52
Table 5
Respondents’ Rating of Stakeholders’ Capacity to Contribute at Higher Than Current
Level, by Years of Service in Current Superintendent Position
2–3 4–5 6–9 More than Response Response
Stakeholder group yrs. yrs. yrs. 9 yrs. count %
Parents 14 11 14 11 50 70.4
Chamber of commerce,
local businesses 10 9 9 7 35 49.3
Government agencies 8 7 8 4 27 38.0
Community organiza-
tions 12 10 12 9 43 60.6
Alumni 7 7 7 4 25 35.2
Neighborhood groups 4 6 7 5 22 31.0
Volunteers 7 9 11 10 37 52.1
Religious groups 4 7 10 6 27 38.0
None 2 1 1 0 4 5.6
Other 0 0 3 0 3 4.2
Answered question 71 96.0
Skipped question 3 4.0
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 53
Rating of stakeholder impact. Superintendents rated the level of impact of
stakeholders on student academic achievement with survey choices ranging from has
very little impact to has some impact, has above average impact and has high level of
impact (Figure 4). Superintendents were given the opportunity to rate each stakeholder.
a rating of 4. Parents were ranked second (3.66) with respect to having a high level of
impact. The impact rating for the next three categories were as follows: peers, 3.1;
school staff other than teachers, 3.02; and volunteers, 2.64.
Combining the high impact category with the rating category of above average
impact resulted in all of these stakeholders exceeding 50% in impact and creating the
following top six stakeholder impact categories: teachers, parents, school staff other
Figure 4. Superintendents’ impact rating of stakeholders
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 54
than teachers, peers, volunteers, and higher education. At the bottom range of impact
stakeholders from the superintendents’ viewpoint were the following: neighborhood
groups, alumni, faith-based organizations, and volunteers. The impact rating by respon-
dents remained consistent regardless of the number of years the superintendent had been
employed by the district.
Qualitative responses to research question 1. From the qualitative research,
all five superintendents identified parents and community as key stakeholders in support
of student academic outcomes. Comments from superintendents included the following
in support of parents and community:
Parents is my first one. . . . It’s been a strong emphasis to me and I’ve added
them to the [school] site strategic plans . . . a focus on parental community
involvement . . .
One of the highest priorities . . . one of five district goals . . . what they give to
the kids at home in support learning as well as what they do collectively to
support schools.
Nonprofits in town are important, offering academic skills . . . The district sup-
port is from the parents that have kids in school, but we also have incredible
support [from the community].
Analysis of quantitative and qualitative responses to research question 1.
The consensus of the superintendents responding to the quantitative survey and partici-
pating in the qualitative interviews was that parents are the most important stakeholders
who can impact student academic achievement. The degree of parent impact followed a
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 55
pattern of superintendent responses that viewed parental involvement through the lens
of how the parent interacts or whether the parent becomes involved with the school
district. Superintendents, citing socioeconomic factors, indicated that this involvement
varied from community to community. Superintendents representing wealthier commu-
nities commented on the high level of involvement of parents and the fact that these
parents were instrumental in driving foundations and other initiatives that benefitted
student outcomes. One superintendent observed that many areas with high-SES parents
had the time, motivation, and skill sets to assist the school district in many ways. In
contrast, in districts serving large areas of low-income students and where parents also
had language issues and less formal education, the participation by parents was much
lower, according to the superintendents. The pattern that emerged from the interviewed
superintendents was a discernable gap in parent participation. These parents had been
described as having difficulty in feeling that they fit in and feeling welcome. Often,
superintendents remarked that the parents expressed that their own academic skill sets
were insufficient to support the student in school.
The role of community, businesses, nonprofits, and volunteers also ranked high
among surveyed superintendents and those who were interviewed. In the business
sector, the pattern that emerged was that the business role was typically driven and
determined by the company. These types of stakeholders frequently have a very specific
way in which they wish to contribute their time, money, or other resources. In most
cases, superintendents indicated that the district could not steer the contributions to
address the greatest needs of the schools and district. The other pattern that emerged
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 56
was that most stakeholder initiatives were driven at the school site level. It is at that
level where most stakeholders experienced the need for a connection and wished to get
involved. Often, this connection was based on a current student attending the school or
a business initiative to get involved with schools on a local basis. In comparison to
school site stakeholder involvement, there was much less district-wide stakeholder
support. The district did not typically drive the stakeholder revenues and contributions
that were much more likely impacted by a direct connection to the school site.
Another pattern that emerged was that most superintendents expressed that
within a number of stakeholder categories there was room for improvement. Even
among those who were contributing at the highest level, superintendents indicated that
the stakeholder had the capacity to do more on behalf of student academic outcomes.
Interviewed superintendents acknowledged that in their positions they played a powerful
role in publicly connecting business stakeholders to the school site. However, despite
the importance of the superintendent’s role, there tended to be little structured profes-
sional development, sharing of best practices, or guidance as to how school sites can
grow the number of stakeholders or the size of stakeholder contributions for the better-
ment of all school sites. Interviewed superintendents indicated little expansion of
successful stakeholder activities at one school site to benefit other schools sites or on
behalf of the entire school district. There exists district endorsement of these partner-
ships, but little in the form of formal strategies to cultivate stakeholders to meet school
needs.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 57
Research Question 2
How are stakeholders best utilized by the superintendent in support of student
academic achievement? Superintendents indicated that school tutoring is a highly
valued role for stakeholders in supporting student academic outcomes. Parents (84%)
and volunteers (72%) were identified at the highest level of utilization of support of this
important student outcome (Figure 5).
In terms of current use of stakeholders, the best support roles for stakeholders as
determined by the surveyed superintendents were areas of drama-music-band-choir
(82.4%) and student academic outcomes (81.2%). Tied at 65.9% for best utilization of
Figure 5. Superintendents’ use of stakeholders
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 58
stakeholders were the following: supporting school clubs and increasing student service
in the community. Creating job readiness and skills ranked next at 51.8% (Figure 5).
In response to the question of how stakeholders were best utilized to support
student academic achievement and to describe the ideal role, the superintendents were
presented with an open-ended response area within the quantitative online survey. The
ideal roles for parents centered on volunteering time at school and supporting students at
home. For the category of chambers of commerce and businesses, surveyed
superintendents identified the following areas for best utilization of stakeholders:
serving as tutors, providing money and grants, donations, supporting district initiatives,
job shadowing, career presentations, and “adopting” a school.
In the stakeholder category of clubs and organizations, superintendents identi-
fied the stakeholder support of literacy initiatives, the stakeholder’s time, donations, and
scholarship contributions. One superintendent identified the components of an ideal
role by the Rotary Club, whose efforts had multiple dimensions in support of a range of
grades ranging from K to 12, as follows:
[Their role includes the] Third Grade Dictionary Project, Rolling Readers book
giveaway for three high poverty schools (K-3), Rotary awards for all local K-8
schools for outstanding student achievement, Service Above Self—annual fifth-
grade writing contest, fiscal support of our Community Day School Students,
[and] Operation School Bell provides new clothes and school supplies to home-
less and needy students (K-12).
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 59
Another important stakeholder role was identified by a superintendent who commented
on retirees as “a great group of unrealized potential. They have so much to offer in sup-
porting academic achievement through the tutorial centers and help desks.”
The ideal roles for volunteers were identified by a superintendent were as fol-
lows:
[We have] many volunteers on all campuses on a daily basis, facilitated by the
site parent liaisons. They are utilized to prepare classroom materials, serve as art
docents in the classrooms, assist with the “Safe Walk” program at six schools
(. . . school safety), PTA [Parent-Teacher Association], Foundation events,
canned food drives, other school-based community service projects.
Faith-based groups represented another stakeholder whose role for one superin-
tendent delivered student benefits on a number of levels:
Emmanuel Faith’s annual “Saving Our Neighbor Day” in which 200–300
church members work in unison with our facilities and maintenance staff to
“spruce up” three to four of our schools . . . everything from washing windows,
painting, weeding planter boxes, updating a school library, resurfacing a baseball
field . . . Other local churches also donate in-kind services at times to the school
district. Another church has provided four ESL [English as a second language]
instructors to a school for this entire year . . . so that parents of our English
learners can learn English. The parents (in four different ability groups) are
there at the school each and every day, as are the voluntary English teachers.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 60
Qualitative results for research question 2. In political bond issues, stake-
holders’ roles have been identified as a very important strategy to impact the final voting
on the bond. According to one superintendent, one district had placed its staff in com-
munity nonprofits “trying to make friends with the political folks.”
Community groups have been utilized to provide support and enrichment to
impact academic outcomes. One superintendent shared the following:
. . . community groups that provide tutoring and summer enrichment for Benson
Elementary School. . . . they work with the principal and teachers to identify
students, communicate with families, offer the services, and then kind of manage
that communication line between the kids, church members, and the families. . .
. the academic achievement at Benson from the time that’s been in place has
been positively effective.
Another superintendent identified a stakeholder role that benefitted parents:
I think any time you can involve the parents in their child’s education so they
better understand that’s a good one. We had a partnership with PK, Parent
Institute for Quality Education this year. They’re so valued. They have an
agreement with Cal State University that if the parent graduates from their
institute, then any of their children that meet the entrance requirements to CSU
have a guaranteed spot and the parents actually get a diploma.
Many parents told me, “I didn’t know. I didn’t know how to calculate a
GPA. I didn’t know about the UC [University of California] requirements. I
didn’t know what I was supposed to be doing.” They’re so proud and they
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 61
actually recommend that they frame their little diploma and put a little nail in the
wall awaiting the college diploma of their child.
Another superintendent identified an outstanding example of a stakeholder role
through the PTA:
It’s our PTA. It’s the traditional PTA. Now, you know what kind community
I’m serving, but our PTA organization is just absolutely phenomenal. It donated
$3 million in cash just this past school year. I think it was $3.2 [million], and
that was to specialized programs that it supports, but it has a structure and an
organization and a hierarchy that mirrors any sophisticated corporation.
So they have their individual units at the sites: president, vice president,
etc.—but they have liaisons to the district as well. And so you have this incredi-
ble district organization that meets once a month downstairs. They have all
these subgroups. Like they have a legislative action subgroup that has 57 people
on it. They are a presence in Sacramento. They know legislation backwards and
forwards. If they call a legislator, they will get an appointment. So in other
words, it’s advocacy with structure and brains and time that is just phenomenal.
One superintendent reflecting on the neighborhood group stakeholder role
shared that “some apartment neighborhood groups have organized tutoring support
within their apartment complexes, and sometimes faith-based groups provide the
assistance.” Other superintendents referred to tutoring and volunteering contributions.
In the area of higher education as a stakeholder, one superintendent described
the multifaceted nature of the role of higher education in his district as follows:
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 62
We have student teaching agreements with all of the local universities. They
also work with us on common research done via dissertation projects through a
joint UCSD [University of California at San Diego]/CSU San Marcos EdD
Program. Currently we are one of several school districts participating in a USC
grant for students with parents in the military. CSU-San Marcos has done a
great and ongoing outreach with our students for their guaranteed student admis-
sion program. Have a pretty close relationship with the Dean of Education,
CSU-San Marcos, and the university president.
Analysis of quantitative and qualitative data for research question 2. The
pattern that emerged from the quantitative and qualitative study was the general agree-
ment that one of the most important roles for stakeholders was to contribute to student
outcomes focused on tutoring support. Many different types of stakeholders were
serving in this role from parents, volunteers, neighborhood groups, and faith-based
groups. The business sector had also supported these programs through financial
contributions. Beyond academic support, the arts programming such as music, band,
drama, and athletics represented areas of strong stakeholder support.
Another pattern that emerged was the broad spectrum of involvement of stake-
holders to support students on many levels, including supporting students at an aca-
demic level, a social service dimension, and with respect to career readiness. Of note is
that superintendents acknowledged that these multidimensional examples of stakeholder
roles were not used as a model for the district. The superintendents agreed that most
roles were self-constructed according to the stakeholder’s interest. Additionally, there
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 63
was little evidence that these outstanding models and roles were not formally replicated,
grown, or used as best practice for other schools to emulate.
Research Question 3
How do superintendents identify stakeholders? Of the total respondents, 74.7%
indicated that stakeholders were identified as they volunteered services. Respondents
indicated that this activity was typically associated with an area that interested the
stakeholder rather than meeting a targeted need of the district.
The number of stakeholders in a district varied. The data indicated that 77% of
the districts had 40 or fewer stakeholders. At the highest level, 12 districts (15%) had
100 or more stakeholders.
One superintendent deployed a number of channels and outreach methods to
identify potential stakeholders, described as follows:
Typically the most active stakeholders tend to be self-selected and grown by
school sites. However on a district level, superintendent communications to
parents and the broader community through “School News” and to employees
through the [company] serve as ways to promote the school district and keep
stakeholders well informed. Another strength that serves to harness interested
stakeholders is the active involvement from all five board members in school
and community-wide events.
A strong culture built over the years has led to extensive community
involvement and ongoing support. Service clubs are very good at informally
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 64
“prescreening” appropriate volunteers who are always supervised by a teacher.
Many are former educators.
As superintendent, I have several parent/community advisory groups that
I meet with monthly. I have created a list serve and added email addresses to
communicate weekly with all possible.
We have developed parent centers at each site which allows a location
for parents and other volunteer groups to meet and plan. Our schools and staff
are open and approachable.
We have an established collaborative that brings a variety of social
service organizations together to support the needs of the community in a com-
prehensive manner. We also have several community service organizations that
have been very active in supporting student programs, including a uniform and
eyeglass program for needy students, a distinguished scholarship award, among
others.
Additionally, this same superintendent felt that community relations was a priority area
and attended to it as much as possible:
We also hired a Community Relations Liaison to assist with this. Our strength is
in our community. Community Groups, such as the “Y” and other youth support
organizations are aligned with the academic interests of the district: increasing
student achievement, especially among English learners and low-SES students
and enhancing student safety through efforts to reduce bullying and gang activ-
ity.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 65
We are a small community so everyone is connected to each other. Cabi-
net and I belong to local service clubs, so that increases involvement. Our
Alumni Association is very strong.
We have many folks who want to help our students. We solicit volun-
teers from the outset of student registration. Cabinet members are active in
service clubs, chambers, etc., to identify potential sources of assistance for the
schools.
Others commented on the lack of formality or passive effort. One example was
the following:
The district has never utilized stakeholders effectively. We don’t even need to
identify the stakeholders—they reach out to the district themselves.
Superintendent-ranked needs of school districts. The superintendents ranked
the needs of the school district where stakeholder partnerships were needed, based on a
5-point Likert scale as follows: very high need, above average need, average need, some
need, and no need. The ranking yielded the following: academic achievement at 3.83,
English learners at 3.79, gifted at 3.48, and special education at 3.38 (Table 6). The
issue of how needs were addressed is discussed in the analysis of quantitative and
qualitative surveys section.
Qualitative results for research question 3. The in-depth qualitative inter-
views yielded a number of responses concerning processes for identifying stakeholders
and the subsequent steps taken to communicate with them. One superintendent com-
mented that every point of contact was added to the database:
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 66
Table 6
Superintendents’ Ranked Needs of School District Where Stakeholder Partnerships
Could Assist (N = 74)
Rating
Answer options average
Technology 3.85
Academic improvement 3.83
English language learners 3.79
Special education 3.48
Social skills (e.g., tolerance, conflict resolution, bullying) 3.46
School staff professional development (e.g., communication, collaboration) 3.41
Gifted 3.38
School safety 3.37
Health 3.32
College support 3.29
Job internships 3.25
Teacher professional development 3.19
Community service 3.14
Vocational/trade support 2.86
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 67
Every time I get a parent complaint or an e-mail, I add their e-mail to my list. So
I think it takes a lot of reach out. A lot more parents are passively involved than
they are actively involved. We’ll hear from them when there’s a problem, and
even then sometimes they’re hesitant to speak up.
Superintendents also commented on the impact of school boards as both en-
hancements and barriers to stakeholder processes, such as the following example:
I think we’ve tried to rely too much on internal teachers and support staff and not
even tapped into our parents in our foundation or local businesses to support.
Part of it is we don’t have the right board, and I’ve known that since I got here,
but there’s only so many things you can take on and politically it would be diffi-
cult to change.
Analysis of quantitative and qualitative data for research question 3. The
process of identification of stakeholders fell into two patterns: proactive efforts on
behalf of the school or district and those stakeholders who were identified as they
emerged on their own. The proactive efforts trend fell into two patterns: identification
efforts by the superintendent and identification efforts by the school site. Facilitating
the identification process included the following patterns: a strong culture of community
involvement with the schools that accelerated stakeholder involvement and a desire to
be involved with the schools. This point was emphasized by the in-depth qualitative
interviews with superintendents.
Another pattern that emerged from the quantitative and qualitative surveys was
in the area of superintendent-identified needs on behalf of the district. While
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 68
superintendents could identify a hierarchy of needs for their district, there were few
activities that actively identified prime target stakeholders to meet those needs. These
activities or media-driven channels communicated getting involved with the school
district but not how to meet the range of school needs.
All superintendents ranked parents as the number one stakeholder for impact on
student academic performance outcomes. Many activities were focused on bringing
parents together at the school site or through district efforts so that they could contribute
in various ways to student outcomes. The superintendents interviewed identified the
barrier pattern that existed in low-SES areas and with parents who did not speak English
fluently. As a result, parents in these categories were less likely to be involved in sup-
porting students at the school site or at the district level.
The nature of stakeholder financial or business involvement, as indicated by
quantitative and qualitative surveys, was generally self-directed by the stakeholder and
generally was not shaped or nurtured to address the higher priority needs of the district.
Several interviewed superintendents indicated that stakeholders who were making
significant contributions could not be steered to embrace alternative or multiple uses for
their financial contributions.
The other pattern that emerged was that school superintendents recognized the
importance of stakeholders and their contributions. Both quantitative and qualitative
surveys supported examples of valuable contributions to advance student outcomes.
However, few respondents had established an infrastructure to proactively identify,
nurture, and replicate stakeholder involvement.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 69
Research Question 4
How do superintendents mobilize stakeholders’ involvement with the school
district? In the quantitative surveys, superintendents referenced their face-to-face inter-
actions with stakeholders in the course of the day as a means of mobilizing the commu-
nity to be aware of school district activities and initiatives. In a number of cases, this
face-to-face interaction was cited as an important means of mobilizing stakeholders to
become involved with the school site or school district. Superintendent communication
channels and interactions might take place in structured meetings, gatherings on and off
campus, and through collected e-mails and the school district Website.
Superintendent communication frequency with stakeholders. In response to
the frequency of communication with stakeholders, there was variation in the frequency
with which the surveyed superintendents connected with stakeholders. Parents were
communicated with at least monthly by 50% of the respondents, and 22% communi-
cated on a weekly basis. Clubs and organizations received communication monthly by
43% of the superintendents, followed by the chamber of commerce/business sector with
a monthly communication frequency of 42%.
In terms of stakeholders who were communicated infrequently or not at all, 52%
of respondents indicated that alumni were not communicated with on any basis. Addi-
tionally, respondents indicated that 25.8% of religious and faith groups and 22% of
neighborhood groups received no communication from superintendents (Table 7).
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 70
Table 7
Frequency of Respondents’ Communication With Stakeholders, by Number of Years in
Current Position as Superintendent (N = 74)
Over 9 Response
Answer options 2–3 yrs. 4–5 yrs. 6–9 yrs. yrs. count
Parents
Weekly 5 4 8 5 22
Monthly 11 7 6 4 28
5 times per year 5 5 4 4 18
1–2 times per year 2 1 2 1 6
Not at all 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 23 17 20 14 74
Chamber of Commerce, Businesses
Weekly 2 2 3 0 7
Monthly 14 4 11 6 35
5 times per year 3 4 2 3 12
1–2 times per year 4 5 2 4 15
Not at all 0 0 0 1 1
Totals 23 15 18 14 70
Alumni
Weekly 1 3 1 1 6
Monthly 2 0 0 1 3
5 times per year 3 2 3 1 9
1–2 times per year 4 4 4 2 14
Not at all 12 6 9 9 36
Totals 22 15 17 14 68
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 71
Table 7 (continued)
Over 9 Response
Answer options 2–3 yrs. 4–5 yrs. 6–9 yrs. yrs. count
Neighborhood groups
Weekly 0 1 2 1 4
Monthly 2 4 3 2 11
5 times per year 8 1 7 3 19
1–2 times per year 8 6 4 5 23
Not at all 3 4 3 3 13
Totals 21 16 19 14 70
Volunteers
Weekly 2 3 3 3 11
Monthly 5 5 7 4 21
5 times per year 5 5 1 1 12
1–2 times per year 7 2 3 5 17
Not at all 3 1 3 1 8
Totals 22 16 17 14 69
Government agencies
Weekly 2 3 3 1 9
Monthly 10 6 9 4 29
5 times per year 8 4 4 3 19
1–2 times per year 3 2 3 4 12
Not at all 0 0 1 2 3
Totals 23 15 20 14 72
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 72
Table 7 (continued)
Over 9 Response
Answer options 2–3 yrs. 4–5 yrs. 6–9 yrs. yrs. count
Clubs and organizations
Weekly 7 5 5 2 19
Monthly 8 5 7 4 24
5 times per year 6 3 3 4 16
1–2 times per year 1 3 3 4 11
Not at all 1 0 1 0 2
Totals 23 16 19 14 72
Religious or faith groups
Weekly 0 0 1 0 1
Monthly 2 3 2 3 10
5 times per year 2 3 3 2 10
1–2 times per year 14 7 8 4 33
Not at all 5 3 5 5 18
Totals 23 16 19 14 72
Barriers impacting mobilization. Surveyed superintendents also responded to
the barriers that impacted mobilization of stakeholders to become involved with the
district. These included lack of budget for position (86.6%) and lack of district exper-
tise (30.5%).
Open-ended responses from surveyed superintendents on the issue of barriers
included the following structural and budgetary comments impacting stakeholder
mobilization:
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 73
The biggest weakness is simply managing the logistics of all the contacts, volun-
teers, and meaningful participation. We lack the district staff and financial
resources to coordinate stakeholder services to the best advantage.
With all of the budget cuts and our very lean administrative structure, it is some-
times difficult to find the time and resources necessary to coordinate with our
stakeholders.
We no longer have a community liaison position at each school. These positions
were eliminated as part of a layoff, which means that there is no one at the
school site who is responsible for formally reaching out to parents and the com-
munity.
We have little time and/or money for positions to make pursuing stakeholders a
priority. In this environment, we are just trying to keep whatever programs we
can. Cuts have been to the bone, and that leaves little personnel or money to do
anything more.
There needs to be a formal outreach to identify and utilize stakeholders. Our
Website has been renovated to better present the district and interest stake-
holders. There is a superficial knowledge that stakeholders could assist, but it
has never been part of the culture. It’s unfortunate.
A number of superintendents identified barriers in reaching out and connecting
with non-English speaking stakeholders in attempts to increase parental involvement:
There is a need to reach out more to the parents and community that is reluctant
to get involved, such as parents of English learners.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 74
The majority of our parents do not have Internet access, and many speak another
language. Many work several jobs and have limited personal time.
A large number of our parents are Spanish speaking and do not feel comfortable
helping in the schools in an academic role. Our college-educated numbers are
low, as are most areas in Riverside County—again, leaving most folks feeling
inadequate to work in classrooms supporting students.
A number of superintendents identified a lack of capacity and structured plans to
pursue stakeholders:
We do not identify areas where we are in need of help and then reach out to
groups that could help. We traditionally wait until they volunteer—we could be
much better in this area.
The fact that there are seven separate communities can be a weakness because it
is hard to coordinate and communicate with seven chambers, police depart-
ments, city managers, etc.
Improving capacity to mobilize stakeholders at the district level. Superin-
tendents offered a number of thoughts about increasing school district effectiveness and
reach in terms of mobilizing stakeholders’ involvement at the district and school site
levels:
I believe the personal contact with the superintendent is my best way of mobiliz-
ing. They have to know I want their input and are honored when I reach out to
them. They want to have chances to be heard and not just be given information.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 75
We have made this a goal of our strategic plan. The idea is to find creative ways
to maintain effective methods to reach out to parents and other community
resources.
We do what we call 2x2 meetings with several of our more active communities
and the local community college, where two board members from each entity
and the CEOs [chief executive officers] meet about 4 times a year to work
together. Expanding this concept to all of our cities, local community clubs,
etc., would be beneficial.
Create a district- and school-based priority on communication and outreach.
Monitor this on a regular basis and celebrate the success.
Qualitative survey: Stakeholder mobilization (research question 4). Super-
intendents who were interviewed face-to-face indicated that superintendent visibility in
the community is key to enlisting and mobilizing stakeholders:
It’s critical that the superintendent be visible and approachable. The real work
of the superintendent often starts after 5:00 with their attendance at a variety of
school and community events.
I, for example, serve on several boards—the YMCA board, the United Way
board, several health agency boards—and so stay in tune that way. . . . volun-
teers, retirees, and alumnus—. . . those connections are made at the individual
school site level, and the Chamber and local businesses—it’s kind of a Cabinet
responsibility.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 76
If it’s not global district-wide, the school sites would typically do that, and they
have their own networks and their own contacts . . . Even though we encompass
a large area, it’s very small town feeling, and so there are a lot of personal con-
nections, and that occurs at the school site, if there’s a specific need.
Every time we bring a group of people together, we collect their phone number
and e-mail address. So these are our universe of volunteers, the people who are
highly motivated about technology. So when we have an area that we know that
we’re going to need to mobilize, that’s the strategy we use is create as many
face-to-face opportunities as we can to tell the story, because it’s so much easier
to make that connection in person than it is through media.
. . . parents not feeling welcome. I think one of the big issues in our district is I
really feel that we haven’t been real welcoming in a lot of ways and encourage
parental involvement, and I’ve done customer service training for all of our front
office staff.
I think sometimes some of our own employees look down on the way the parents
look or dress or speak and don’t treat them with the kind of respect that they
deserve as human being and parents. So we really have worked hard on that. In
spite of the level of donations and support and involvement that you see in all of
our schools, there still are a couple of subgroups of families that are on the fringe
of all that and maybe to some extent a little intimidated by it, and those groups
are special education parents and their children . . . and then the children and
parents that are English learners. And what we really have focused on for the
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 77
past 2 years here is to really improve instructional practices for those kids be-
cause we know that those same strategies will improve and even raise
achievement for every other kid.
. . . it’s amazing what we’ve been able to do by really reaching out to those sub-
groups of parents, sharing the data with them but then also telling them that we
have a remedy. You know, it’s not just like hitting them over the head with
something negative. We’re explaining the approach that we’re going to use to
improve conditions for their kids, and the scores have gone up each year, and
I’m hoping that this year they’re going to be even more dramatic increase with
that subgroup data because as high achieving as we are—the API score is 880 or
something for the district—we’re still the program improvement school district
because of those subscores.
If you’re going to bring people in to actually do something interacting with kids,
well, you want to train them. You want to monitor them. It takes somebody
paying attention to it. So there’s really no such thing as a free—have stake-
holders come and do something for you that doesn’t cost you time and money.
So I don’t think that means you shouldn’t do it. I just think you can’t underesti-
mate the staff time that it takes to do it well.
The donor wants a direct impact on their own child. We have like three or four
schools that are—out of all of the 56, we have three or four that are predomi-
nantly Latino. And to the extent that those parents are able to donate time and
volunteer, they do and they’re wonderful, but you don’t get the same level of
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 78
fiscal donation that you do in the more affluent neighborhoods. And to try and
integrate those schools more, over the last 2 years we’ve created immersion lan-
guage programs in Spanish and Mandarin, so that we have more fluent English
speakers integrated into those campuses and that’s having an impact. That’s
having a minor impact but we begin to see more parent involvement and more
integrated parent involvement, which is pretty neat.
Analysis of quantitative and qualitative responses to research question 4,
mobilization. A consistent pattern that emerged from the quantitative and qualitative
responses to mobilization was the barrier of limited resources. The lack of resources
hindered districts from fully dedicating personnel to identifying and mobilizing stake-
holders despite important district needs. There were varying levels of effectiveness by
superintendents in mobilizing large number of stakeholders to address gaps in support
and student services.
Superintendents were utilizing databases for e-mail communication to help
mobilize stakeholders. Superintendents were actively trying to mobilize stakeholders
through their own face-to-face interactions at community group and civic meetings
during the course of being a superintendent. However, the emerging patterns was that
superintendents had positioned stakeholder involvement as a district concern but ulti-
mately the responsibility of the school site as the entity best suited to nurture and mobi-
lize stakeholders. While superintendents indicated that they were communicating with
various stakeholders, ranging from weekly and monthly to once or twice per year, a
pattern emerged in that the needs of the school and how various stakeholders could get
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 79
involved to meet those needs was not a prominent part of their message and frequently
was not expressed at all.
Structural and budgetary issues have been a frequent pattern or barrier to mobi-
lizing stakeholders. In-depth discussions during the qualitative interviews revealed that
boards would not likely approve a full-time position, even if the position brought in new
incremental dollars. Additional barriers to mobilization emerged from non-English-
speaking parents, whom a number of the superintendents indicated did not feel comfort-
able or welcome in participating at the school, or they lacked the academic skill sets to
support their students.
Final Analysis
In summary, findings from the surveyed superintendents and information from
the face-to-face interviews with five superintendents were triangulated with data to seek
patterns and trends from responses to the four research questions. The quantitative
responses provided a range of understanding to the essential questions, while the quali-
tative research presented a depth of understanding in addressing the four research
questions.
For the quantitative data, analysis of variance and correlations were used to
analyze the responses in examining length of service and size of district. The coded
qualitative data enhanced overall understanding as to superintendents’ insights and
details behind their responses regarding stakeholder roles, identification, and mobiliza-
tion.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 80
The next chapter will review the study’s purpose and methodology as well as the
most prominent findings. Finally, suggestions for future studies will be presented to add
to the body of research on use of stakeholders to advance student academic achieve-
ment.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 81
Chapter 5
Summary, Implications, and Conclusions
Summary
The current legal and political pressures to improve student academic outcomes
throughout the United States are unparalleled in the history of public education. Legis-
lative mandates such as NCLB require annual student academic improvement at the
school site and within the school district. Failure to achieve annual growth goals with
all students and subgroups can result in significant sanctions that include changes in
school site administration and loss of federal funds. Society also bears the cost of
student academic failure. Systematic failure impacts a student’s future quality of life,
future lifetime earnings potential, and job opportunities. Communities bear the cost of
failure through increased crime rates, increased costs in social welfare programs, a less
engaged civilian population, and diminished citizen economic buying power to purchase
homes and buy goods.
In addition to the current legislative and political downward pressure, the state of
school district budget projections is uncertain and many face diminished revenues. Ac-
cording to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (Oliff, Mai, & Leachman, 2012),
35 states are providing less per student funding in fiscal year 2013 than in fiscal year
2008. California is down 17.3% during this time span. This deficit creates an educa-
tional environment that requires schools to do more with fewer resources. It is the
school district superintendent whose responsibility it is to lead the district through these
difficult challenges. As chief academic instructor, the superintendent is best positioned
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 82
to influence the allocation of district resources to improve student outcomes. Academic
research supports a stakeholder initiative with parents and community, as it has demon-
strated the capacity to support the needs of students and schools. In doing so, the super-
intendent proactively mobilizes available resources to impact student academic out-
comes.
There are a number of studies that identify the positive role that a stakeholder,
such as parents, may have in supporting student achievement (Hong & Ho, 2005) and
Rosenzweig (2000). However, there are few studies which identify the range of stake-
holders and examine stakeholder roles through the viewpoint of the superintendent. The
superintendent’s view of the stakeholder role was the focus of this study.
In examining the superintendent viewpoint, the following four research ques-
tions were addressed:
1. Which stakeholders are valuable assets in efforts to improve student aca-
demic achievement?
2. How are stakeholders best utilized by the superintendent in support of
academic achievement?
3. How do superintendents identify stakeholders?
4. How do superintendents mobilize stakeholders’ involvement with the school
district?
This study utilized a mixed-methods approach to gather data in addressing the
research questions. The quantitative data were gathered using an online survey that was
emailed to targeted California superintendents. The qualitative data were secured by
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 83
means of face-to-face interviews with five California superintendents. These data were
triangulated with academic research to establish various themes and patterns.
Underlying Theory and Theory of Action
The study used the underlying theory of overlapping spheres of influence (Ep-
stein, 1995) which expresses the impact of various entities on student success in school
(see Figure 6). The theory of action suggests that if groups work together on focused
goals, they can positively influence student development in social, physical, and cogni-
tive needs beyond the walls of the school.
Figure 6. Impact of various entities on student success in school, based
on theory of overlapping spheres of influence. PTA = Parent-Teacher
Association.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 84
Key Findings
The key findings in this study are organized by the study’s research questions.
The first research question explored which stakeholders were valuable assets to improve
student academic achievement. The academic research (Epstein, 1995) indicated the
strong role that parents and community play in impacting student success. Supporting
the academic literature, the quantitative and qualitative data from this study identified
parents as the most important and impactful stakeholder outside of teachers at the
school site. The surveyed superintendents also included volunteers, community organi-
zations, and the business sector as having the strongest impact to improve student
academic outcomes.
The survey research examined the stakeholder role and how it was impacted by
the socioeconomic demographics of a community. Superintendents noted that wealthier
communities contribute more readily with their time, money, and resources in support-
ing student academic outcomes. In contrast, superintendents agreed that key barriers to
involvement are high levels of non-English speaking parents, low household income, as
well as a limited concentration of large businesses in the local community. Parents in
low socioeconomic status (SES) communities were described by superintendents as
having difficulty connecting to the schools. They were uncertain how to best contribute
to the school and felt that they lacked the academic skill sets to positively impact stu-
dent academic outcomes.
Research question 2 examined how stakeholders are best utilized by the superin-
tendent in support of academic achievement. The consensus from this study’s research
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 85
data was that one of the most important roles for stakeholders was tutoring support. The
academic literature supported the use of tutors, including at-home parent tutors, as
having a positive effect (Erion, 2006) on student academic achievement. Superinten-
dents indicated in the surveys that a range of stakeholders serve this tutoring role,
including parents, volunteers, and neighborhood and faith-based groups. Other areas
that superintendents considered important for student success in school included the
arts, drama, band, and music programs.
The qualitative research provided insights into a spectrum of stakeholder stu-
dent support as follows: academic improvement, college readiness, social service
dimensions, and career readiness. The most successful stakeholder programs support
student success in a number of these areas within their respective programs. One com-
munity organization exemplified a stakeholder with multidimensional roles from
kindergarten to 12th grade as follows: securing books and dictionaries for kindergarten
to third grade, honoring K-8 outstanding student achievement, supporting service-to-
community programs, financial support for a writing contest, financial support for com-
munity day school students; providing tutoring and school supplies to homeless and
needy students K-12.
Superintendents indicated that successful models of stakeholder programs are
not formally replicated or cited as exemplary models to help nurture similar successful
stakeholder involvement at all school sites district-wide.
Research question 3 explored how superintendents identified stakeholders. Ef-
forts by superintendents to identify stakeholders fell into two categories: active and
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 86
passive. Active efforts resulted from the superintendent’s community appearances
throughout the week through community gatherings, parent meetings, chamber of
commerce meetings, and participating in clubs and organizations. The passive efforts
were characterized by the stakeholders contacting the school district or school sites on
their own to seek a particular channel to contribute their money, time, or resources.
Superintendents in the quantitative survey rated the needs for their school dis-
trict. The superintendents identified the following top six areas where stakeholder
partnerships could assist and improve current student academic performance: (a) tech-
nology, with the greatest median score of 3.85; (b) academic improvement at 3.83; (c)
ELLs at 3.79; (d) special education at 3.48; and (e) social skills of tolerance, conflict
resolution and bullying at 3.46; and (f) professional development of school staff at 3.41.
The culture of the community was cited by superintendents as impacting the
quantity and nature of stakeholder involvement. Those school districts with a current
high level of stakeholder involvement established a culture of community involvement
with the schools. This positive community involvement culture enhanced and encour-
aged other stakeholders to get involved.
Once a stakeholder had decided to get involved with a school district or school
site, the superintendents observed that the role of the stakeholder was self-determined.
There was little attempt to steer a stakeholder to support the most pressing needs within
the district. Interviewed superintendents indicated that efforts to redirect financial con-
tributions had not been successful in the past. In terms of addressing the needs of a
district through stakeholders, there was no plan in place to market to these needs.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 87
Superintendents indicated that, in general, they did not establish a target group of enti-
ties that had the capacity to address the greatest needs of the schools and school district.
Superintendents in both the quantitative and qualitative survey recognized the
value of contributions by stakeholders. There was consensus that school district efforts
were significantly hampered in stakeholder identification and managing stakeholders.
This consensus was a result of superintendent-reported diminished district resources to
support the position, as well as a lack of current infrastructure and capacity. Despite
superintendent acknowledgment that stakeholder and community involvement are
important school board initiatives, interviewed superintendents indicated that the board
would not approve a budget to add new personnel to support mobilizing stakeholders
unless it was demonstrated that significant sums of incremental dollars could be gener-
ated through such a position. When asked how much money they would need to gener-
ate, interviewed superintendents indicated that the new position would have to pay for
itself in new incremental dollars.
Through research question 4, the study examined how superintendents mobi-
lized stakeholders’ involvement with the school district. The most frequent response in
addressing mobilization of stakeholders was the superintendents’ own efforts in the
community to increase stakeholder awareness of school activities or initiatives. Inter-
viewed and surveyed superintendents indicated that this mobilization typically took
place in structured meetings on and off campuses. In addition, superintendents used the
collection of emails or the district Website to generate awareness of school activities.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 88
Emails collected at community functions were then used to communicate with stake-
holders and help mobilize interest and involvement at the district and school levels.
The frequency of communication with stakeholders by the superintendents
ranged from weekly to no communication during the year. At the most frequent com-
munication level, 67% of superintendents communicated monthly with parents. At the
least frequent level, stakeholders such as alumni were not contacted during a 12-month
period. Other stakeholder categories such as faith and religious groups and neighbor-
hood groups were communicated with on a very limited basis (25% of superintendents
did not communicate at all with these categories). It was reported by a number of
surveyed superintendents that these same categories, which received little or no district
communication from some superintendents, represented meaningful stakeholder cate-
gories that contributed to student academic success in the respective school districts.
The greatest mobilization barriers reported by superintendents were the lack of
administrative resources, personnel, and time to coordinate stakeholder mobilization.
The superintendents reported that it was their own efforts in the community on a day-to-
day basis that were the catalyst for mobilizing parent and community involvement.
Interviewed superintendents viewed their roles as members of the board of directors of
local clubs and organizations as a strategic tactic to support school stakeholder mobili-
zation. Through the superintendents’ efforts while attending breakfast and lunch meet-
ings, dinner events, and meetings, they reached out to increase community interaction
with schools through increased public awareness. Additionally, school sites through
their own efforts mobilize stakeholders largely independent of superintendent efforts.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 89
Superintendents’ responses were consistent across a range of responses regard-
ing stakeholder involvement. Years of service by the superintendents did not impact
responses on stakeholder value, impact, mobilization and identification.
Implications of Findings
This study further supported the nature of the overlapping spheres of influence
(Epstein, 1997), which identified the cumulative impact of stakeholders to contribute
positively to student academic outcomes. The centralized coordination of these stake-
holders, their identification, and mobilization has the capacity to make a difference. To
be most effective, stakeholder involvement requires systems that manage these
processes in order to nurture, grow, and sustain them. The study also gives rise to the
need to consider district-wide professional development to help ensure that stakeholders
are meeting the greatest needs of the school district as well as the greatest needs at the
school site.
The development of the stakeholder procurement capacity on a district-wide
basis enlarges the mobilization and identification process beyond the superintendent. It
enlists school site personnel as active participants within a centralized district vision and
ensures that stakeholder involvement is a system-wide district initiative. It is a strategic
process that has the capacity to grow the number and quality of stakeholder partnerships
substantially over time from current levels in meeting the needs of the school district
and school sites.
The study suggests that a more formal process of identification of school needs,
identification of community assets to support those needs, and a strategic communica-
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 90
tion plan would help improve the stakeholder initiative. Based on the superintendents
interviewed, the current processes are presently very informal and lack the structure to
market needs to appropriate, targeted stakeholders.
Limitations
The scope of this study examined superintendents’ viewpoints in districts of
2,500 or greater enrollment through an online survey collection service. The data were
self-reported by the respondents. There were limitations to the validation, as responses
were based on superintendents’ perceptions and not in-the-field, actual observations.
The self-selection nature of online survey respondents represents a bias in that respon-
dents determined whether or not they would participate in the survey.
The study was based on the viewpoint of California superintendents; therefore,
the outcomes cannot be generalized to reflect the thinking and viewpoints of superinten-
dents of school districts in other parts of the United States.
The five interviewed superintendents were all from southern California and were
not randomly selected. As a result, the selection of these superintendents presents a
bias.
The amount of time and resources for this study were limited. There was a fixed
amount of time for the collection of data and interviews. Interviews for the qualitative
data of this study were conducted within a 30- to 45-minute time span. Additional time
and expansion of scope and additional in-depth interviews would have required re-
sources that were not available.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 91
Recommendations for Future Research
With regard to future research, the following points should be considered:
1. The categories of stakeholders require additional examination and definition
that may result in further stratification in classification. In-depth analysis, definition,
and refinement of stakeholder categories for business or government agencies would
provide additional valuable data for assisting superintendents in a stakeholder initiative.
For example, refined business categories such as manufacturing, insurance, real estate,
travel agencies, health care, and financial institutions would allow superintendents to be
more strategic in their implementation of a district plan. This plan would enable dis-
tricts to target potential stakeholder groups by classification and better establish the
market potential within their communities.
2. There are few empirical studies that evaluate the actual effect of various
stakeholder activities on academic outcomes. These types of data would be helpful in
evaluating which program elements and stakeholders yield the greatest academic effects
at the school site. The stakeholder-academic effect should be examined at the elemen-
tary, middle, and high school levels, by grade level.
3. Further empirical research would be helpful in studying the effect of combi-
nations of stakeholder activities on student success and academic outcomes. There is no
current research that measures the academic effect of multiple stakeholder initiatives
deployed at the same time to improve student academic success.
4. Additional research on sustainability of stakeholder involvement would be
valuable data in enlarging the understanding as to how successful districts maintain and
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 92
grow successful stakeholder programs through the years. This knowledge would poten-
tially bring greater efficiency and effectiveness to the stakeholder initiative.
5. Future research would be helpful based on a longitudinal study of specific
stakeholder programs and how they impact student academic achievement over time and
by grade level. This research would yield valuable data for sustainability and marketing
of such programs.
6. The tutoring stakeholder role was highly rated as having a positive impact on
student outcomes. Additional studies are needed that focus on the definitive nature and
effect of the tutoring role by grade level. This information would help mobilize the
right combination of stakeholders to ensure that maximum student benefit is occurring
and would include additional insights that help ensure that the optimal pairing of stake-
holders and role is taking place.
7. There should be new research on the prospective ways that stakeholders can
contribute to student success.
Conclusion
As school districts respond to declining district budgets, new paradigms and
processes will have to emerge to address the ongoing political and legal requirement of
continuous annual academic achievement by all students and subgroups. Data from this
study and from other academholders to impact and support student academic success.
Utilizing local stakeholders to help support the greatest needs of school districts require
superintendents to embrace structures and strategies to identify, mobilize, and nurture
these relationships. Targeted deployment of stakeholders and monitoring community
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 93
programs will help ensure that the maximum results from these partnerships are real-
ized, as measured by student academic achievement metrics. The data from this study
and from the academic literature support a proactive district initiative with a unified
district vision shared by all school sites.
Limited resources at the district level, as reported by superintendents, signifi-
cantly hamper overall efforts to identify and mobilize involvement. However, there are
multiple models of stakeholders who assumed multiple roles in supporting student
success at the academic levels as well as social, career readiness, or college-bound
dimensions.
The current economic pressures of flat and diminishing budgets challenge school
districts in meeting federal- and state-mandated requirements for annual student aca-
demic improvement. Increasing stakeholder involvement to meet the needs of schools
requires the district to increase district capacity in the identification and mobilization of
stakeholders. Improving district expertise in stakeholder management will permit
districts to significantly expand stakeholder impact on student success. Additionally, a
well-managed stakeholder initiative will proactively address student needs through an
effective and efficient district infrastructure and focused vision.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 94
REFERENCES
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2011, November). The high cost of high school
dropouts: What the nation pays for inadequate high schools. Issue Brief, 1–6.
Retrieved from http://www.all4ed.org/files/HighCost.pdf
Blan k, M. J., Jacobson, A., & Melaville, R. (2012). Achieving results through com-
munity school partnerships: How district and community leaders are building
effective, sustainable relationships. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress
.org/issues/2012/01/community_schools.html
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklin, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduc-
tion to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Castrechini, S., & London, R. A. (2010). Positive student outcomes in community
schools: Providing services that meet the many needs of students and parents. Re-
trieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/positive_student_
outcomes.html
Christianson, S. L., & Christianson, J. C. (1998). Family, school and community influ-
ences on children’s learning: A literature review (Live and Learn Project, Report
No. 1). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Extension Service.
Coalition for Community Schools. (2012). Scaling up school and community partner-
ships. Retrieved from http://www.communityschools.org/ScalingUp/
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 95
Community and Youth Collaborative Institute. (2009). Ohio Community Collaboration
Model for School Improvement (OCCMSI). Retrieved from http://csw.osu.edu/
cayci/pastprojects/occmsi/
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
Dunst, C., Trivette, C., & Deal, A. (Eds.). (1988). Enabling and empowering families:
Principles and guidelines for practice. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we
share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701–712.
Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2006). Moving forward: Ideas for research on school,
family and community partnerships. In C. F. Conrad & R. Serlin (Eds.), SAGE
handbook for research in education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry (pp.
117–138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Erion, J. (2006). Parent tutoring, a meta-analysis. Education & Treatment of Children,
29(1), 79–106.
Harvard Graduate School of Education. (2011). Harvard Family Research Project. Re-
trieved from http://www.hfrp.org/
Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school,
family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 96
Hong, S., & Ho, H.-Z. (2005). Direct and indirect longitudinal effects of parental in-
volvement in student achievement: Second-order latent growth modeling across
ethnic groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 32–42.
Lezotte, L. (2003). Revolutionary and evolutionary: The effective schools movement.
Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products.
Lezotte, L. W., Skaife, R. D., Holstead, M. D. (2002). Effective schools—only you can
make a difference. Louisville, KY: All Star.
Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating
diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2007). Trends in International Mathe-
matics and Science Study (TIMSS): TIMSS 2007 results. Retrieved from http://nces
.ed.gov/timss/ results07.as
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. (2012). The
condition of education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imper-
ative for education reform. Retrieved from http://teachertenure.procon.org/
sourcefiles/a-nation-at-risk-tenure-april-1983.pdf
National Defense Education Act (P.L. 85-864) (1958). Retrieved from http://wwwedu
.oulu.fi/tohtorikoulutus/jarjestettava_opetus/Troehler/NDEA_1958.pdf
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. (West 2003).
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 97
Norton, M. S., Webb, L. D., Dlugosh, L. L., & Sybouts, W. (1996). The school superin-
tendency: New responsibilities, new leadership. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Oliff, P., & Leachman, M. (2011). New school year brings steep cuts in state funding
for schools. Retrieved from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3569
Oliff, P., Mai, C., & Leachman, M. (2012). New school year brings more cuts in state
funding for schools. Retrieved from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index
.cfm?fa=view&id=3825
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Author.
Rosensweig, C. J. (2000). A meta-analysis of parenting and school success: The role of
parents in promoting students" academic performance. Hempstead, NY: Hofstra
University.
Sanders, M. G. (2001). Schools, families, and communities partnering for middle level
students’ success. NASSP Bulletin, 85(627), 53–61.
Sanders, M. G. & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal
leadership for school–community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104,
1345–1368.
Singer, E. (2003). Exploring the meaning of consent: Participation in research and
beliefs about risks and benefits. Journal of Official Statistics, 19, 273–285.
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 98
Soares, L., & Steigleder, S. (2012). Building a technically skilled workforce: Partner-
ships between community colleges and industries are the key. Retrieved from
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/01/dww_sp_scitechworkforce.html
Trivette, C.M., Dunst, C. J., Deal, A. G., Hamby, D. W., & Sexton, D. (1994). Assess-
ing family strengths and capabilities. In C. J. Dunst, C. M. Trivette, & A. G. Deal
(Eds.). Supporting and strengthening families, Volume 1: Methods, strategies and
practices. Cambridge: Brookline Books.
Tuckman, B. W (1999). Conducting educational research (5th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
U.S. Department of Education. (2011, May 27). Condition of education 2011. Ed Re-
view. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/news/newsletters/edreview/2011/0527
.html
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2002). School dropouts: Education could play
a stronger role in identifying and disseminating promising prevention strategies.
Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/240/233269.pdf
UCLA Center for Mental Health in Schools. (2007). After-school programs and ad-
dressing barriers to learning. Retrieved from http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/
afterschool/afterschool.pdf
UCLA Center for Mental Health in Schools. (2012). School–community partnerships: A
guide. Retrieved from http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/guides/schoolcomm .pdf
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE 99
Waters, T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. Denver, CO: McRel.
Westat and Policy Studies Associates. (2001). The longitudinal evaluation of school
change and performance (LESCP) in Title I schools: Final report, Vol. 1, Execu-
tive summary (Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Education). Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/esed/lescp_vol1.pdf
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The sustainability of superintendent-led reforms to improve student achievement
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
The critical aspects of oversight that suburban superintendents, as instructional leaders, must employ to improve instruction
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Strategies employed by successful urban superintendents responding to demands for student achievement reform
PDF
The role of the superintendent in ensuring school board focus on student achievement
PDF
Effective strategies that urban superintendents use that improve the academic achievement for African-American males
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase student achievement
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
An examination of traditional versus non-traditional superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve student achievement
PDF
Strategies employed by successful superintendents and boards of education resulting in increased student achievement
PDF
Effective strategies urban superintendents utilize that improve the academic achievement for African American males
PDF
The role of superintendents as instructional leaders: facilitating student achievement among ESL/EL learners through school-site professional development
PDF
Getting to the Core: an examination into the resources, strategies and skills superintendents employed as they implemented the Common Core state standards and the politics in play
PDF
Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals
PDF
The impact of parental involvement on student achievement
PDF
Female superintendents in California and the role that mentoring and networking have played in their sucess
PDF
Successful communication strategies used by urban school district superintendents to build consensus in raising student achievement
PDF
Superintendent stewardship in California school districts with continuously-improving API scores: reflections on the act of leadership
Asset Metadata
Creator
Stockhamer, Barry L.
(author)
Core Title
Superintendents' viewpoint of the role stakeholders can play in improving student achievement
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
01/17/2013
Defense Date
11/06/2012
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
academic,achievement,community,improving achievement,K-12,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,parents,partnerships,sponsorships,stakeholders,superintendents
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy Max (
committee chair
), García, Pedro Enrique (
committee member
), Love, Laurie (
committee member
)
Creator Email
stockham@usc.edu,stockhamer@enhance.us
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-127852
Unique identifier
UC11291438
Identifier
usctheses-c3-127852 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Stockhamer-1397.pdf
Dmrecord
127852
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Stockhamer, Barry L.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
academic
achievement
community
improving achievement
K-12
leadership
parents
partnerships
sponsorships
stakeholders
superintendents