University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Promoting student achievement: a case study of change actions employed by an urban school superintendent

(USC Thesis Other)

Promoting student achievement: a case study of change actions employed by an urban school superintendent

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

PROMOTING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: A CASE STUDY OF CHANGE
ACTIONS EMPLOYED BY AN URBAN SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT

by

David E. Bealer

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

December 2010

Copyright 2010 David E. Bealer
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my family, who have always believed in me
and encouraged me to do my best. Through your unconditional love and support, you
have inspired me during this journey.
To my two biggest fans, my wife and my mother, I will always be grateful.
Mom, although you were not here to see me complete this crucible, I know you have
kept a watchful eye on me from heaven. I have heard your words of encouragement
every day.
Kelly, you have been here for me every second, reassuring, encouraging, and
sometimes prodding me in this endeavor. Your selfless actions, taking care of all the
“small” (and big) stuff enabled me to devote my attention to my study. I am so
excited to be able to spend time with you now and start accomplishing all the things
we have put on the “back burner” these past four years. I can never pay you back for
all you have done for me… but we are going to have fun trying!
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge and thank friends, colleagues, classmates, and
teachers for supporting and believing in me. I am particularly grateful to Dr. David
Marsh, my dissertation chair, for his patience, guidance and encouragement. I also
appreciate and thank Dr. Rudy Castruita, my dissertation co-chair and Dr. Darline
Robles for providing guidance and serving on my dissertation committee.
Thank you fellow USC “weekend warriors,” both the LA group who helped
motivate and inspire me during the beginning year of the program, and also to the
Marsh-Castruita Urban Superintendent Cohort, without whose direct influence,
feedback, and encouragement I could not have come this far.
To all of you, I offer my sincere thanks and pledge to continue the spirit of
the Trojan Family.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF FIGURES x

ABSTRACT xi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 8
Purpose of the Study 8
Research Questions 9
Importance of the Study 9
Assumptions 11
Limitations 11
Delimitations 12
Definition of Terms 12
Organization of the Study 17

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 18
Student Achievement 18
International Benchmarks 20
National Report Card 23
Achievement Gap 24
Urban Challenge 26
Role of Local Systems 28
Role of System Leaders 38
Leadership Strategies 46
“House Model” for District Reform 49
Superintendent’s Plan of Entry or Start-up Plan 51
Strategic Plan 52
Assessment 53
Curriculum 54
Professional Development 56
HR System and Human Capital Management 57
Finance and Budget 58
Communication 60
Governance and Board Relations 61
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations 62
v
Family and Community Engagement 64
Four Frames of Leadership 68
Superintendent Preparation 70
Military Model Analogy 70
Business Model Analogy 70
Nature of the Superintendency 71
Superintendent Performance Assessment 72
Selection and Preparation of Superintendents 73
Strengths of Preparation Programs 75
Weaknesses of Preparation Programs 76
Recommendations for Improving Leadership Training 77
Innovative University - Professional Doctorate Programs 79
Innovative Specific focus programs 82
Innovative Non-University Efforts 84
Conclusion 86

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 88
Sampling Criteria and Process 90
Description of School District and Key Players 91
Instrumentation 95
Data Collection Instruments 101
Data Collection 108
Data Analysis 111
Validity and Reliability 113
Summary 114

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION 115
Findings 116
District Background 116
Background of the Superintendent 118
Condition of District at the Time of Superintendent’s Arrival 119
The Entry Plan and Launching Strategies 122
Ten Key Reform Strategies 127
Other House Model Reform Strategies 175
Discussion 185
Board Relations 185
Communications 186
Accountability 187
Four Frames of Leadership 189
Summary 191

vi
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS 192
Purpose of the Study 193
Methodology 194
Sample 195
Data Collection and Analysis 196
Selected Findings 197
Research Question 1: Ten Key Reform Strategies 198
Research Question 1a: Strengths and Challenges of the District 201
Research Question 1b: Other Reform Strategies 203
Research Question 1C: Relationship to the Previous Background/
Experience of the Superintendent 208
Conclusions 210
Implications for Practice 212
Superintendents and Aspiring Administrators 212
School Boards and Community Stakeholders 213
Institutions Preparing Future Superintendents 214
Recommendations for Future Research 215

REFERENCES 217

APPENDIX A Superintendent Interview Guide – DAY 1 236
APPENDIX B Key Player Interview Guide 238
APPENDIX C Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide 239
APPENDIX D Quality Rubric 245
APPENDIX E Implementation Rubric 265

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Ten Key House Model Reform Strategies Defined 66

Table 3.1: Relationship of Research Questions to Data Collection Instruments 103

Table 3.2: Data Collection Activities 110

Table 4.1: Demographics of Triangle County Public Schools Student
Population 118

Table 4.2: Strengths in Triangle County Schools upon Superintendent Arrival 121

Table 4.3: Challenges in Triangle County Schools upon Superintendent Arrival 122

Table 4.4: Superintendent Reform and Launching Strategies at TCPSD 126

Table 4.5: Rubric Ratings of House Model Reform Strategies 130

Table 4.6: Summary Evaluation of Strategic Plan by Rubric Scoring 130

Table 4.7: Addressing Change in Strategic Planning 132

Table 4.8: Evaluation of Strategic Plan Quality by Rubric Components 134

Table 4.9: Summary Evaluation of Assessment Strategy by Rubric Scoring 135

Table 4.10: Addressing Change in Assessment 136

Table 4.11: Evaluation of Assessment Strategy Quality by Rubric Components 138

Table 4.12: Summary Evaluation of Curriculum Strategy by Rubric Scoring 139

Table 4.13: Addressing Change in Curriculum 140

Table 4.14: Evaluation of Curriculum Strategy Quality by Rubric Components 143

Table 4.15: Summary Evaluation of Professional Development Strategy by
Rubric Scoring 144

Table 4.16: Addressing Change in Professional Development 145

viii
Table 4.17: Evaluation of Professional Development Strategy Quality by
Rubric Components 147

Table 4.18: Summary Evaluation of HR System and Human Capital
Management Strategy by Rubric Scoring 148

Table 4.19: Addressing Change in HR System and Human Capital Management 149

Table 4.20: Evaluation of HR System and Human Capital Management
Strategy Quality by Rubric Components 152

Table 4.21: Summary Evaluation of Finance and Budget Strategy by Rubric
Scoring 153

Table 4.22: Addressing Change in Finance and Budget 155

Table 4.23: Evaluation of Finance and Budget Strategy Quality by Rubric
Components 156

Table 4.24: Summary Evaluation of Communications Strategy by Rubric
Scoring 157

Table 4.25: Addressing Change in Communications 159

Table 4.26: Evaluation of Communications Strategy Quality by Rubric
Components 161

Table 4.27: Summary Evaluation of Governance and Board Relations Strategy
by Rubric Scoring 162

Table 4.28: Addressing Change in Governance and Board Relations 164

Table 4.29: Evaluation of Governance and Board Relations Strategy Quality
by Rubric Components 166

Table 4.30: Summary Evaluation of Labor Relations and Contract Negotiation
Strategy by Rubric Scoring 167

Table 4.31: Addressing Change in Labor Relations and Contract Negotiation 168

Table 4.32: Evaluation of Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations Strategy
Quality by Rubric Components 169

ix
Table 4.33: Summary Evaluation of Family and Community Engagement
Strategy by Rubric Scoring 170

Table 4.34: Addressing Change in Family and Community Engagement 172

Table 4.35: Evaluation of Family and Community Engagement Strategy
Quality by Rubric Components 174

Table 5.1: 10 Key Reform Strategies vis-à-vis Superintendent Arrival –
District Strengths and Weaknesses 203

x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Characteristics of Improved Districts 32

Figure 2.2: PELP Coherence Framework 37

Figure 2.3: The House Model 51

Figure 2.4: Four Frames of Leadership 68

Figure 3.1: The House Model 96

Figure 4.1: Superintendent’s Entry Plan 123

Figure 4.2: The House Model 128

xi
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine the change strategies and actions
taken by an urban district superintendent to improve student achievement. In a
qualitative case study of a large urban school district, one research question and three
subquestions focused on: 10 specific reform strategies to improve student
achievement, how the quality and implementation of strategies corresponded to the
strengths and challenges of the district when the superintendent took office, what
additional reform strategies (if any) were used, and whether the choice and
implementation of the reform strategies related to the superintendent’s previous
background and experiences. Results indicated the superintendent’s clearly
articulated strategic plan, in tune with district characteristics and focused on
increased student achievement, guided district action by providing the impetus to
undertake systemwide improvement.
Key reform strategies are being used effectively by large urban school district
superintendents to improve student achievement. Significant start-up strategies were
initiated by the superintendent studied to effect district reform, including:
establishing a communications strategy that emphasized transparency of District
efforts, strategies that improved board-superintendent relations and developed
governance leadership capacity, and a reorganization of district office leadership and
lines of authority, creating top academic, operating and assessment officials.
As superintendents assume a more active role in comprehensive, system-wide
reform, it is critical that they attend to: maintaining district focus on increased
xii
student achievement, the development of system capacity to use performance data
for decision-making, and initial strategic planning efforts which take into account a
district’s strengths and weaknesses. The findings and conclusions from this study can
provide insight and guidance to those responsible for systemwide improvement.
Recommendations for future research were presented, including: use of quantitative
student performance data to measure effectiveness of reform actions; study with
superintendent in office greater than three years to allow observation of a full and
stabilized implementation of key reform strategies; and duplicate study using
information gained from site leaders, including principals and teachers, to provide
additional insight into the effect of key reform strategy implementation.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Reports attesting to the continued decline of America’s public school system
persist. Two government studies which have significantly influenced the study of
U.S. education reform are Equality of Educational Opportunity (Coleman) Study
(Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood A., Weinfeld, F., &
York, R., 1966) and A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1983). The Coleman Study was commissioned by the United States
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1966, in response to provisions of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to assess the availability of equal educational
opportunities to children of different race, color, religion, and national origin. In
addition to highlighting the strong effect of family differences in creating
achievement differences among children, the study documented the existence of a
disparity in academic achievement between students of different races, ethnicities,
and socioeconomic levels, known now as the “Achievement Gap.”
In 1981, the Secretary of Education, T. H. Bell, created the National
Commission on Excellence in Education. The Commission’s report, A Nation at
Risk (1983), brought to light serious shortcomings in the quality of education in the
United States. In its conclusion, the report outlined educational process inadequacies
in the areas of: content, expectations, time, and teaching. The call for educational
reform caught the attention of citizens and policymakers and has provided the
motivation for school improvement measures undertaken throughout the United
2
States, particularly in the development of academic content standards and more
rigorous course requirements.
The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 is the current national
educational reform effort taking aim at the achievement gap. Its mandates were
designed to improve the academic achievement of students by requiring each state to
create annual assessments and set goals for making yearly progress in reading and
math. Further, it requires states to disaggregate and report student achievement data
by racial subgroups of students so that performance gains for all children can be
tracked.
Despite government reports calling for reform of the U.S. educational system
and attempts to manage and monitor student achievement, continued improvement is
needed to ensure education keeps pace with the requirements of the twenty-first
century. In the forty years since the Coleman Report highlighted the differences in
academic achievement among racial and socioeconomic groups in the United States,
there persists a significant gap in educational accomplishment among non-white
ethnicities and the poor, particularly in large urban school districts. Additionally,
despite governmental efforts to correct a widespread public perception of a slipping
educational system, reports from the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)
indicate more is needed. The NAEP report of 2005 found that although average
reading scores had increased at age 9 and average math scores increased at ages 9
and 13, White-Black and White-Hispanic reading and math gaps persist at a level
3
over 20 points among the three age groups studied: nine, thirteen, and seventeen
year-olds (Perie, Moran, & Lutkus, 2005).
The American Institutes for Research assessed the 2003 TIMMS using
additional data from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and
presented an analysis for a common set of 12 countries which indicated U.S.
performance in measures of mathematics rigor was below the 12-country average
(Ginsburg, Cooke, Leinwand, Noell, & Pollock, 2005). Additionally, within the
content areas, the United States is significantly weaker in measurement for grades 4
and 8 , and geometry for grade 8 and at age 15 (Ginsburg et al.)
th
th
The mandates of No Child Left Behind seek to raise the bar for student
achievement and narrow the gap among all students within the United States and the
community of developed nations. School districts, as well as individual schools, are
held accountable for meeting improvement goals.
Local educational agencies (LEA), or school districts, are uniquely positioned
to play a key role in the improvement of educational services. By implementing
strategies centered on improving teaching and learning and creating coherency
throughout the organization, the central office can carry out the difficult task of
improving student performance (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006). Schools
benefit from district guidance in the development of instructional support and
professional development (Elmore, 2003). “Only the district office can create such a
plan, identify and spread best practices, develop leadership capabilities at all levels,
4
build information systems to monitor student improvement , and hold people
accountable for results” (Childress et al.).
Research has identified key characteristics of effective school systems.
Putting into place system wide instructional improvement strategies across a school
district requires the direction provided by an effective central office. As Elmore
(2003) clearly posits, “The school district – not the individual school or the state – is
the logical entity to assume long-term responsibility for monitoring the performance
of low-performing schools and developing systems of instructional support around
them” (p.15). The effective district office can create the plan to meet the individual
needs of schools, teach the tools necessary to overcome the deficits, monitor
progress and hold schools responsible for continuous improvement (Childress et al.,
2006).
The research on the effect of leadership on student achievement is clear:
principal leadership in schools makes a difference (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty,
2003). Likewise, the skillful leadership of an effective superintendent is critical for
system wide improvement, keeping districts focused on teaching and learning goals
(Waters & Marzano, 2006). Today’s superintendent, the leader of the local
educational system, is in a position to significantly influence student achievement.
The roles of the superintendent include: instructional leader, resource manager,
district policymaker and spokesman. Challenges influencing the superintendent’s
ability to guide improvement are: increased accountability for student achievement,
competition with labor union and governance board priorities, and inadequate
5
preparation for the job (Fuller et al., 2003). Currently, superintendents are held
accountable for meeting the achievement goals set forth in NCLB. In addition to
public reporting, districts not meeting mandated progress goals are subject to
increased scrutiny and mandatory actions for remediation from the state, and
pressure from local governance boards (Lashway, 2002).
Power struggles between the board of education and the superintendent are
not unlike those in the past, with political maneuvering and personal whim
competing against effective school governance. Increasingly, however,
superintendents are finding that bargaining units (unions) are challenging managerial
prerogative in efforts to undertake school reform, such as when plans to increase
professional capacity involve raising instructional standards or scheduling mandatory
activities such as professional development and collaboration periods (Loveless,
2000).
According to Fuller (2003), “Superintendent training, it seems, does little to
prepare leaders for the highly ambiguous situations they are about to enter, in which
political skill and calculation are as important as expertise about instruction” (p. 57).
In order to meet the demands required of today’s superintendent, formal leadership
preparation should contain the following key elements: strong theory and research
base, authentic guided experience, simulated situated cognition (role play), and
development of real-life problem solving skills (Grogan & Andrews, 2002).
New superintendents can improve the district’s transition to their leadership
by having their initial action strategies planned out (Jentz & Murphy, 2005). This
6
transition acceleration, a period of 90 to 100 days, is facilitated by a systematic
approach to addressing predictable challenges, enabling the new leader to get settled
into a demanding new job quickly, smoothly and effectively. Instruction in the
formulation of a “start up” strategy is one of many key elements required of an
effectual superintendent training program.
The preparation of system leaders to assume the key roles of running a
district and improving student performance is critical, particularly in this time of
increased accountability and renewed effort to close the achievement gap.
Superintendent preparation programs have undergone much improvement in recent
years. However there remain two basic models, the traditional university-based
model, and an emerging non-university model.
Top educational system leaders typically receive significant practical training
on the job, coming up the ranks from teacher to principal to district office staff, etc.
This hands-on training is usually supplemented by university advanced degree
coursework, often with the attainment of an educational doctorate degree. Criticism
of the university-based leadership preparation has focused on ending pure knowledge
acquisition, and adopting a hands-on proactive application of knowledge approach
(Bjork, Kowalski, & Young, 2005, p. 66).
Additionally, in recent years large government (military) and government-
type (education) organizations have been urged to take a fresh look at policies and
procedures, to see if it wouldn’t be more effective if education activities were “run
like a business.” In response to this, non-educator system leaders have emerged as an
7
underutilized resource for educational system leadership. To meet the need of
preparing prospective non-educator system leaders, The Broad Superintendents
Academy (TBA) was instituted by philanthropist Eli Broad to prepare aspiring urban
superintendents. Building on concepts in research regarding necessity of alignment
of training with current realities of practice and partnering with school districts in
shaping the training of top educational leaders, The Broad Superintendents Academy
(TBA) develops educators from the ranks as well as non-educator leaders from
business, the military, and top governmental positions (The Broad Superintendents
Academy, 2010 ). The Broad Superintendents Academy employs the “House
Model,” a pedagogical metaphor for the conceptual framework which organizes the
new superintendent’s plan of action as if the structure of a house.
Following a rigorous 10-month program during which talented leaders from
various backgrounds attend seven extended-weekend classes, The Broad
Superintendents Academy (TBA) places graduates into superintendent or senior
cabinet level positions in education. Graduates are expected to implement a three-
year game plan for district success. The plan includes a personally developed “start-
up” strategy, followed by: (1) movement into foundational elements, such as
implementing a strategic plan during the first year; (2) second year systemic
improvement, e.g., instructional alignment; and (3) third year attention to increasing
student achievement and closing the achievement gap (The Broad Superintendents
Academy, 2010).
8
Statement of the Problem
It is argued that the job of superintendent has become nearly impossible
because expectations of student academic performance cannot be met with current
resources and extant authority (Fuller et al., 2003). A significant amount of research
has been conducted on system improvement and the critical role of district leadership
in the implementation of proven strategies. Schools can benefit from reform initiated
at the district level (Walters & Marzano, 2006).
More information is needed about how superintendents accomplish system
wide change and how they are best prepared to lead today’s complex urban
educational systems. Information is needed regarding the nature of what reform
strategies are used by superintendents to improve student achievement, and how
decisions made in implementing the change strategies relate to a superintendent’s
background, preparation and experience. Additionally, it is important to understand
how superintendent strategies are affected by the unique strengths and weaknesses of
a district, and the resulting impact upon the improvement change process.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the change actions used by a large
urban district superintendent to improve student achievement. A graduate of the
Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI) superintendent preparation program was
selected and an examination of his implementation of 10 USLI-identified reform
strategies and their impact on student achievement was assessed. This inquiry built
upon a Phase I study conducted by Takata, Marsh, and Castruita (2007) which
9
compared actions taken by two large urban USLI school superintendents to raise
student achievement. The USLI House Model was also used as the conceptual
framework in this study which explored the superintendent’s implementation of the
selected reform strategies and how the strengths and weaknesses of the leader’s
district and his own experience and background affected his actions.
Research Questions
1. How are the ten key reform strategies being used by large urban school
superintendents to improve student achievement in his or her respective
district?
a. How does the quality and implementation of ten key reform strategies
correspond to the strengths and challenges of the district when the
superintendent took office?
b. What additional reform strategies (if any) were used? How do they
correspond to the elements of the House Model?
c. How does the choice and implementation of the ten key reform
strategies correspond to the previous background/experiences of the
superintendent?
Importance of the Study
This study has importance for school and district administrators, educational
researchers, and leadership preparation programs. Without a thorough understanding
of what specific actions are most closely tied to improved student achievement, and
how whose actions are implemented, superintendents are unlikely to find success.
10
Key strategies used by a superintendent in raising student achievement were
identified as well as how the personal and professional background of the
superintendent and the strengths and weaknesses of the district affected the results.
The analysis of a superintendent’s implementation of reform strategies provides
school district leaders with a framework of action to positively influence student
achievement.
This study contributes to the current body of literature by adding to the bank
of knowledge regarding the practice of effective educational leadership. The study
provides information to educational researchers looking for examples of “best
practices” used by successful superintendents. This study examines and analyzes the
specific actions taken by an effective system leader to shape district reform. The
conceptual framework used in exploring these actions will enhance future research.
Although long been responsible for overseeing school district management
and administration of the essential elements of schooling, current increased
accountability demanded of districts in meeting achievement goals set in NCLB
require successful superintendents to be well-versed in systemic instructional
strategies. Information from this study regarding selection and implementation of
key change strategies used by successful new superintendents informed leader
preparation programs of the knowledge and skills necessary to increase student
achievement. Additionally, aspiring leaders were presented with information relating
how preparation, background and experience as well as strengths and weaknesses
11
found in their districts affect a superintendent’s ability to use effective reform
strategies to improve student achievement.
Assumptions
This study assumed there is a relationship between leadership actions taken
by a superintendent and student achievement in a large urban school district. It is
also assumed that the superintendent is held accountable for improving achievement
for all students throughout the district. The conceptual framework used in this study
was grounded in current education reform literature and influenced the selection of
research methods and data collection tools. It was assumed that valid information
was collected during individual interviews, reflecting credible and truthful responses.
Limitations
The data for this study was collected from one large urban school district.
This may limit the application of the results to other districts. Data was collected
over a two-day period of time using a qualitative case study approach. The results of
this study are limited to the subjects participating and can not necessarily be
generalized to the larger population of superintendents, districts or system leader
preparation programs. Additionally:
1. The study is limited to the number of subjects interviewed and the amount of
time available to conduct the study.
2. The study is limited to the validity and manner the personal interviews were
conducted by members of the cohort.
12
3. Validity of this study is limited to the reliability of the instruments.
4. Accuracy of information as disclosed by the individuals may vary.
Delimitations
This was a qualitative, descriptive-analytic case study. The district was
purposely selected based on criteria relating to its size, the minimum time in office
for the district leader, and the training of the superintendent. Criteria used to select
the case study superintendent included:
1. District must be identified as a large urban school district, one of the largest
125 school systems in the United States;
2. The superintendent must have been in office since 2006, or earlier; and
3. The superintendent must be a graduate of The Urban School Leadership
Institute (USLI).
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are operationally defined as
specified below:
Accountability: A system of monitoring, reporting, and responding to student
achievement results that holds students, parents, teachers, and administrators
responsible for learning outcomes (American Institute for Research, 2003).
Achievement gap: The difference in student achievement between groups of
students from different backgrounds, especially race, ethnicity, or language
proficiency.
13
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Federal indicator of annual progress
towards the goal of grade-level proficiency for all students, required by the No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. NCLB requires districts to monitor the
performance levels of all students by sub group (e.g., grade, sex, special program
status, and ethnicity). Schools and school districts must meet or exceed annual
progress goals, with the eventual attainment of 100% proficient by 2014 (EdSource,
2005).
Assessment: The process of purposeful, summative and formative data
collection aimed at measuring student performance in reference to grade-level
content or performance standards. Assessments may be delivered orally, in written
form, or through performance monitoring. Standardized assessments which are
administered and scored in a consistent manner provide for comparison between
student groups (Elmore, 2003b).
Board of Education: A group of local citizens, usually elected, who are
empowered by state law to administer a public school system. The school board is
responsible for establishing policy, monitoring progress, and evaluating the results
for the school district’s administrative duties (Candoli, Cullen & Stufflebeam, 1997).
Capacity: The ability to flexibly respond to external demands in order to
translate high standards into effective instruction and strong student performance that
is comprised of both qualitative and quantitative factors residing within structures,
processes, and relationships (Massell, 1998).
14
Central Office: Term used interchangeably with district office, typically
referring to the location of the senior management (e.g., superintendent, cabinet,
divisional directors) and their support staff.
Coherence: Alignment between institutional goals and objectives to
allocation of resources across the system (American Institute for Research, 2003).
Conceptual framework: A comprehensive and consistent application of
thought, represented by an integration of research literature, theoretical constructs,
and other pertinent information, which provides a basis for collecting, analyzing, and
reporting the findings of data.
Data-driven decision-making: The process of making decisions about
curriculum and instruction based on the analysis of student achievement data,
performance on standardized or common assessments.
HOUSE Model: The conceptual curriculum reform framework that supports
The Broad Foundation’s Superintendents Academy. The House Model incorporates
four key components including: organizational effectiveness, instructional alignment,
stakeholder management, and operational excellence (Takata, Marsh, & Castruita,
2007).
Implementation: The systematic translation of a thought or plan into action.
Instructional improvement: A change in the structures or opportunities that
facilitates quality teaching and results in improved learning (McLaughlin et al.,
2002).
15
Instructional leadership: The use of personal influence to direct and motivate
others to act in ways that lead to improved student learning outcomes (American
Institute for Research, 2003).
Leadership capacity: The combined skill set of a management team when
focused together towards a specific plan of action.
Professional development: Learning opportunities that are aimed at assisting
current staff members in developing enhanced skill sets related to their particular job
classification; often referred to in the literature and in practice as staff development
or job-embedded training.
Reform strategy: Strategies, processes or change levers used by system
leaders to initiate and sustain systemic change or reform.
Sanctions: In accountability systems, the consequences imposed upon an
individual or system for not meeting identified performance outcomes (EdSource,
2005).
Stakeholder: Any person with interest in operation and outcomes of the
specific educational system, including administrators, teacher, parents, students, and
community members.
Standards-based accountability: Efforts by districts to develop specific
grade-level and/or content area standards against which students, teachers, and
school performance can be measured and understood.
16
Superintendent: The chief executive officer of the school board responsible
for carrying out policies formulated by members of the board (Candoli et al., 1997);
the system leader of a school district.
Subgroup: A racial, ethnic, socioeconomic or linguistic or program label by
which students are categorized in order to disaggregate assessment results and
monitor the achievement of all students. For the purpose of determining Adequate
Yearly Progress, these groups are as follows: African American or Black (not of
Hispanic origin), American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Filipino, Hispanic or
Latino, Pacific Islander, White (not of Hispanic origin), Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged, English Learners, and Students with Disabilities (CDE, 2010;
NCLB, 2002).
Systemic reform: Coherent change that occurs throughout all aspects and
levels of the educational institution, impacting and requiring the involvement of all
stakeholders (Schmoker, 2004).
Theory of Action: District’s written theory for system improvement based on
the district’s context and capacity as well as the organization’s belief system.
Urban district: A school district that is located in a densely populated,
metropolitan city.
Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI): An innovative superintendent
leadership program, funded by the Urban School Leadership Foundation (USLF).
The 10 month Superintendents Institute provides an intensive training program
17
designed to prepare senior executives from business, non-profit, military,
government, and education backgrounds to lead urban public school districts.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is reported in five chapters. Chapter One presented the
introduction to the study, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the
research questions to be answered, the importance of the study, the assumptions, the
limitations, the delimitations and the operational definitions of terms. Chapter Two
reviewed the relevant literature organized around the following topics: (1) The status
of student academic performance including trends, the achievement gap and the
urban challenge; (2) The role of the school district in improving student
performance; (3) The responsibility of system leaders to improve student
achievement; (4) Leadership strategies used by system leaders to improve student
achievement; and (5) Superintendent preparation. Chapter Three presented the
research methodology and included a discussion of the reasons for interest in the
study, the rationale for how participants were selected, and research design,
including the instrumentation, data collection and analysis of data. Chapter Four
presented the findings and an analysis of the data. Chapter Five summarized the
study, made recommendations for future research and proposed implications for
practitioners and policy makers. References and appendices followed.
18
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The literature regarding the implementation of reform strategies used by
urban superintendents is limited. This chapter provides a literature review of the
issues surrounding school district reform efforts and a conceptual framework used by
large urban system leaders. A discussion of previous research as it relates to a
superintendent’s use of strategies to raise student achievement includes the following
topic areas: current student achievement, the role of the local system (district) in
improving student achievement, the role of the system leader (superintendent),
strategies used by system leaders, superintendent preparation, and conclusions.
Student Achievement
The United States’ superiority in science and technology were challenged
when the Sputnik space program put a Russian into space in the 50’s, ahead of the
United States. The preeminence of the American educational system was
immediately put under scrutiny. “For the public, it symbolized a threat to American
security, to our superiority in science and technology, and to our progress and
political freedom. In short, the United States perceived itself as scientifically,
technologically, militarily, and economically weak” (Bybee, 1997).
Today, two questions of the nation’s educational system continue to receive
much attention. Does the U.S. educational system provide all citizens an equitable
education, regardless of ethnicity or socioeconomic status? The second question, will
the progress of education in the United States allow it to compete with other
19
developed countries and maintain its place as a world power? Two government
studies which have significantly influenced the study of U.S. education reform in the
areas of equity and educational progress are the Equality of Educational Opportunity
(the “Coleman Report”) in 1966, and A Nation at Risk (National Commission on
Excellence in Education, 1983).
The Coleman Report was commissioned by the United States Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare in 1966, in response to provisions of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, to assess the availability of equal educational opportunities to children
of different race, color, religion, and national origin. In addition to highlighting the
strong effect of family differences in creating achievement differences among
children, the study documented the existence of a disparity in academic achievement
between students of different races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic levels, known
now as the “Achievement Gap.”
In 1981, the Secretary of Education, T. H. Bell, created the National
Commission on Excellence in Education. The Commission’s report, A Nation at Risk
(1983), brought to light serious shortcomings in the quality of education in the
United States. In its conclusion, the report outlined educational process inadequacies
in the areas of: content, expectations, time, and teaching. The ensuing call for
educational reform caught the attention of citizens and policymakers and has
provided the motivation for school improvement measures undertaken throughout
the United States, particularly in the development of academic content standards and
more rigorous course requirements.
20
International Benchmarks
It is helpful to provide a framework of reference among the major
industrialized nations with which to benchmark U.S. achievement and progress in
education relative to the world. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES),
located within the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education
Sciences, provides this information, as the primary federal entity for collecting and
analyzing data related to education in the U.S. and other nations (Miller, Sen, Malley
& Burns, 2009). In reviewing statistical data for a cross-national comparison of
education, U.S. achievement can be compared to the Group of Eight (G8), arguably
the world’s largest and most economically developed countries and partners. G8’s
membership includes: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Russian
Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The following international indicators and assessments allow comparison of
educational achievement: the Indicators of National Education Systems (INES)
project, the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), the Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Program for
International Student Assessment (PISA). The INES project, whose participants
include the U.S. and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), develops comparable measures of schools and education, including student
enrollment, teacher salaries, and graduation rates among 30 member countries. The
PIRLS is an assessment of reading comprehension given to fourth grade student in
the U.S. as well as to students in 44 other jurisdictions (countries and subnational
21
entities) around the world. The TIMSS assessment provides data on the math and
science achievement of U.S. 4th and 8th grade students compared to students in other
countries. The PISA assessment focuses on 15-year-old capabilities in reading,
mathematics and science literacy (Program for International Student Assessment,
2010).
The American Institutes for Research assessed the 2003 TIMMS using
additional data from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and
presented an analysis for a common set of 12 countries. This report indicated U.S.
performance in measures of mathematics rigor is below the 12-country average at
both low and high-skill levels and low and high-levels of item difficulty (Ginsburg et
al., 2005). U.S. mathematics scores rank 8th on TIMMS-4; 9th on TIMMS-8; and
9th on PISA. Additionally, in the content areas, the United States was found to be
significantly weaker in measurement for fourth and eighth grades, and geometry for
eighth grade and at age 15 (Ginsburg et al.).
The 2007 TIMMS reported the average mathematics scores of U.S. fourth
graders and eighth graders to be higher than the TIMMS average for the 36 (plus)
countries that participated, however the U.S. fourth grade average was lower than
those in eight countries and the U.S. eighth grade average was lower than five
countries. Additionally, at grade four, seven countries had higher percentages of
students performing at or above the advanced international mathematics benchmark
and at grade eight, seven countries had higher percentages than the U.S. for the
advanced international benchmark (Olson, Martin, & Mullis, 2008). Among G8
22
countries, the U.S. placed 4
th
for the advanced international mathematics benchmark
(Miller et al., 2009) at both the fourth and eighth grade levels.
The average combined reading literacy score of the 2006 PIRLS for U.S.
students was higher than the scores for students in 22 jurisdictions, yet lower than
average scores in 10 jurisdictions. Although there were no measurable differences in
average scores for U.S. students on the combined reading literacy scale between
2001 and 2006, students in 10 of the 45 participating countries did better than U.S.
students, and average scores increased for five jurisdictions who maintained
positions ahead of the U.S. in combined reading literacy: the Russian Federation,
Hong Kong, Singapore, Hungary, and Italy (G8 country) (Baer, Baldi, Ayotte, &
Green, 2007; Provasnik, Gonzalez, & Miller, 2009).
Similarly, high school graduation rates for U.S. students are lagging when
compared to industrialized countries. According to Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, 2008) calculations, the United States’ high school graduation rate
(77%) is below the OECD average of 83% and well below the 90% (plus) graduation
rates in Germany, Greece, Finland, Japan, South Korea, and Norway (OECD, 2008).
Education Week’s 2010 report of high school graduation rates shows a second
consecutive decrease in high school completion, approximately 2% over 2 years, and
persistent graduation gaps among America’s Latinos, Native Americans and African-
Americans (Education Projects in Education, 2010).
23
National Report Card
Clearly, underperformance of American students when compared to their
peers in other countries, including G8 nations was demonstrated by the preceding
indicators of math and reading achievement as well as high school graduation rates.
In a speech to the National Education Summit on High Schools in 2005, Bill Gates,
philanthropist and founder of Microsoft Corporation, spoke of the impact of this
underperformance in America:
Today, most jobs that allow you to support a family require some
postsecondary education. This could mean a four-year college, a community
college, or technical school. Unfortunately, only half of all students who
enter high school ever enroll in a postsecondary institution. That means that
half of all students starting high school today are unlikely to get a job that
allows them to support a family… Those who drop out have it even worse.
Only 40% have jobs. They are nearly four times more likely to be arrested
than their friends who stayed in high school. They are far more likely to have
children in their teens. One in four turns to welfare or other kinds of
government assistance (Gates, 2005).
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the nationally
representative and continuing assessment of U.S. student knowledge. NAEP
reporting, today often called “The Nation’s Report Card,” began in 1964, with a
grant from the Carnegie Corporation to set up the Exploratory Committee for the
Assessment of Progress in Education. Today, NAEP assessments are conducted
periodically in mathematics, reading, science, writing, the arts, civics, economics,
geography, and U.S. history (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010a).
According to the 2007 Nation’s Report Card, some gains have been made by
American students in reading and mathematics, although not always accompanied by
significant closing of the achievement gap (Lee, Grigg, & Donohue, 2007). Average
24
reading scores for fourth graders were up 2 points since 2005, and 4 points since the
first assessment 15 years ago, with scores for eighth graders up 1 point since 2005
and 3 points since 1992. The average mathematics scores for fourth graders
increased 27 points over the past 17 years and the score for eighth graders increased
19 points. Despite government reports calling for reform of the U.S. educational
system and attempts to manage and monitor student achievement, much
improvement is needed to ensure education keeps pace with the requirements of the
21
st
century. The Developing Research in Educational Leadership “task force report
affirms that demographic changes, expanding cultural differences and variances in
socioeconomic status, a widening spectrum of learner disabilities and capacities,
curriculum standards, and achievement benchmarks are changing the landscape of
learning, teaching, and leadership in public schools (Bjork, Kowalski, & Young,
2005, p. 54.).
Achievement Gap
In the 40 years since the Coleman Report highlighted the differences in
academic achievement among racial and socioeconomic groups in the United States,
there persists a significant gap in educational accomplishment among non-white
ethnicities and the poor, particularly in large urban school districts. Additionally,
despite governmental efforts to correct a widespread public perception of a slipping
educational system, reports from the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)
indicate otherwise.
25
The NAEP report of 2005 found that average reading scores had increased at
age nine and average math scores increased at ages nine and 13. Additionally, White-
Black reading and math score gaps were smaller. However, White-Black and White-
Hispanic reading and math gaps persist at a level over 20 points among all three age
groups studied: nine, 13, and 17 year-olds (Perie et al., 2005).
In “Achievement Gaps: How Black and White Students in Public Schools
Perform in Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational
Progress,” Vanneman (2009) reports:
While nationwide gaps in 2007 were narrower than in previous assessments
at both grades 4 and 8 in mathematics and at grade 4 in reading, White
students had average scores at least 26 points higher than Black students in
each subject, on a 0-500 scale. (p. iii)
When comparing the achievement a gap between White and Hispanic students at
ages nine, 13, and 17, a similar pattern occurs with some narrowing of nationwide
gaps between 1992 and 2008. Again, White students averaged higher scores than
Hispanic students in each subject by at least 20 points (NCES, 2010b). There is still
much room for improvement in closing the gap between white students and
Black/Hispanic minority students. The U.S. education system has not educated
minority and white students to the same levels.
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (U.S. Department of
Education, 2002) is the current version of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, a national educational reform effort taking aim at the achievement gap.
Its mandates were designed to improve the academic achievement of low income and
educationally disadvantaged students. NCLB attempts this by requiring states and
26
local districts who receives federal monies to monitor the achievements of particular
groups of students and increase the types and levels of services provided to them
(McDonnell, 2005). Annual assessments are created and goals are set for all students
to make yearly progress in reading and math. Further, states are required to
disaggregate and report student achievement data by subgroups of students, e.g.,
racial and socioeconomic, so that performance gains for all children can be tracked.
Urban Challenge
Increasing attention has also been directed toward the importance of
improving America’s urban educational system. Although comprising less than 1%
of all school districts in the United States, approximately one of every four (23%)
public school students is served by one of the 100 largest school districts (Tang &
Sable, 2009). The majority of students within these predominantly urban districts
were Hispanic or Black, 71%, compared to 38% of students in all school districts
(Tang & Sable). The 100 largest school districts had a disproportionate percentage of
students eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch eligibility, with 53% of
students were eligible, compared to 42% of students in all districts (Tang & Sable).
Additionally, the Council of the Great City Schools (2010), a coalition of 66 large
city school districts, reported enrollment of 17% of the nation’s English-language
learners.
The low achievement among this significantly large group of students who
are predominantly minority and low income is telling: in 2007, only 53% of fourth
graders in these urban schools achieved at least basic mastery or reading on the
27
National Assessment of Educational Progress, with some urban districts reporting
39%, as compared to 66% nationwide (Lutkis, Grigg, & Donohue, 2007). Most
recently in 2009, while still trailing the country’s average student performance, urban
eighth graders have posted small reading gains, with fourth grader reading scores flat
(Vanneman et al., 2009). The challenge of location and poverty in urban schools is
reflected in the large differences between urban and non-urban schools on most
indicators of student background, school experiences, and student outcomes.
In the quest for increased student achievement nationwide, urban school
districts pose the greatest challenge. Reasons include: a limiting family structure,
lack of economic security and the stability that is commonly associated with
desirable educational outcomes (Lippman, Burns, & McArthur, 1996). Within
schools themselves, larger enrollments, inadequate funding, higher numbers of
English language learners, high teacher turnover, and student behavior problems,
including weapons possession and student pregnancy, all pose seemingly
insurmountable obstacles to student success (Lippman et al.). Regarding leadership
of these complex districts, Cuban (2001) opines:
Leading urban schools, unlike leading other districts, is intimately tied to a
unique and complex mission: through improved schooling, reduce the dire
consequences of racial and ethnic isolation and the impact of poverty on
academic achievement, while increasing the life chances of families and their
children to succeed economically and to contribute to their communities.
It is with a sense of urgency that the schools and districts which serve this large
group of American school children must be transformed into systems capable of
educating to high levels of achievement.
28
There is clear evidence, however, of urban schools that have made significant
academic gains. Doug Reeves’s (2003) study of “90/90/90 schools” reported high
performance in schools whose membership included: 90% of students poor
(indicated by eligibility for federal free and reduced lunch program), 90% of students
members of ethnic minority groups, and 90% of students exceeding state academic
targets. The 90/90/90 research suggests that consistent application of effective
strategies and teaching practices in high poverty (urban) schools such as: laser-like
focus on student achievement, commitment to literacy, nonfiction writing, and
collaboration, can lead to increased levels of academic achievement (Reeves, 2003).
Marzano (2003) further confirmed the importance of teaching, curriculum, and
leadership strategies relative to socioeconomic and demographic variables in his
meta-analysis of achievement research.
Role of Local Systems
Traditionally, the American public school system has been built on loosely
coupled relationships: school boards grant district administrators discretion to
manage its schools, district office primary concerns are structural, logistical and
operational rather than strategic, and administrators operate at the building level,
leaving teachers with autonomy about what to teach, how, and with what effect
(Childress et al., 2005). However, with the Bush Administration’s No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) law, performance-based accountability has created a new playing
field among education’s chief players. In this arena, local educational agencies
(LEA), or school districts, are uniquely positioned to play a key role in the
29
improvement of educational services, as a source of logistical support and facilitator
of external resources. The local school system has a critical place in directing and
developing resources to support school improvement (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003).
By fostering strategies centered on increasing capacity in teaching and
learning and creating coherency throughout the organization, the central office can
provide leadership in the difficult task of improving student performance (Blank et
al., 2008; Childress et al., 2006; Iver & Farley, 2003; Togneri & Anderson, 2003;
Resnick & Glennan, 2002; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003). Specifically, schools
benefit from accountability measures and district guidance in the development of
instructional support and professional development (Elmore, 2003; Hanushek &
Raymond, 2004). “Only the district office can create such a plan, identify and spread
best practices, develop leadership capabilities at all levels, build information systems
to monitor student improvement, and hold people accountable for results” (Childress
et al., 2006). Iver and Farley (2003) reported consensus among research regarding
the importance of the central office role in: promoting a district culture of
achievement of every staff member; providing a focus on improving instruction
through coherent professional development; focusing attention on alignment of
curriculum; and providing training for principals and teacher in data-based decision-
making.
Although additional long-term research relating the district’s role in school
improvement is needed, Anderson (2003) reviewed recent literature regarding the
district role in educational change and found that districts do matter in positive ways
30
for increased performance by all students. Challenges districts face in implementing
system-wide improvement, district strategies for improving student learning, and
evidence of this impact on the quality of teaching and learning converged in the
findings around common strategic principles and policy-linked actions. Significant
district challenges included: lack of focus on student achievement, low expectations
and lack of demanding curricula for lower income and minority students, lack of
instructional coherence, insufficient capacity of staff to carry out new expectations,
and traditional organizational structures that created obstacles to restructuring
working conditions and support systems, e.g., class size, teacher transfer, length of
school day, etc. District strategies for improving student learning involved multiple
dimensions of restructuring and change focused on strategic actions related to
curriculum alignment and school leadership development. Some examples of these
district-wide strategic actions and their focus: student achievement and quality of
instruction; common performance standards, curricula and approaches to instruction;
use of data to inform practice; targeted and phased focuses of improvement;
investment in instructional leadership development at the school and district levels;
job-embedded professional development; emphasis on teamwork and professional
community; and movement of school board role towards governance and policy
development and away from direct involvement in managing the school system
(Anderson, 2003). The similarity of findings in the study across multiple sites
reaffirms that district efforts to: cast a vision of increased student achievement, set
31
high goals, and restructure district organizational support, can result in improving the
quality of student learning and teaching in classrooms.
Barton (2007) organized multiple district improvement studies into four
themes: Characteristics of Improved Districts (Shannon & Bylsma, 2004); Agents of
Change (Dailey et al., 2005); The Effect of Superintendents (Waters & Marzano,
2006); and Leading Reform (Fullan, Bertani, & Quinn, 2004). Shannon and Bylsma
(2004) analyzed more than 80 research reports and articles, focusing on 23 studies of
multiple school districts which focused primarily on those showing improvement at
the elementary level. The authors suggest that actions by the district can help schools
improve. The analysis identified 13 common improvement themes, clustered into
four broad categories: Effective Leadership, Quality Teaching and Learning, Support
for System-wide Improvement, and Clear and Collaborative Relationships (see
figure 2.1). “The studies show that school districts can create vision, a professional
culture, and a sense of urgency among stakeholders and implement teaching and
learning strategies to advance the work of educational reform” (p. 55).
32
Figure 2.1: Characteristics of Improved Districts
Characteristics of Improved School Districts: Themes from Research
Effective Leadership
Focus on Student Learning Dynamic/Distributed Leadership Sustained Improvement Efforts

Quality Teaching
and Learning
Support for Systemwide
Improvement
Clear and Collaborative
Relationships
High Expectations and
Accountability for Adults
Effective Use of Data Professional Culture and
Collaborative Relationships
Coordinated and Aligned
Curriculum and Assessment
Strategic Allocation of Resources Clear Understanding of School and
District Roles and Responsibilities
Coordinated and Embedded
Professional Development
Policy and Program Coherence Interpreting and Managing the
External Environment
Quality Classroom Instruction
Source: Shannon & Bylsma (2004)
In a review of literature on district effectiveness, Dailey (2005) presented
themes discovered in their research of 20 reports regarding how large urban districts
improve. The components of successful district reform and the strategies that help
districts move toward improvement were found to have a high degree of
commonality. Common themes identified of high-performing, high poverty districts,
across all sources: focus on student achievement and learning; district theory of
action and establishment of clear goals; comprehensive, coherent reform policies;
educators accept personal responsibility for improved student outcomes; districts
committed to providing coherent professional development; an emphasis on data to
guide decision-making; and progress is monitored regularly. The researchers suggest
as a next step looking at how districts have adapted these themes successfully to their
own circumstances, within the context of district individual preconditions or supports
33
for success, such as high expectations for all students, commitment to professional
learning, personal responsibility for student success, etc. (Dailey, 2005).
Waters and Marzano (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of 27 studies since
1970 that studied the influence of school district leaders on student achievement. The
findings of the study, which involved 2,817 districts and the achievement scores of
3.4 million students, indicated a statistically significant relationship (positive
correlation of .24) between district leadership and student achievement. School
district-level leadership matters. Other findings regarding the influence of school
district leaders on student performance: effective superintendents focus their efforts
on creating goal-oriented districts; superintendent tenure is positively correlated with
student achievement; and effective superintendents provide principals with defined
autonomy in meeting non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction (Waters &
Marzano, 2006).
Fullan, Bertani, and Quinn (2004) studied three districts in Canada, two in the
United States and one in England to discover how they have brought about effective
change. 10 components were identified that make improvement possible: a
compelling conceptualization of reform; collective moral purpose; the right structure
for getting the job done; capacity-building to sustain reform; lateral capacity-
building within the district; ongoing learning during reform implementation;
productive conflict in a high-trust culture; demanding culture; external partners to
help build the district’s professional capacity; and focused financial investments in
teaching and learning as well as giving responsive governments’ confidence.
34
Hallinger’s Instructional Leadership Model (2005), follows these components of
effective leadership, adding the leader’s need to be a visible presence in the school,
modeling the desired values of the school’s culture, and proposes integrating a
shared instructional leadership approach. Rigorous implementation of these
strategies can build school capacity and improve student learning (Fullan et al.,
2004).
The ways in which districts are important to increasing student achievement
have been identified through research into key characteristics of effective school
systems. The direction and effectiveness of a central office in putting into place
system-wide instructional improvement strategies across a school district is
necessary. Elmore’s New Structure for School Leadership (2000) posits five design
principles for large-scale district improvement: tight instructional focus on practice
and performance; routinize accountability for student academic performance; open
classroom practice to direct observation; allocate supervisory time and professional
development based on performance and capacity; and loosen and tighten
administrative control based on hard evidence of quality of practice and performance
of students. Elmore (2003) adds, “The school district – not the individual school or
the state – is the logical entity to assume long-term responsibility for monitoring the
performance of low-performing schools and developing systems of instructional
support around them” (p.15). The effective district office can coordinate the
improvement plan to meet the individual needs of schools, teach the tools necessary
35
to overcome the deficits, monitor progress and hold schools responsible for
continuous improvement (Childress et al., 2006).
The importance of urban districts is evident as most of the country’s minority
students are educated in these school systems. A focus on the education of urban
school children is required as they trail the nation in achievement and graduation.
Large numbers of African American and Hispanic students are already behind three
grade levels in reading and math by age nine, and the half of these students who do
make it through high school can only read at an eighth grade level (Childress et al.
2006).
The management of urban school systems has been the subject of study by
the Public Education Leadership Project (PELP) since 2003. In responding to why
can’t education be run more like a business, Childress (2005) offers insight into the
complexity and differences of running an urban school system and other business
operations:
The way they acquire capital, their mandate to serve all students (customers)
regardless of capabilities or desires, and their accountability to a multiplicity
of public and private stakeholders, who often have conflicting interests, are
but a few examples. School districts today face unique challenges that make
them more difficult to lead and manage than virtually any other enterprise in
our country. (p. 2)
Evidence of large urban school districts that focus on teaching and learning
with system wide strategies do exist. Fifteen urban districts partnered with PELP to
put into place and monitor effective strategies for achieving high student
performance across entire districts “District offices must carry out what we call
strategic function – that is, they need to develop a district-wide strategy for
36
improving teaching and learning and to create an organization that is coherent with
the strategy” (Childress et al., 2005, p.7). Strategies that positively affect student
achievement, must be coherent, strengthen teaching and learning, have clear
objectives, and include accountability measures (Childress et al, 2005; McLaughlin
& Talbert, 2003).
Regarding accountability, Reeves (1998) holds that if properly implemented,
it provides a strategic direction for leaders, enabling focus on student achievement
and strategies to effect school improvement. "Keys to establishing effective
educational accountability systems: balance between achievement and improvement,
specificity, focus on student performance, frequency, adaptation to individual
strengths, rewards for tough choices and reflection" (p. 6). Effective leadership
makes a difference, implementing an accountability system based on standards allow
students from every economic and ethnic background to succeed (Reeves, 2000).
The PELP Coherence Framework (Figure 2.2) is designed to help public
school district leadership on the central problem of increasing the achievement levels
of all students by identifying the key elements of a system-wide improvement plan,
making all the parts of a large district work coherently with its strategy (Childress,
Elmore, Grossman, & King, 2007). The framework for a creating a coherent
organization includes: a strategy for improving teaching and learning, the
instructional core; developing a performance, results-oriented culture; implementing
systems, structures, and mechanisms for ensuring accountability; deploying
resources and assets such as people, technology, curricular materials and data more
37
effectively; managing stakeholders to complement the strategic goals; and manage
environmental effects in order to consistently implement the district’s strategy
(Childress et al., 2006).
Figure 2.2: PELP Coherence Framework

Source: Harvard University, Childress, Elmore, Grossman and King, 2007, adapted
from Tushman and O’Reilly’s Congruence Model, 2002.
Large urban districts reporting strategies that achieved such success: Chicago
Public Schools focused on professional development for principals to lead change;
San Francisco Unified School District took a decentralized approach, empowering
38
principals to make decisions about program changes; and Montgomery County
Public Schools’ strategy for improving principals’ and teachers’ skills was driven by
the district office. Achieving excellence in even the largest urban district starts with a
coherent strategy for strengthening teaching and learning then redefining the
leadership role of the central office to support that strategy (Childress et al., 2006). It
was found that principals were more likely to be in higher performing schools when
district expectations were in alignment with adopted curriculum and the principal
was evaluated based on that alignment, further examples of the importance of
coherency within the system (Williams, Kirst, and Haertel, 2005). “Districts that
unrelentingly focus on their core business of student performance, create and
implement coherent strategies around this core, and array all the elements of the
district to drive and support classroom instruction, out-perform their peer districts
with comparable constraints” (Childress et al., 2005, p. 10).
Role of System Leaders
In some respects, the role of the large urban district superintendent is similar
to that of top executives in large organizations. The superintendent reports the
company’s progress to a board of directors, responds to their questions and guidance,
and provides strategic and operational leadership to the organization. The nature of
the public school system, however, adds a measure of complexity to the work of the
superintendent that is not seen in private business. Public schools cannot choose to
serve only the most profitable markets – all customers (students) must receive
39
services, regardless of prior achievement and indicators regarding potential for
success.
Superintendents have long been responsible for overseeing school district
management and administration of the essential elements of schooling. Historically,
if superintendents were good at the management issues, Houston (2001) tags the
“killer B’s,” buses, books, budgets, etc., they were deemed successful. Those
essential elements have shifted in the wake of increased accountability demanded of
districts in meeting achievement goals set in NCLB (Lashway, 2002). Today,
districts not meeting state goals are subject to sanctions, public scrutiny and pressure
from local governance boards. In order to meet rising achievement goals, more and
more districts, particularly large urban districts, have expanded the support system to
include the resources of the broader community (Houston, 2001). The killer B’s have
thus shifted superintendent attention to the “crucial C’s,” processes that support the
work of the district in improving student learning: connection, communication,
collaboration, community building, child advocacy, and curricular choices (Houston,
2001; Task Force on School District Leadership, 2001). The superintendent’s role as
the district’s key communicator includes: “engaging others in open political
dialogue, facilitating the creation of shared visions, building a positive school district
image, gaining community support for change, providing an essential framework for
information management, providing marketing programs, and keeping the public
informed about education” (Kowalski, 2006). The crucial C’s demand
40
Superintendent leadership within the community to meet student academic, social,
and behavioral advocacy requirements.
Fuller’s (2003) study of superintendents from 100 of the nation’s largest
urban and ex-urban districts and interviews with 40 large-district superintendents
suggests that the superintendency is an impossible job, and that stakeholder
expectations cannot be met with current resources and existing authority. The job of
today’s superintendent is increasingly complex, calling for deft leadership to guide
challenging educational systems and respond to ever-changing social and political
influences, within an arena of continuous criticism and dissatisfaction with the
leader’s performance (Byrd, Drews, & Johnson, 2006).
The nature of the work of superintendents is reflected in the kind of leadership
required: educational, political, and managerial (Nestor-Baker & Hoy, 2001; Cuban,
2001; Johnson, 1996). Susan Moore Johnson’s (1996) study of 12 newly appointed
superintendents revealed: as educational leaders, they diagnosed educational needs
and guided strategies for improving teaching and learning; as political leaders, they
interacted with city officials, school board members, and union leaders to make
decisions; and as managerial leaders, superintendents influenced schools’ practices.
Regarding leadership success in urban systems, Cuban (2001) adds:
Those urban superintendents who thrive in the post learn to lead by
consciously blending the political, managerial, and instructional roles to cope
with the conflicts arising from issues of race and class as they affect test
scores and the broader purposes of public schooling. (p.5)
The Task Force on School District Leadership (2001) found three related and
overlapping types of leadership: organizational leadership, developing and managing
41
the resources to support the instructional system; public leadership, promoting
effective communication among board members, district staff, parents, students and
community members; and instructional leadership, establishing a clear vision for
teaching and learning.
Johnson (1996) places politics central to their success, requiring effective
superintendents to “build coalitions, negotiate agreements, and force concessions
when necessary, all without hitting political land mines that may cost them ground”
(p. 153). In this political environment the superintendent must learn how to lead
those who have significant influence on the school system, but are not subject to his
authority.
Simplistically, district school boards set policy and hire the superintendent to
run the district. As a result of this relationship, the board derives significant indirect
control over district strategic operations. Good relations must be maintained
between the superintendent and the school board, and are characterized by respect,
confidence and support (Land, 2002). However, challenges to superintendent
leadership include: fostering collaboration, avoiding destructive public conflict,
setting working boundaries between the board and the district’s operations, and
promoting constructive decision making (Johnson, 1996). Because the district leader
serves at the pleasure of the board, he must continually work to maintain credibility
and support for his actions. Power struggles between the board and the
superintendent can pit political maneuvering and personal whim against effective
school governance and reform (Loveless, 2000). Although few studies have
42
examined this relationship with regard to student achievement or district reform,
districts where there was a lack of trust and collaboration, poor communication by
the superintendent or board micromanagement had lower student achievement than
districts without these problems (Land, 2002).
In addition to dealing with typical Board issues such as of lack of focus and
micromanagement, superintendents in “union states,” those sanctioning collective
bargaining, devote a significant effort in meeting bargaining unit challenges to
managerial prerogative and school reform (Fuller et al., 2003; Loveless, 2000). The
top two union priorities, pay and working conditions, frequently frustrate
superintendents’ efforts to improve system performance and student learning (Hess
& West, 2006). Negotiations for higher wages and benefits compete with scarce
dollars for improvement programs, and contract language restricting changes to
teacher assignment (seniority impact) and innovations such as facilitating teacher
collaboration, can stymie academic progress (Eberts, 2007; Kerchner & Koppich,
2007).
State union statutes initially designed to protect teachers from salary
stagnation, or unfair and capricious administrative action, currently affect education
policymaking by increasing teacher salaries by 5% and per-pupil spending increases
by 12%, significantly affecting resource allocation within school districts (Eberts,
2007; Hoxby, 1996). Superintendents are thus tasked with balancing shrinking
budgets held hostage to prior years’ bargaining agreements. Similarly, contract
language standardizing teacher working conditions can derail management initiatives
43
to increase student academic achievement in areas such as: staff professional
development, collaboration, and extending student school day, reform actions which
affect the contracted teacher work day (Hess & Loup, 2008; Hess & West, 2006).
Although superintendents of higher performing middle schools reported being able
to negotiate teacher contracts which place a priority on improved student
achievement, only 65 of 157 superintendents surveyed in that study agreed they
could negotiate teacher union contracts that place such a priority (Williams et al.,
2010).
Besides possessing sufficient administrative, educational, and political skill,
the effective system leader must have sufficient time to implement change, improve
quality and performance, and thus, sustain educational reform (Childress et al., 2005;
Elmore, 2000; Marsh, 2000). The accomplishment of the system leader’s reform role
is often affected by instability in the length of the Superintendent’s tenure (Thomas,
2001). In contrast to the stability offered by CEOs in successful world-class
corporations such as Dell, Federal Express and Microsoft, with average terms greater
than 20 years (Waters & Marzano, 2006), current superintendent tenure ranges from
5-6 years, with urban superintendents experiencing even shorter tenure than other
superintendents (Byrd et al., 2006; Glass, Bjork, & Brunner, 2000). The effect of
limited tenure “leads to significant discontinuity in goal and program direction and to
a near-complete loss of long-range institutional perspective” (Goodman &
Zimmerman, 2000, p. 9). In their research on improved school districts, Shannon and
Bylsma (2004) found that reform strategies needed to be implemented and sustained
44
for a long time (8 to 10 years) before seeing significant results. The process for
choosing and piloting an effective reform program, even before wide-scale
implementation, could take 3 to 5 years (Corcoran, Fuhrman, & Belcher, 2001).
Additionally, Togneri and Anderson (2003) studied five high-poverty urban districts
that were making strides in improving student achievement and found that leadership
stability among these superintendents and board members served to sustain reform
even after “change agent” superintendents left the district.
Research is clear that leadership, providing direction and exercising
influence, matters. Waters and Cameron (2007) found a statistically significant
correlation between school level leadership and student achievement – a .25
correlation translating to a 10 percentile point difference in student achievement on a
norm referenced test. The core practices of successful leadership include: setting
directions, developing people, redesigning the organization; and managing the
instructional (teaching and learning) program (Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, &
Hopkins, 2006). All reform efforts depend on the motivation and capacities of local
leadership, hence effective leadership is critical (Byrd et al., 2006; Leithwood et al.,
2004a). Leadership is second only to the effects of the quality of curriculum and
teachers’ instruction among school-related factors in its impact on learning,
accounting for 25% of effects upon student learning, (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003;
Leithwood et al., 2006; Waters & Cameron, 2007). The importance of leadership in
educational systems at all levels cannot be overstated, having been well-documented
45
as a means of improving student learning outcomes. Improving leadership, thus, is a
foundation to the successful implementation of large-scale reform.
Waters & Cameron (2007) developed the balanced leadership framework
based on meta-analysis of 69 studies of school-level leadership and its effects on
student achievement. Twenty-one leadership responsibilities and sixty-six practices
for fulfilling the responsibilities were identified and organized. “It is our view that
leaders are continually engaged in focusing the work of the school, leading change
with varying orders of magnitude, and developing purposeful community both within
the school and in the larger community” (p. 16). Understanding characteristics of
change, i.e., orders of change magnitude, is crucial to the effective implementation of
the leadership role, as the change process can create significant tension which may
negatively affect the organization’s willingness to accept the risk and discomfort
associated with changing the status quo (Waters & Cameron, 2007; Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, 2005).
Waters & Marzano (2006) found that district leadership matters in
influencing student achievement. Effective superintendents were found to focus on
creating goal-oriented districts, and exhibited five leadership responsibilities that
correlated with student academic achievement: collaborative goal-setting; non-
negotiable goals for achievement and instruction; board alignment and support of
district goals; monitoring of goals for achievement and instruction; and use of
resources to support achievement and instruction goals. Marsh and Robyn’s (2006)
working paper reported high percentages of superintendents who: used state
46
assessment data to develop district improvement plans, focused on professional
development, and implemented changes to district curriculum. Effective
superintendents keep districts focused on teaching and learning goals using data to
monitor progress (Datnow, Park, Wohlstetter, 2007).
The superintendent is positioned to significantly improve student
achievement, regarded as the most daunting task by superintendents (Byrd et al,
2006). The roles of the superintendent include: instructional leader, resource
manager, district policymaker and spokesman (Byrd et al., 2006; Fuller et al., 2003).
The superintendent’s managerial influence includes influence over the behaviors of
principals and teachers, thoughtful staff selection and recruiting, and clearly
articulating district mission and goals (Byrd et al., 2006). Although leadership effects
are mostly indirect and difficult to precisely measure, superintendent leadership is
clearly important and must be developed carefully and comprehensively.
Leadership Strategies
“Strategy is the set of actions a district deliberately takes to provide capacity
and support to the instructional core with the objective of raising student
performance district-wide. Strategy informs how the people, activities, and resources
of a district work together” (Childress et al., 2007, p. 4). Well-crafted strategies
connect to an organization’s purpose, provide focus, guide choices of action,
illuminate causal relationships, define measurement parameters, address the external
environment, and allow for adaptation. Shared beliefs, sustained communication, and
shared convictions among educational professionals are implicit in the design of a
47
theory of action for a high-performing school district (Resnick & Glennan, 2002). A
theory of action connects the strategy to the organization’s mission and represents
the collective belief about the causal relationships between actions and outcomes, in
short, how to turn their vision into reality (Childress, 2004; Dailey et al., 2005).
Peter Senge (1990) defines a learning organization as one that is continually
expanding its capacity in order to create its future. Similarly, schools and school
districts must become learning organizations in order to improve their capacity.
“Learning” leaders seek to understand the organization’s work and raise the
collective capacity of people at all levels of the organization to believe they are
empowered to bring about the necessary change to improve education. Leaders shape
the overall environment for innovation and change by leading the development of
guiding principles about purpose, values and vision for the organization. The new
view of leadership in the learning organization is that of inspiring the vision. This
leader is “responsible for building organizations where people continually expand
their capabilities to understand complexity, clarify vision, and improved shared
mental models – that is, they are responsible for learning” (p. 340).
The Professional Learning Community, or PLC, has emerged as a conceptual
framework to meet the capacity building objectives of the learning organization.
“International evidence suggests that educational reform’s progress depends on
teachers’ individual and collective capacity and its link with school-wide capacity for
promoting pupils’ learning. Building capacity is therefore critical” (Stoll, Bolam,
McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas, 2006, p. 221). Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour (2002)
48
set the groundwork for the Professional Learning Community as major themes found
in the policies, programs and practices of a school district: “(1) a solid foundation
consisting of collaboratively developed and widely shared mission, vision, values,
and goals, (2) collaborative teams that work interdependently to achieve common
goals, and (3) a focus on results as evidenced by a commitment to continuous
improvement” (p. 3). Three key components found in a strong professional learning
community at work in a school: collaborative work and discussion among educators,
a consistent focus on teaching and learning guided by that collaboration, and the
collection and use of assessment and other data to evaluate progress over time. The
development of such a learning organization builds teamwork and professional
capacity, enabling it to learn and respond quickly to the changing environment
(Senge, 1990).
Susan Moore Johnson’s (1996) longitudinal study of 12 new superintendents
focused on three kinds of leadership: educational, political, and managerial, and the
overlapping contexts – historical, community and organizational in which
superintendent leadership occurs. In crafting a vision for the improvement of a
district’s schools, superintendents were most successful when the visions were clear
and coherent, addressed important needs, fit the context of the district, and were
championed by the superintendent (p. 88). Political insight and action are essential
companions to the superintendents’ educational leadership skills and necessary
working for with key groups – the school board, local government, and teachers
unions (p. 167). Successful school superintendents effectively managed the
49
structures of their organizations, controlling the key levers of: district
standardization, central office organization, and the supervision of the district’s
principals (p. 244).
“House Model” for District Reform
The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation for Education is a national
entrepreneurial philanthropy whose mission is to “dramatically transform urban K-12
public education through better governance, management, labor relations and
competition” (Broad Foundation Education, 2010). The Broad Center for the
Management of School Systems operates two urban school district leadership
programs designed to develop talented leaders in education, business, the military,
nonprofit organizations and government: The Broad Superintendents Academy
(TBA) and The Broad Residency in Urban Education. The Academy is a rigorous
10-month long national executive leadership development program conducted over
seven extended-weekends that identifies, prepares, and places leaders who have
executive experience leading large organizations, into urban school districts.
Additionally, the Broad Academy graduates are supported during their training and
during their later placement by faculty advisors and TBA mentors who provide
leadership development, coaching and support (Broad Superintendents Academy,
2010; Takata, Marsh, & Castruita, 2007).
The Broad Superintendents Academy curriculum focuses on three key areas
critical to effective urban education leadership: instructional alignment, operational
excellence, and stakeholder engagement (Broad Superintendents Academy, 2010).
50
These key areas form the pillars for the “House Model” (Figure 2.1), a reform
framework developed by the Broad Academy staff and used extensively as a
metaphor for the training curriculum. Topics within these key areas include 1)
Instructional alignment – appropriate use of assessment data, review of curriculum
and instructional material, and assessing professional development impact; 2)
Operational excellence – human resources: recruitment, hiring and evaluation, multi-
year budgeting and equitable allocation of resources; 3) Stakeholder engagement –
strategic partnering with the school board, maintaining labor-management
partnerships aligned to student achievement goals, forging relationships with parents
and the community, working with the media to effectively communicate work of the
district. Additionally, general leadership and management topics are presented, such
as: initial entry (start-up) plan; theory of action and strategic planning; analyzing
data; and project planning by prioritizing and pacing work (Broad Superintendents
Academy, 2008; Takata et al., 2007; Broad Foundation, 2008). The Superintendent’s
Plan of Entry and 10 of the House Model reform strategies, dimensions of reform, or
change actions employed by an urban school district superintendent to promote
student achievement, are the key focus of this research and are presented in Figure
2.3 below.
51
Figure 2.3: The House Model

Sustainability
Increasing Student Achievement
Closing Achievement Gaps
Improving College and Workplace Readiness

Instructional Alignment
• Standards
• Assessment
• Curriculum
• Instruction
• Professional Development
• Program Effectiveness
• Focus on Lowest
Performers
• Student Support Services
Operational Excellence
• Human Resources System
and Human Capital
Management
• Finance and Budget
• Resource Alignment
• Facilities
• Performance Management
System/Accountability Plan
• Business Services
• Other Operations Services
Stakeholder Management
• Communications
• Governance/Board
Relations
• Labor Relations/Contract
Negotiations
• Political Relationships
• Philanthropic and
Institutional Partnerships
• Family and Community
Engagement
• Constituent Service
Organizational Assessment
and Audits
Organizational & Management
Structure
• Leadership Team
Effectiveness
• Organizational Chart
Strategic Plan
• Theory of Action
• Data Dashboard
Superintendent’s Plan of Entry

Superintendent’s Plan of Entry or Start-up Plan
A start-up plan consists of “launching strategies,” which new superintendents
use to improve the district’s transition to their leadership. By having their initial
actions planned out, new superintendents can: (1) Harness the natural confusion that
accompanies the start of a new job as a resource for personal and organizational
learning; (2) Spark an organizational self-examination; (3) Provide an opportunity
for the new leader to gain the trust of stakeholders; and (4) Help the new leader to
establish an approach to leadership that works well after the start-up period. (King &
Blumer, 2000; Jentz & Murphy, 2005).
52
Watkins (2003) summarizes the major goals of a start up plan: “to quickly
become familiar with the new organization, to secure early wins, and to build
supportive coalitions” (p. 15). This transition acceleration, a period of 90 to 100
days, is facilitated by a systematic approach to addressing predictable challenges,
often beginning with a “listen and learn tour”, enabling the new leader to get settled
into a demanding new job quickly, smoothly, and effectively. A new leader’s actions
and relationship building during the critical entry or “honeymoon” phase sets the
stage for how effectively they will be able to lead in the future (King & Blumer,
2000).
Strategic Plan
The strategic plan defines the district’s vision, mission and goals, helping to
establish a focus and direction for its work (Reeves, 2002; McLaughlin & Talbert,
2003; Jasparro, 2006). It assigns performance indicators, work plans and
responsibility for each of the district’s goals and serves as the guiding document for
all district decisions, budgets, and priorities. In order to reach all students across a
district, a system wide vision and strategy is required to facilitate program coherence
in the allocation of fiscal and human resources and system capacity-building
(Shannon & Bylsma, 2004).
The strategic plan articulates the district’s vision, the educational values of
the organization and the community (Conley, 1993; Reeves, 2002). The mission
statement is a declaration of what the district will be and should be known and
understood throughout the district (Kotter, 1996; Reeves, 2002). Goals and
53
objectives are specific and state what must be achieved in order to attain results in
improved student achievement (Cook, 2001; Reeves, 2002). Strategies used in the
plan to deploy the district’s resources: people, facilities, equipment, and funding,
reflect the priorities and standards of the district (Cook, 2001).
Literature suggests key elements to an effective strategic plan: commitment
to deploy any and all of the district’s resources – people, facilities, equipment and
funding to execute strategies which are clearly articulated and focus on the
improvement of student outcomes (Williams et al., 2010); an action plan which
contains detailed description of monitoring, evaluation and inquiry (of teaching and
learning) (Reeves, 2009); a theory of action for change to accompany the strategic
plan which guides aligned reform policies clearly articulates structure (Resnick &
Glennan, 2002; McAdams, 2006); and district-identified key indicators, a “Data
Dashboard” or education scorecard, aligned to the strategic plan, which gives
stakeholders an indication of the district’s strategic pulse (Reeves, D., 2002;
Karathanos & Karathanos, 2005).
Assessment
Assessments are used by school systems to verify achievement of educational
objectives such as student accomplishment of proficiency standards or effectiveness
of professional development in raising achievement. Assessments of student
performance are classified as summative or formative. State and federal summative
assessments measure overall academic performance, implementation and compliance
with standards (Anderson, 2003; O’Day et al, 2004). District-wide use of standards-
54
based common curriculum and pacing schedule is monitored using benchmark
formative assessments, whose results are used to adapt teaching to student needs
(Black & Wiliam, 1998; Marzano, 2007; Perie, 2007).
Following assessment of student achievement, analysis/interpretation of
results is required in order to make decisions regarding further instruction (Marzano,
2007; Schmoker, 1999). A systematic, district-wide approach to the management,
organization, analysis and reporting of student results is necessary in order to bring
about improved student outcomes (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003; Park & Datnow,
2009). Leithwood et al. (2004b) found high quality leaders establish high
expectations and use data to track progress:
Successful districts invest considerable resources in developing their capacity
to assess the performance of students, teachers and schools, and to utilize
these assessments to inform decision-making about needs and strategies for
improvement and progress towards goals at the classroom, school and district
levels. (p. 42)
School systems build capacity and empower educators to use data to inform
instruction by investing in professional development, supporting data use and
providing time for collaboration (Datnow, Park, & Wohlstetter, 2007; Elmore, 2007).
Leadership is instrumental to developing effective data assessment practices as
districts play a major role in the provision and use of student assessment data
(Childress et al., 2006; Reeves, 2009; Williams et al., 2010).
Curriculum
Curriculum refers to what students are supposed to learn in a course of study,
content and sequence of experiences delivered to students, including teaching
55
materials and pedagogy for delivering those materials. The results of enhanced
curriculum interventions are significant, more certain, and less expensive than other
achievement-raising policy reforms (Whitehurst, 2009).
Regarding what high-quality curriculum looks like, Tomlinson (2005) opines,
“The essence of best practice curriculum and instruction is selecting what we teach
and how we teach in ways that help learners make sense of important ideas” (p. 161).
Essential curricular elements include textbooks, workbooks, pacing guides, etc.,
which address the scope and sequence of the district’s grade level standards for
student learning. The single most important contributor to the success of a district
was a rigorous curriculum aligned to high standards and coherently supported at all
levels throughout the system (Anderson, 2003; Carr & Harris, 2001; Shannon &
Bylsma, 2004; Togneri & Anderson, 2003; Zavadsky, 2009). In addition to
curriculum alignment, with pacing plans and periodic assessments, literature
suggests other key elements to an effective curriculum strategy: equal access to
learning standards by all students (Carr & Harris, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 2006;
Plecki, et al., 2009); fidelity in its implementation (MacIver & Farley, 2003);
curriculum communicated clearly to district stakeholders, with adequate funding
support; and long term commitment to implementation, to include revision and
update (Carr & Harris, 2001; MacIver & Farley, 2003).
Marzano (2003) asserts that a guaranteed and viable curriculum has the most
impact on student achievement. Fidelity in the district’s curriculum, with the
intended curriculum aligned to standards, rigorous and delivered to all students, i.e.,
56
English learners, students with disabilities, etc., is essential. The taught curriculum
should closely follow the intended curriculum, with district-wide common
assessment of student knowledge comparing the attained curriculum against the
intended curriculum (DuFour & Marzano, 2009).
Professional Development
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 requires that states ensure the
availability of “high-quality” professional development for all teachers. Professional
development activities are designed to improve the effectiveness of instructional
leaders, i.e., train principals and teachers in detecting when students aren’t achieving
and adjust instruction accordingly (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). Common
professional development themes include content acquisition and update,
instructional techniques, collaboration, and leadership development. Literature
suggests the following key features of an effective professional development
strategy: coherent design with activities that reflect current research-based strategies
for improving student achievement (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001; Joyce &
Showers, 2002); implementation of program at all levels – individual, collegial , and
organizational levels (Togneri & Anderson, 2003); evaluation of learning activities
to validate effectiveness of training and continued alignment with district/school
goals for student learning (Blank et al., 2008; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, &
Gallagher, 2007); and sharing professional development throughout system (Stoll et
al., 2006). Ultimately, effective staff development brings about changes in teacher
57
behavior that are beneficial to students and lead to improved performance (Grogan &
Andrews, 2002).
There is a paucity of research directly linking professional development to
student achievement, with only 9 of 1,300 studies meeting U.S. Department of
Education’s What Works Clearinghouse (U.S. Department of Education, 2010)
evidence standards (Guskey, 2009; Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007).
However, research synthesis indicates that providing substantial professional
development to teachers has a moderate effect on student achievement (Yoon et al.,
2007). The following factors contribute to the effectiveness of professional
development efforts resulting in student learning improvements: a focus on specific
subject-related content or pedagogic practices; professional development presented
directly to teachers by outside experts who helped facilitate implementation; 30 or
more well organized and purposefully directed contact hours, focused on content and
or pedagogy; and substantial structured and sustained follow-up (Blank et al., 2008;
Guskey & Yoon, 2009; Shannon & Bylsma, 2004).
HR System and Human Capital Management
Teacher quality characteristics have a significant effect upon student
achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Hanushek, 2003; Stronge, Ward, Tucker, &
Hindman, 2007). Likewise, the importance of effective leadership from principals
and district superintendents on student performance has been established (Waters,
Marzano & McNulty, 2003; Waters & Cameron, 2007). A district Human Resources
(HR) system can improve the quality of instruction through its efforts at attracting,
58
selecting and managing exceptional teachers and leaders, then providing quality
support and retention programs to keep good talent in the district. Smart investments
human capital can lead to improvement in urban districts (Milanowski, Longwell-
Grice, Saffold, Jones, Schomisch, & Odden, 2009; Zavadsky, 2009).
Literature suggests a number of key components to an effective district
human resources (HR) system and human capital management strategy. By
examining and refining their HR processes, all resources, including salaries,
incentives, and working conditions can be used coherently to alter patterns of
recruitment, assignment and retention allowing districts to improve their capacity for
higher student achievement (Childress et al., 2007; Hill, 2008). A strong district
carefully manages programs which recruit, train and retain quality personnel and
deploys staff to schools where abilities match student needs (Elmore, 2000; Elmore,
2003; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005). Teacher support, from induction to
professional development, aligned to district goals builds human capital and
contributes significantly to student achievement (Elmore, 2003; MacIver & Farley,
2003; Wong, 2004). Competitive salaries, incentives, wages and benefits are
influential to attracting and retaining high quality teachers and may influence
teachers to take positions in hard to staff, urban schools (Elmore, 2003; Hanushek,
Kain, & Rivkin, 2004).
Finance and Budget
Providing guidance to ensure the district’s budget is balanced and sustainable
is a given for an effective superintendent. A district’s financial resources are properly
59
managed through standardized financial procedures, effective controls, and internal
and external audit procedures. Additionally, promoting an organizational culture
which makes budget building strategies transparent to the community and expands
public participation in the process has a positive relationship to information
management (Bird, Wang, & Murray, 2009). Finance and budget as a reform
strategy links the superintendent’s goals and instructional priorities to measurable
objectives and outcomes as the basis of strategic budget planning. Coherent, focused
and efficient use of public funds is a necessary element of any district strategy for
increasing student learning (Anderson, 2003; Childress et al., 2007). Hill (2008)
adds, “A full strategy must also include performance incentives, rigorous use of data
on processes and outcomes, and efforts to increase the capacities of individuals
(teachers and administrators) and organizations” (p. 11).
Although it has been difficult to prove the full effect of school resources on
student achievement, student-weighted allocation, as opposed to the traditional staff-
based allocation policy, can be a means toward greater resource equity (per-pupil,
needs-weighted) among schools within districts (Greenwald, Hedges, & Laine, 1996;
Hanushek, 2003; Miles & Roza, 2006; Plecki et al., 2009). Current accountability
measures have focused accountability for performance at the school level, drawing
attention to disparities in resource distributions within districts (Guthrie, 1996). A
student-weighted formula method of budget allocation, incorporating baseline
education with the need of some students for additional resources, e.g. special
education, limited English proficiency, etc., can drive the distribution of dollars to
60
meet district academic improvement objectives (Ouchi, Cooper, & Segal, 2003;
Miles & Roza 2006).
Communication
A recent study by the Brookings Institute (West, Whitehurst, & Dionne,
2009) found that of 691 AP wire stories and 551 news stories from national
television, cable, radio, print, and online sources, only 1.4 % of all national news
consisted of education-related stories, up from 0.7% in 2008. “Schools need to
understand that communications is important to their education mission. Time spent
to inform reporters, parents, and the community about what is happening inside
schools is a good investment in public understanding” (p.2). Good communications
galvanizes support, motivates people and persuades them to endorse and lobby for or
against an issue (Howlett, 1993).
A district must develop an effective communications plan which actively
supports the district mission and vision of increasing student achievement (Carlsmith
& Railsback, 2001). Essential elements of the district’s communication program: an
identified communications staff member, ideally a director who actively participates
in the strategic management of the organization (National School Public Relations
Association, 2002); a proactive approach to communicating the district message and
vision to the community (Carlsmith & Railsback, 2001; Howlett, 1993); intentional
engagement of family and community members as decision makers, to build support
for district initiatives (Bausch & Goldring, 1995; Shatkin & Gershberg, 2007); and
close liaison maintained by savvy communicators with schools and community to
61
ensure the reporting of “great stories” within the district (Carlsmith & Railsback,
2001; Shatkin & Gershberg, 2007; Scott & Cantor, 1996; Carr, 2009). An effective
public relations or communications effort can enable the district to communicate its
vision to the public and proactively build support for important initiatives which
raise student achievement (National School Public Relations Association, 2002).
Governance and Board Relations
The governance team of a school district is comprised of a locally-elected or
appointed school board and the superintendent. School boards create a vision, set
goals, establish policy frameworks, allocate resources and oversee district
management (Harvey, 2003; Land, 2003; Waters & Marzano, 2006; McAdams,
2006; Task Force on School District Leadership, 2001). According to the National
School Boards Association (2010):
The Key Work of School Boards is a framework of eight interrelated action
areas to focus and guide school boards in their work. The Key Work
components are Vision, Standards, Assessment, Accountability, Alignment,
Climate, Collaboration and Community Engagement, and Improvement. The
purpose of the Key Work is to help school boards engage their communities
and improve student achievement through effective governance.
School boards have the power to hire, evaluate and dismiss the district
superintendent. An effective school board can act as a powerful change agent in
school district reform (McAdams, 2006). The superintendent serves the Board as a
key leadership resource, not only in executing policy for the district, but as the
primary educational advisor and key conduit for communication among the
governance team (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Thus, maintaining good Board
relations is a key, albeit time-consuming task for the effective superintendent
62
(Elmore, 2000; Harvey, 2003; Land, 2002). Stability, trust and support are
trademarks of an effective governance team (Anderson, 2003; Augustine et al., 2009;
Zavadsky, 2009).
An effective governance and board relations strategy provides for setting the
district’s direction, by creating a vision which is tightly-focused on achievement and
the needs of all children (Elmore, 2000; Dailey et al., 2005; Waters & Marzano,
2006). A board that has established an effective and efficient structure for the district
empowers the superintendent and his staff to set the direction for educational
achievement and improvement, as well as manage personnel, financial and capital
resources (Land, 2002). The board supports a budget process which aligns resources
with instructional priorities based on student needs (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). A
system of accountability, e.g., superintendent’s contract, internal/external audits,
assessments, etc, is internalized and modeled by a healthy, collaborative relationship
between the board, the superintendent, and the community (Anderson, 2003). The
board and superintendent encourage the public to participate in the decision-making
of district policy, including budget development, educational program planning, and
strategic planning (Chrispeels, Gonzales, & Edge, 2006; National School Boards
Foundation, 2001; Rice et al., 2000).
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations
An effective labor relations and contract negotiations strategy will build
strong relationships with all bargaining units based on trust, district priorities for
student achievement and acknowledgement of union interests. Good faith effort in
63
the bargaining process supports the needs of both sides and minimizes adversarial
behaviors. By maintaining a negotiating environment that respects core values,
productive behavior and teamwork is enhanced (Ingram & Snider, 2008). In addition
to maintaining trust and adhering to principled negotiating, literature suggests other
key elements to an effective labor relations and contract negotiations strategy. These
include: the development of collaborative negotiation processes among bargaining
units which relate bargaining success to the district mission; basing interests on
district philosophy, core values, financial resources, community support and the
impact on supporting students and promoting student achievement (Hannaway &
Rotherham, 2006; Ingram & Snider, 2008); and developing outcome goals that are
fair and equitable, recognizing the value of all employees and their impact on student
success (Hess & West, 2006; Hewitt, 2007).
A strong contract negotiations strategy ensures that personnel policies and
work rules are supportive of district goals to increase student achievement. Contract
language which promotes professional development, staff collaboration and
encourages highly qualified teachers to work and stay in hard-to-staff education
settings are key (Hess & Loup, 2008; Kerchner & Koppich, 2007; Hess & West,
2006). Recognizing that teacher effectiveness and influence is critical to student
learning, contract language facilitating management’s ability to replace and reassign
staff is particularly crucial (Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004; Hess & Loup,
2008). Hess and Loup (2008) found that substantial ambiguity may already exist in
the flexible language of current contracts to permit more aggressive movement on
64
teacher assignment. Hess (2009) explains the breakthrough leadership required to
change the timid and restrictive mindset which hampers superintendent action in
using this key reform lever:
Put simply, education leaders are trained and raised to operate from a
defensive posture. Superintendents and principals learn early to tread
gingerly, pursue consensus, get clearance before acting, and abide by
established procedures. Whatever the statutory and contractual hurdles
leaders face, these are dramatically worsened by the socialization, training,
and legal culture of the K–12 environment. (p.29)
Family and Community Engagement
Blank and Berg (2006) “argue that schools and communities must work
together to create an environment in which all young people can succeed” (p. 15).
Effective school-community partnerships focus the activities of the district, from
coordinating volunteer opportunities for parents to partnering with local
organizations in support of student success.
The importance of effective parental involvement in school has been
identified as a critical factor in the academic success of students (Epstein & Sanders,
2002; Lee & Bowen, 2006; Lunenburg & Irby, 2002). Students with involved parents
are more likely to: earn higher grades, attend school regularly, have better social
skills, show improved behavior, graduate and go on to postsecondary education (Fan
& Williams, 2010; Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Epstein’s (1995) framework of six
types of involvement: parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home,
decision-making, and collaborating with community is useful in organizing district
efforts to enhance and encourage school-community partnerships:.
65
Effective district partnership programs have a protocol for recruiting and
training volunteers to support students and school programs. These programs engage
families and assist parents with learning skills that support child-rearing and
academic achievement, e.g., setting a home study environment or understanding
adolescent development gains (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Ingram, Wolfe, &
Lieberman, 2007). Effective two-way school-parent communications efforts,
providing information in language-friendly resources, have a positive impact on
achievement and school motivation (Fan & Williams, 2010) and can provide
feedback to the district on parent priorities for improvement. Additionally, a positive
impact on school-community relations results when districts provide opportunities
for parents and the community to be involved in the decision-making process, such
as through governance and advisory roles, e.g., school site council (Shatkin &
Ginsburg, 2007).
The 10 key reform strategies previously discussed were highlighted in this
study. Table 2.1 provides Broad Foundation definitions for these House Model
strategies (The Broad Superintendents Academy, 2008).
66
Table 2.1: Ten Key House Model Reform Strategies Defined
Strategy Room
Reform
Strategies
Definitions
Foundational
Elements
Strategic Plan Strategic Plan The strategic plan defines the district’s mission, goals,
and vision. It also assigns performance indicators and
work plans to each of the district’s primary goals and
serves as the guiding document for district decisions
and priorities.

Systemic
Improvement
Instructional
Alignment
Assessment Assessment activities enable districts to know whether
students are learning what they are supposed to learn
(i.e., the standards). Common, regularly-scheduled
district-wide assessments should connect directly with
standards, the curriculum, pacing guides, and
professional development.

Curriculum Curriculum refers to the materials used to teach.
Classroom materials—textbooks, worksheets, pacing
guides, etc.—should address the scope and sequence of
the district’s learning standards.

Professional
Development
Professional development is any program or course
intended to improve teachers’ and principals’
effectiveness. It may center on content (e.g., teaching
about force in physics), instructional techniques (e.g.,
Cornell note-taking), leadership (e.g., a workshop for
principals and assistant principals), or habits (e.g.,
collaboration among teachers in the same grade-
level/subject matter). In many districts, professional
development topics are arbitrarily chosen. Successful
districts have an integrated professional development
strategy that centers on enabling teachers to detect when
students aren’t meeting a certain standard and to adjust
their instruction accordingly, or enables principals and
teachers to improve their knowledge and skills in areas
of district focus.

Operational
Excellence
Human Resources
System and
Human Capital
Management
Research indicates that teacher quality is perhaps the
primary influence on student achievement, yet many
districts do a poor job of attracting, selecting, and
managing talent, whether at the teacher, principal, or
central office level. Improving the recruiting and hiring
processes for teachers and principals, developing
attractive compensation packages, and processing
applications and payments quickly—which a good HR
system should be able to do—can greatly improve the
quality of instruction in schools and classrooms across
the district. Districts then need to develop clever support
and retention strategies to keep talent in the district.
Most importantly, districts can proactively improve
their capacity for providing a quality education by
examining and refining their selection process.

67
Table 2.1, continued
Finance and
Budget
While student achievement is the ultimate bottom line,
more Superintendents are fired for poor financial
management than for poor student achievement results.
In addition to ensuring that their budget is balanced and
sustainable, Superintendents should closely align their
budget with instructional priorities. Some districts have
adopted innovative budgeting approaches such as “zero-
based budgeting” and weighted student funding to bring
their budgets into closer alignment with their priorities.

Stakeholder
Management
Communications Effective school districts need to showcase the great
stories in their district and to counteract misinformation
or negative news. Developing a public relations or
communications office staffed with experts on dealing
with the media can enable the district to communicate its
vision to the public or proactively build support for an
important initiative.

Governance/
Board Relations
Most districts are governed by boards elected from the
local population; others answer to appointed boards.
School boards are responsible for setting the policy
direction for the district; Superintendents can take a
supporting role in developing policy but are mainly
charged with executing it. Winning the support of board
members, especially elected ones, is a time-consuming
but critical task for most Superintendents.

Labor
Relations/Contract
Negotiations
Teachers unions, Superintendents often need to build
relationships and negotiate with several other unions to
which various district staff personnel belong. Success in
working with unions requires an upfront investment in
building relationships and understanding the priorities of
union leaders. The content of contracts also requires
close attention. Contract language can restrict or expand
the Superintendent’s options for replacing and
reassigning staff. This is particularly crucial with teacher
contracts, as teacher quality is one of the most significant
influences on student achievement.

Family and
Community
Engagement
All residents of a school district’s jurisdiction can be
considered its stakeholders, so ensuring everyone’s
satisfaction can be difficult. Districts should offer several
ways for the community and families to interact with the
district, from coordinating volunteer opportunities for
parents to partnering with local organizations in support
of student success. It is also important to gather feedback
from the public on the district’s performance. Several
districts take surveys of parents of children and of the
community in general to determine how they view the
district and what their priorities for improvement are.
These surveys should be closely linked to the district’s
performance management system and data dashboard.
Increasing stakeholder satisfaction can lead to greater
support for bond measures for the district, significantly
increasing its financial resources.
68
Four Frames of Leadership
Bolman and Deal (2003) offer a four-frame leadership model (Figure 2.4)
from which leadership strategies can be evaluated. The four vantage points are
structural, human resources, political and symbolic frames of reference. The
structural frame refers to an organization’s rules, roles and policies with respect to
how well it matches the organization’s structure, mission, and environment.
Organizational assumptions that accompany the structural frame: 1) they exist to
achieve goals and objectives; 2) work best when rationality prevails; 3) structures
within are designed to fit goals and objectives; 4) efficiency and performance is
increased through specialization and division of labor; 5) coordination and controls
align work to goals and objectives; 6) remediate problems and performance gaps by
restructuring (p. 40).
Figure 2.4: Four Frames of Leadership
Structural Roles, rules, relationships
Human Resources Organization meets human needs
Political Negotiating use of scarce resources,
conflict, coalitions, collaboration
Symbolic Rituals, Symbols, Traditions
Source: Jossey-Bass, Bolman & Deal, 2003.
According to the human resource frame, people’s skills, attitudes, energy,
and commitment are vital resources. This perspective is built on core assumptions
that highlight the linkage between people and their symbiotic relationship with
organizations: 1) organizations exist to serve human needs; 2) people and
organizations need each other, e.g., people need careers, organizations need talent;
69
3) when the fit between the individual and the system is poor, one or both suffer; 4) a
good fit benefits both – individuals find meaningful and satisfying work and
organizations get the talent and energy they need to succeed (p. 102).
“The political frame asserts that in the face of enduring differences and
scarce resources, conflict is inevitable and power is a key resource” (Bolman & Deal,
2003, p.164). Propositions of the political frame include: 1) organizations are
coalitions of various individuals and interest groups; 2) enduring differences exist
among interest groups; 3) most important decisions involve the allocations of scarce
resources; 4) goals and decisions emerge from collaborating, negotiating, bargaining,
and jockeying for position (p. 163).
Bolman and Deal’s symbolic frame of reference seeks to identify ciphers that
interpret and illuminate basic meanings and beliefs. Symbolic core assumptions: 1)
what is most important about an event is what it means; 2) events have multiple
meanings because people interpret experience differently; 3) most of life is
ambiguous; 4) high levels of ambiguity and uncertainty undercut rational analysis,
problem solving, and decision making; 5) when facing uncertainty, people create
symbols to resolve confusion and increase predictability; 6) many events and
processes (rituals and traditions) are more important for what they express (p. 216).
Bolman and Deal’s four-frame leadership model can be used to look at the
results of any leader’s efforts. The four-frame model, viewing structural, human
resources, political and symbolic frames of reference can provide insight into the
70
effective implementation of change strategies in support of increased student
achievement.
Superintendent Preparation
Military Model Analogy
Hughes and Haney (2002) describe the alignment of leadership selection,
training, and job expectations/assessment in the military. Junior officers apply for
postgraduate military training, are screened and selected based on their
qualifications, experience, performance evaluations and supervisor recommendation.
Upon graduation, graduates are assigned to positions of higher influence and
authority. There, they are evaluated on their job performance at their new duty
assignment, determining their next assignment and level of increased responsibility.
Business Model Analogy
Although elements of business executive preparation have application in the
training of educational executives (Eiter, 2002), Childress (2006) reporting from
Harvard Business School, reminds that urban school systems can be vastly more
complex than businesses. Superintendent CEOs are accountable to diverse
stakeholders who are often at odds over how define and achieve educational goals.
Nevertheless, pedagogies employed in the preparation of business executives, such
as: the case method of instruction, business simulations, action learning, 360-degree
assessment and feedback, executive coaching, key development assignments, and
mentoring have a place in the repertoire of superintendent preparation programs.
Glass’ (2006) example of Lee Iacocca’s initial actions to turn around Chrysler
71
Corporation, not by rushing to correct poor quality on the assembly line, but by
hiring a team to work on rebuilding corporate management systems, serve as a
successful business action, whose parallel could be used to improving a deficient
educational situation, such as a low performing school.
Nature of the Superintendency
Fuller’s (2003) study of the urban superintendent’s job, through the eyes of
100 of the nation’s largest district superintendents, finds expectations so high that
they are unlikely to be met with current resources and existing authority, and
identifies current preparation for these challenges inadequate. The system leader of
such a large, multifaceted, corporate and civic enterprise faces a job structure with
complex relationships and lack of authority which practically precludes them from
doing what they were hired to do. Whipsawed by school boards and powerful unions,
and under assault by the external reform and accountability pressures, successful
superintendents must clarify goals, define objectives, identify effective strategies and
provide sustained leadership to improve student achievement and close the
achievement gap (Fuller, 2003; Grogan & Andrews, 2002). Boyd and Crowson
(1981) reflect on the changing conception and practice of public school
administration:
The pressures placed on schools in behalf of equality, efficiency, and
effectiveness, and the performance problems these pressures brought to light,
have led to far-reaching changes: a virtual revolution in authority relations; a
sense of crisis about the normative order of schools; a serious decline in
public confidence and support; and substantial changes in school governance.
(p. 356)
72
Successful preparation will come through innovation by ensuring program goals
remain aligned with the changing role of the system leader.
Superintendent Performance Assessment
School boards are the sole evaluators of superintendent performance. Most
school boards evaluate the performance of superintendents each year. A quality
working relationship between the superintendent and the district’s governing board is
essential to the evaluation process and renewal of the superintendent’s contract –
with the relationship between the superintendent and the Board president a key factor
to the superintendent’s tenure (Byrd et al., 2006). The Wallace Foundation report on
the urban superintendent found that only 23% of all superintendents felt well
prepared for working with the school board (Fuller et al., 2003).
The most recent study conducted by the American Association of School
Administrators (Glass & Franceschini, 2007) indicates the majority (89.3%) of
superintendents earned board evaluation ratings of “excellent” or “good”. Although
statute requires Superintendent evaluation, most states do not specify criteria, leaving
it up to the superintendent and the school board to develop a fair and productive
evaluation plan (Glass, 2007). School board associations provide training and
evaluation materials to their members with criteria such as traits, skills, activities and
results. Innovative approaches to evaluation procedures include clarifying the
evaluation process in the contract and recognizing the power of linking
superintendent evaluation to district performance, which keeps the board focused on
73
aligning district efforts with board priorities to achieve results in student
achievement (Banks & Maloney, 2007; Hoyle & Skrla, 1999; McAdams, 2006).
Selection and Preparation of Superintendents
The preparation of system leaders to assume the key roles of running a
district and improving student performance is critical, particularly in this time of
increased accountability and efforts to close the achievement gap. Superintendent
entry and advancement on the education career path is generally through self-
selection/application to positions of increasing authority, beginning with classroom
teaching, though a small number of superintendents are from non-teaching
backgrounds (Glass, 2006). Preparation program curriculum for educational
leadership, i.e., principals and superintendents, for the past half-century has been
driven by certification and licensing requirements. Superintendent preparation
programs have undergone many changes in recent years, however there remain two
basic models, a traditional model with university-based training and a non-traditional
model, with training provided by a foundation or regional training consortium
(Glass, 2006).
Top educational system leaders typically receive significant practical training
on the job, rising through the ranks from teacher to principal to district office staff,
etc. This hands-on training is usually supplemented by university coursework, often
with an advanced educational degree attained. Because not all states require specific
superintendent credentialing, the university-based doctoral program (Ed.D. or Ph.D.)
has emerged as the primary vehicle by which system leaders gain legitimacy (Glass,
74
2006; Grogan & Andrews, 2002). A 2006 American Association of School
Administrators study of the American school superintendency (Glass &
Franceschini, 2007), found that more than 50% of the nation’s superintendents have
earned a doctoral degree, with 80% of large district (over 25,000 students)
superintendents holding an Ed.D. or Ph.D. degree. Byrd’s report of factors impacting
superintendent turnover found that although educational attainment was not a key
factor, the median tenure did increase by one year for each level of education
attained (Byrd et al., 2006).
Two universities which have specifically tailored superintendent preparation
programs include: the Harvard Urban Superintendents Program and the University of
Virginia School Superintendents’ Licensure Program (Grogran & Andrews, 2002).
Superintendent preparation is also accomplished by specific-focus university
programs, such as Southeast Missouri State University’s Specialist Degree in School
Administration, which satisfies state credential requirements for Missouri
superintendents (Dalton, 2007).
Non-university based programs for superintendent preparation include
collaborative regional, practitioner/professional association, and foundation efforts.
The Kentucky Superintendent’s Leadership Development Program, Superintendents
Prepared, American Association of School Administrator (AASA) and The Broad
Foundation Superintendent’s Academy provide non-university training, tailored to
meet the specific demands of current and prospective administrative leaders.
75
Strengths of Preparation Programs
Superintendents have consistently evaluated their doctoral preparation
programs as useful, with research university based programs critical to meeting the
need to create effective learning environments in increasingly diverse student
populations (Glass et al., 2000; Glass & Franceschini, 2007; Grogan and Andrews,
2002). Specific strengths reported by superintendents in both university-based and
non-university-based programs include: professor ability to relate course content to
practice, high quality of educational administration course content, and high quality
of professors (Glass et al., 2000). Additionally, Glass found that superintendents
viewed their non-university-based training to be more effectively related to practice
and regarded the course content more highly than superintendents in university-
based programs.
Regarding the strength and necessity of redesigned university-based
superintendent preparation programs, Grogan and Andrews (2002) write:
The strengths of scholars in the academy lie in the capacity to conduct
rigorous research and to synthesize and pass on useful knowledge of
leadership. University professors can also provide safe, productive
environments within which the critical, reflective practitioner can develop.
(p. 249)
Cooper (2002) asks who else besides the university has the resources to teach the
next generation of school executives, bringing an independent and intellectual
perspective to the challenges awaiting future superintendents.
76
Weaknesses of Preparation Programs
Four persistent weaknesses in superintendent preparation programs have been
identified in research: a) the lack of hands-on application, (b) inadequate access to
technology, (c) failure to link content to practice, and (d) too much emphasis on the
professors’ personal experiences (Bjork, Kowalski, Browne-Ferrigno, 2005; Byrd et
al., 2006; Fuller, 2003; Glass et al., 2000). The lackluster reports regarding
superintendent preparation reflects a failure to respond to the increased challenges
facing today’s superintendency, including demands for: increased student
achievement, technological and analytical competence supporting improvement, and
work-embedded instruction of critical superintendent skills.
Cooper (2002) took a critical look at university-based preparation programs
for school superintendents and found five issues which deserve special attention:
synchronizing the superintendents’ career and preparation; reconnecting academic
and professional preparation; constructing career-long education for superintendents;
systematizing superintendent networks; and continuing to build the knowledge base
on the superintendency. Levine’s (2005) study of 28 schools of education found
university-based administrator programs deficient as a result of: low admissions and
graduation criteria, irrelevant coursework, unskilled faculty members, inadequate
clinical instruction, inappropriate degrees, poor research and weak rigor caused by
the number of off –campus programs. The need exists to address the adequacy of
superintendent preparation, whether it is delivered through a university or non-
university based credential or degree program.
77
Recommendations for Improving Leadership Training
During the period 1986 – 2003, numerous commission and education reform
reports were released addressing the nature of leadership training. Bjork et al. (2005),
summarized recommendations and key concepts to improve the training of future
leaders including:
a) recentering the field to focus on improving student learning; b) viewing
schools as political entities embedded in local communities; c) restructuring
schools to achieve social and organizational justice; d) sharing responsibility
for professional preparation with school districts; e) situating learning in
work contexts; f) orienting curriculum explicitly toward problems of practice;
g) using reality-oriented instructional formats; h) adopting student-centered
rather than professor-centered instructional approaches; i) convening aspiring
school and district leaders into cohorts to function as communities of
learners; and j) employing performance-based assessment strategies to ensure
that candidates can perform competently. (p. 65)
With regard to specific deficiencies noted in credentialing and advanced
degree programs, clarification in the training of educational leaders, distinguishing
between researchers and practitioners, as well as strengthening the doctorate has
been taken on by the education community (Bjork, Kowalski, & Browne-Ferrigno,
2005; Levine, 2005; Murphy & Vriesga, 2006). Agreement exists that differences
between problems of research and problems of practice differentiate Ph.D. and Ed.D.
programs, and continued emphasis on improving the quality of practitioner programs
using research-based recommendations would bring coherence to system leaders’
professional development and lead to improvement in practice (Bjork et al., 2005;
Grogan & Andrews, 2002; Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, & Garabedian, 2006; Walker,
Golde, Jones, Bueschel, & Hutchings, 2008).
78
The Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate (CID), a five year study which
began in 2001, was an action and research project that worked across North
American universities to improve the quality of doctoral-granting programs (Golde,
2006; Shulman et al., 2006). It was noted that each year approximately 6,500
education doctorates were awarded to students whose profile differed from those in
other disciplines: doctoral work was occurring predominantly at mid-career, the
majority of students attended school part-time while continuing to work and a
relatively small proportion entered the professoriate upon graduation. Information
gained from this study has been used to crystallize thought regarding how schools of
education prepare these educational leaders for their practice.
The current follow-on Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED),
sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation and the Council of Academic Deans in
Research Education Institutions seeks to strengthen the education doctorate (CPED,
2010). CPED recommendations include emphasis on: scholarship of learning;
identification of an education signature pedagogy, such as the journal club in
neuroscience study or the list in English studies; creation of laboratories of practice
in which future practitioners experiment and undertake best evidence analyses; and
new capstone experiences in which future practitioners can work together to produce
outstanding demonstrations of their proficiency (CPED, 2010; Golde, 2007;
Shulman, 2005). In order to meet the demands required of today’s superintendent,
formal leadership preparation should include: a strong theory and research base,
authentic guided experience and simulated situated cognition (role play) to promote
79
development of real-life problem solving skills, and a capstone experience
(dissertation/project) reflecting well-applied research of value for informing
educational practice (Grogan & Andrews, 2002; Young, 2006).
Innovative University - Professional Doctorate Programs
Criticism of the university-based leadership preparation has focused on
ending pure knowledge acquisition, and adopting a hands-on proactive application of
knowledge approach (Bjork, Kowalski, & Young, 2005). In response to criticism and
recommendations made, innovative university programs have emerged, reflecting
recommendations to enhance the Ed.D. degree and superintendent preparation,
including: enhanced curriculum, practical significance, rigorous screening of
prospective students, mentoring networks, etc. The goal of innovative professional
doctoral programs across the United States is to create a truly distinctive education
doctorate with a clear purpose – to train education practitioners for service at the
highest level. The following universities have redesigned their doctoral programs to
meet the challenge.
The University of Southern California (USC) embarked on the development
of an innovative three-year Ed.D. program in spring 2001, which it sought to clearly
distinguish from its Ph.D. program and focus directly on the needs of urban
education leaders (Dembo & Marsh, 2007; Murphy & Vriesenga, 2005; Young,
2006). The cross-faculty planning committee for the practitioner’s doctorate decided
upon four themes to become the scholarship foundation of the program: leadership,
accountability, diversity, and learning. Major curricular decisions based on current
80
research to bring the new doctorate to the forefront of superintendent preparation
included: formation of cohorts with 20-25 students, common syllabi for core and
concentration curriculum which would expose students to context-specific best
practices, incorporation of signature pedagogy, instructional focus on problem-
solving, and capstone thematic dissertations of education issues and challenges
(CPED, 2010; Golde, 2007; Grogan & Andrews, 2002; Shulman et al, 2006). To
distinguish the education practitioner program from the research doctorate (Ph.D.),
Ed.D. students were involved in leadership skill-oriented activities throughout the
program and employed an action-research “gap analysis” model as the signature
problem-solving pedagogy (Clark & Estes, 2002; Marsh & Dembo, 2009; Shulman,
2005). Capstone thematic dissertations produced by the cohort groups included:
large scale educational reform in the era of accountability, effective practices in
high-performing charter schools, and urban superintendent action to promote student
achievement (Marsh & Dembo, 2009; Haglund, 2009). USC’s existing Ph.D.
program was downsized and restructured to provide advanced education for future
researchers as opposed to practitioners (Dembo & Marsh, 2007).
Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College of Education and Human
Development, Peabody College, revised its Ed.D. program for those students
entering in the summer of 2004, to reflect an educational orientation toward senior
education practitioners distinct from their Ph.D. program (Caboni & Proper, 2009;
Loss, 2009). Peabody College’s Ed.D. program has a four-tiered structure that
organizes the curriculum: (1) centrality of learning as a keystone to program; (2)
81
contexts in which education occurs, including organizational dynamics and
leadership theories by which to examine institutional change; (3) research
coursework; (4) courses focusing on specialized knowledge needed for K-12 or
postsecondary organizational leadership. Student performance is evaluated through
three processes: course grades, a six-hour qualifying examination and an Ed.D.
project. The traditional dissertation was replaced with a team-produced, client-
consultant oriented capstone project report addressing an authentic problem of
practice. “The primary objectives of the capstone are to produce educational leaders
who have informed, critical, and creative approaches to understanding and
addressing complex educational problems” (Smrekar & McGraner, 2009, p. 49).
Saint Louis University (SLU) developed a professional doctorate program in
educational leadership to prepare students for executive leadership positions in
school districts. The Ed.D. is distinct from SLU’s Ph.D., that prepares students for
research or academic positions. SLU’s Ed.D. program includes experiences similar
to those students will face in educational leadership positions and presents
opportunities for students to work collaboratively around a curriculum grounded in
current reform literature. A culminating project, focused on a major educational
leadership issue and incorporating problem-based learning, is required for graduation
(Everson, 2009). According to the Saint Louis University Graduate Student
Handbook (2010), the three-year program is completed when students satisfactorily
complete the requirements of the program which include: coursework, group project
and project report, written examination based on program curriculum, and an oral
82
examination that addresses the team’s project work and the individual’s analysis of
the project work.
Harvard University will offer an innovative, three-year, practice-based
Doctor of Education Leadership (Ed.L.D.) degree beginning in the summer of 2010,
taught by faculty from the Harvard Graduate school of Education (HGSE), the
Harvard Business School, and the Harvard Kennedy School (HGSE, 2010).
According to the HGSE website, “The degree is a practice-based doctorate designed
to equip students with a deep understanding of learning and teaching as well as the
management and leadership skills necessary to reshape the American education
sector” (HGSE, 2010). The tuition-free, full-time, cohort-based program will include
two years of on-site practice-based classes, modules, and experiences, and a final
yearlong residency with an education partner organization leading a capstone project.
The project will demonstrate knowledge learned through the program applied to a
high priority education improvement effort important to the host partner. The Doctor
of Education Leadership (Ed.L.D.) Program will prepare superintendents and other
system-level leaders and replace Harvard’s current Urban Superintendent’s Program
(Doctor of Education, Ed.D. degree) which admitted its last cohort in 2009 (HGSE,
2010).
Innovative Specific focus programs
Programs which focus specifically on the preparation of educational leaders,
e.g., principals and superintendents, are provided through professional organizations,
foundations and universities. Programs which provide training in the specific skills
83
required of a new leader include: Southeast Missouri’s Specialist Degree Program;
New Leaders for New Schools’ Executive Development Program, job-embedded
principal-training offered by National Institute for School Leadership (NISL);
superintendent Academies sponsored by regional consortiums including district and
professional organizations such Association of California School Administrators
(ACSA); and the Broad Foundation Superintendent’s Academy.
Southeast Missouri State University (SMSU) implemented a revised
superintendent preparation program in 2001, designed to provide students pursuing
superintendent’s credentialing a Specialist degree in school administration. The 600
hour internship includes hands-on experience in the field as well as core course
hands-on practice (SMSU, 2010). The training was designed to meet the
recommendation of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE) licensure requirements (in Missouri) for Standard 7 of the Standards for
Advanced Programs in Educational Leadership for Principals, Superintendents,
Curriculum Directors, and Supervisors (Dalton, 2007). The intern shadows a
mentoring superintendent and is given the opportunity to observe and gain insight
into the role and responsibilities of the job by interacting with all system
stakeholders, including parents, students, teachers, community groups, etc. The
intern is given the opportunity to practice some of the responsibilities of the
superintendency including communication, business operations, employee relations,
etc. A detailed portfolio based on ISLLC and NCATE standards is the culminating
84
experience in the internship course and is the basis for the exit oral examination for
the specialist degree (Dalton, 2007; SMSU, 2010).
Innovative Non-University Efforts
In recent years, large government (military) and government-type (education)
organizations have been urged to take a fresh look at policies and procedures, to see
if it wouldn’t be more effective if they were “run like a business.” In response to this,
non-traditional system leaders have emerged as an underutilized resource for
educational system leadership
The Thomas B. Fordham Institute and the Broad Foundation’s (2003) call for
leadership reform cites the problem in superintendent training as one of insufficient
quantities of the visionary leaders with quality skills to raise the educational
standards. Agreeing with Hess’ (2003) new leadership agenda that the myriad of
state certification laws and regulations is preventing non-conventional (non-
educator) talent from entering educational leadership, Broad (2003) recommends that
conventional requirements be radically reduced and replaced by criteria that stresses
leadership ability. As Fuller (2003) points out in his study of 100 large urban district
superintendents, “Nothing in the results reported here supports the idea that the
people best able to learn the skills required of a superintendent are those who started
out as teachers and worked their way up through the system” (p. 62). Broad exhorts,
“Look for school leaders within K-12 system, but create alternative pathways also.
Focus on strategic recruitment, induction, and measures to hold leaders accountable
for results” (Broad Foundation, 2003, p. 9).
85
In order to meet the need of preparing prospective non-traditional (non-
educator) system leaders, The Broad Superintendents Academy (TBA) was
established by philanthropist Eli Broad to prepare urban superintendents. A non-
university-based professional development and training model, building on concepts
in research regarding necessity of alignment of training with current realities of
practice and partnering with school districts in shaping the training of top
educational leaders, The Broad Superintendents Academy develops traditional
educators from the ranks as well as non-traditional leaders from business, the
military, and top governmental position (Broad Foundation, 2010). According to
Tim Quinn (2007), managing director of the Broad Superintendents Academy, “The
Broad Academy is the only superintendent preparation program in the country that
actively recruits and trains outstanding, proven leaders, both inside and outside of the
education field, to be superintendents of the nation’s largest districts” (p. 22).
Following a rigorous 10-month program during which talented leaders, CEOs and
senior executives from various backgrounds attend seven extended-weekend training
sessions covering CEO-level skills in finance, management, operations,
organizational systems and education, TBA graduates are placed into superintendent
or senior cabinet level positions in urban public school systems. Graduates are
expected to implement a three-year framework for district success.
The structure for district success is called the “House Model,” a metaphor for
the training model which The Broad Superintendents Academy uses to describes the
organization of the new superintendent’s plan of action, i.e., as if organizing a new
86
house (Takata, Marsh, & Castruita, 2007). System leader preparation includes a
personally developed “entry,” or 100-day superintendent “start-up” plan, followed
by: (1) first year movement into foundational elements, such as implementing the
strategic plan, performing organizational assessments or audits, and validating
organizational and management structure; (2) second year systemic improvement,
e.g., instructional alignment, stakeholder management and pursuing operational
excellence, and (3) third year attention to increasing student achievement, improving
college readiness and closing the achievement gap (Broad Foundation, 2010).
Following program completion and placement into urban superintendent
positions, Broad offers its graduates: mentor, organizational management and
assessment resources, and continued professional development support. In
addressing the notion that most superintendent preparation programs are ineffective
in tracking the performance of superintendents after they leave the preparation
program, Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan told educators at the 2010
conference of American Association of School Administrators, “The truth is that few
superintendent preparation programs track their graduates to see how many actually
become superintendents… and no preparation program- with the exception of the
Broad Academy for Superintendents – tracks the impact of superintendents on
student achievement”.
Conclusion
This case study will examine the strategies used by one urban superintendent
to increase student achievement. It will provide information to superintendents and
87
programs that prepare them for service as the district leader. Although many reform
strategies have been presented, for the purpose of this study, the following 10
elements of the Broad Superintendents Academy House Model were chosen for
special attention:
1. Strategic Plan
2. Assessment
3. Curriculum
4. Professional Development
5. Human Resource System and Human Capital Management
6. Finance and Budget
7. Communications
8. Governance and Board Relations
9. Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations
10. Family and Community Engagement
Chapter Three provides a description of the methodology used to conduct the
study. Chapter Four presents the findings and an analysis and discussion of the
findings. Chapter Five provides an executive summary, conclusions, implications,
and topics for further research.
88
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter described the research design, sample, instrumentation, and
methodology for data collection and analysis used for the study. The purpose of the
study was to examine and evaluate evidence of the change impact of 10 key “reform
strategies,” as used by an urban school district superintendent, which have been
identified by the Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI) as plans, policies, or
resources most likely to positively impact student achievement. The study explored
the actions and results obtained by one urban school superintendent. The following
research question and three related sub questions framed the study:
a) How are the ten key reform strategies being used by large urban school
superintendents to improve student achievement in his or her respective
district?
a) How does the quality and implementation of ten key reform strategies
correspond to the strength and challenges of the district when the
superintendent took office?
b) What additional reform strategies (if any) were used? How do they
correspond to the elements of the House Model?
c) How does the choice and implementation of the ten key reform
strategies correspond to the previous background/experiences of the
superintendent?
89
A qualitative, descriptive-analytic case study research methodology was used
in order to gather comprehensive, systematic and in-depth information about a large
urban school district superintendent. Case study analysis facilitated in-depth study
and comparison by organizing the data by specific cases and allowed the researcher
to describe issues with significant detail (Patton, 2002). Additionally, the data
generated was well-grounded, rich in description and explanation of the process at
work- in the context under study (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Another advantage of
the case study methodology was that it allowed the researcher to gather preliminary
insights to inform and guide subsequent data collection (Locke, Silverman, &
Spirduso, 1998). In this study, the purposeful sampling of the subject, including the
supporting district system, allowed the research questions to be fully investigated.
The findings from analysis of this case study’s qualitative data indicated the
effectiveness of each reform strategy used and provided a means to correlate
superintendent action and student achievement.
This study was an extension of previous research on Urban School
Leadership Institute (USLI) graduates conducted by Dr. David Marsh and Dr. Rudy
Castruita in 2006. The exploratory Phase I evaluation investigated two USLI
graduates and their districts in order to understand reform strategies implemented by
the superintendents to improve student achievement (Takada, Marsh, & Castruita,
2007). The Phase I study established preliminary findings and provided a foundation
for this follow-on study.
90
This Phase II study expanded upon the previous research to identify and
understand the strengths and challenges which a superintendent faced when entering
a district, and the overall strategies used by the superintendent to generate
improvement. The scope of the study also included a review of the superintendent’s
background and experience in conjunction with the implementation of these
strategies. For the 10 reform strategies chosen by the USLI staff, this study sought to
find out in considerable detail, the quality and extent of implementation of the
current district strategy, and the extent to which (and how) the current strategy
differed from the approach for that reform strategy prior to the work of the current
superintendent. Finally, the study synthesized comparative analytical studies from 10
different urban school districts, in order to take a close look at how these large urban
school district superintendents implemented 10 specific reform strategies to raise
student achievement.
Sampling Criteria and Process
One urban school district superintendent was purposefully selected for this
study to provide a means for comparison of the reform strategies engaged by system
leaders to improve student achievement. Purposeful sampling provided information-
rich cases that allowed for a comparison of superintendents’ strategies to increase
student performance and how their background and personal experience contributed
to the process (Patton, 2002).
The large urban school district superintendent met a specific set of sampling
criteria and was fully informed regarding the purpose of the study prior to being
91
invited to participate. Support for identifying the superintendent was provided
through consultation with the Urban School Leadership Foundation and the
University of Southern California. Case study participants included the district
superintendent and superintendent-identified key players and reform strategy
authorities. These participants included deputy and/or assistant superintendents,
district level directors, school board members, and members of the local community.
All participants in the study were volunteers and were informed of the efforts to be
taken to protect their anonymity. Pseudonyms were used in place of actual district
names.
The district studied met the following criteria:
District must be a large, urban school district;
The superintendent must have been in office since 2006, or earlier; and
The superintendent must be an Urban School Leadership Institute graduate.
Description of School District and Key Players
Triangle County Public School District (TCPSD) is the 7
th
largest school
district in a state on the East coast and serves a diverse student population of nearly
33,000 students. Students in the district attend 28 K-5 elementary schools, 9 middle
schools, 1 secondary (9-12), 10 high schools, 1 alternative and 1 hospital school.
According to the district vision, “TCPSD provides all students with an outstanding
education that motivates them to reach their full potential and enables them to
discover their interests and talents, pursue their goals and dreams, and succeed in
college, in the workforce and as engaged citizens.”
92
District “Schools of Choice” programs include: magnet schools, year-round
schools, small high school options (Early College, City of Medicine and career
pathways schools); Comprehensive Curriculum, Gifted and Talented Education,
Advanced Placement, Visual and Performing Arts, International Baccalaureate, After
School Enrichment, Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID), English as
a Second Language, Regional Occupation Program, Junior ROTC, College Tech
Prep/Career Prep, Adult and Continuing Education, Sports and Athletics, Business
Partnerships, and Technology/Computers.
Seventeen TCPSD schools have received state academic honors as High
Growth Schools for the 2007-08 school year, with another 15 schools reporting
Expected Growth in student achievement. Students in the class of 2008 earned more
than $11.5 million in academic scholarships.
The largest ethnically represented group in the district is the African
American student population, accounting for 53.9% of the population. White
ethnicity comprises 22.6% of students, with 17.1% Hispanic, 2.6% Asian and 3.6%
multi-racial. Forty-seven percent of the student population qualifies for free or
reduced-price lunch, 14% are classified as Limited English Proficient and 12% are
classified as students with disabilities.
Over 4,600 staff members, with 2,300 teachers, are employed by Triangle
County Public School District to work in its 50 schools. The proposed budget for the
2008-2009 year was $401 million with a per-pupil expenditure of $2,757 (based on
projected enrollment of 32,925).
93
The Superintendent: Dr. Darnell Bennett was appointed as Superintendent of
Triangle County Public School District in July, 2006. He first joined the TCPSD
staff in 2004, as Associate Superintendent of Instructional Services, then promoted to
Deputy Superintendent in 2005. Prior to assuming leadership of TCPSD, Dr.
Bennett served as Superintendent in a rural district of approximately 8,000 students
and his public school service included leadership roles as teacher, coach, and
principal, as well as senior positions within several school districts. Dr. Bennett
holds a Doctorate in Education Administration from North Carolina State University
in Raleigh, North Carolina, a Master of Arts in Administration from East Carolina
University in Greenville, North Carolina and a Bachelor of Science in Health and
Physical Education degree from Southwest State University in Marshall, Minnesota.
Dr. Bennett graduated from the initial Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI)
class.
Key Player One: The Chief Operating Officer (COO) had served 6 years at
TCPSD. He was recruited by the previous superintendent from a position as chief
financial officer at the state department of public instruction.
Key Player Two: The Chief Academic Officer had been recruited by Dr
Bennett 3 years prior. She had served as Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum
and Instruction in her prior district, a large urban district within the state
Reform Strategy Players: The district superintendent was asked to identify
and provide access to those persons in the district that possess knowledge related to
each of the reform strategies being studied in order to provide additional information
94
and perspective related to the identified research questions. For example, with regard
to the communications reform strategy, the Chief Communications Officer, Director
of Public Affairs, Communications Officer or a Media Relations spokesman may
have been interviewed. The individual(s) identified had personal knowledge
regarding the reform strategy processes implemented to effect change. The following
reform strategy topics were addressed by knowledgeable TCPSD players who
participated in semi-structured group or telephone interviews relating to their field of
expertise:
Strategic Plan: Chief Academic Officer, Chief Operating Officer
Assessment: The Assistant Superintendent of Research, Development and
Accountability (RDA) had served 26 years in TCPSD, with 6 years as principal and
another 6 yrs as assistant principal (AP); the Senior Director for Data Management
with prior experience as TCPSD Executive Director for Middle Schools, elementary
principal and high school AP; and the Director for Local Assessment Design.
Curriculum: Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Curriculum and
Instruction was a prior TCPSD elementary principal; and Assistant Superintendent of
Secondary Curriculum and Instruction was a former TCPSD high school principal.
Professional Development: Senior Director of Professional Growth and
Development had served as Director for two years, arriving just prior to Dr.
Bennett’s appointment as Superintendent.
95
Human Resource System and Human Capital Management: Assistant
Superintendent of Human Resources was recruited by Dr. Bennett two years prior,
and had 20 years of experience in human resources,
Finance and Budget: Chief Operating Officer
Communications: Executive Director of Public Affairs for the past 5 years.
Prior to arrival at TCPSD served in office of the State Director for Public Instruction
for 19 years – the last 8 years there as Director of Communications.
Governance/Board Relations: Chair of the TCPSD Board of Education.
Recently elected as Board President, had served continuously since 2 years prior to
Dr. Bennett’s arrival.
Labor Relations/Contract Negotiations: Assistant Superintendent of Human
Resources; and Executive Director of Employee Relations, a longtime employee in
the Central Office.
Family and Community Engagement: Director of Community Education, 28
years of experience at TCPSD facilitating family and community engagement and
developing community partnerships; and Executive Director of Student Services.
Instrumentation
The conceptual framework used for this study is derived from the “House
Model, Framework for District Success – 2008,” developed by the Urban School
Leadership Institute, a 10 month training program for prospective urban
superintendents. The House Model (Figure 3.1) incorporates 25 school reform
strategies which new superintendents are trained to systematically apply over a three
96
year period. For this study, 10 of the 25 reform strategies will be evaluated as those
likely to positively affect student achievement.
Figure 3.1: The House Model

Sustainability
Increasing Student Achievement
Closing Achievement Gaps
Improving College and Workplace Readiness

Instructional Alignment
• Standards
• Assessment
• Curriculum
• Instruction
• Professional Development
• Program Effectiveness
• Focus on Lowest
Performers
• Student Support Services
Operational Excellence
• Human Resources System
and Human Capital
Management
• Finance and Budget
• Resource Alignment
• Facilities
• Performance Management
System/Accountability Plan
• Business Services
• Other Operations Services
Stakeholder Management
• Communications
• Governance/Board
Relations
• Labor Relations/Contract
Negotiations
• Political Relationships
• Philanthropic and
Institutional Partnerships
• Family and Community
Engagement
• Constituent Service
Organizational Assessment
and Audits
Organizational & Management
Structure
• Leadership Team
Effectiveness
• Organizational Chart
Strategic Plan
• Theory of Action
• Data Dashboard
Superintendent’s Plan of Entry

Following the House Model metaphor, the ‘foundation’ is the
superintendent’s plan of attack for the first year, including the 100-day entry plan,
organizational assessment and audits, and review of the district’s strategic plan. The
timeline continues into year two, when ‘rooms’ of the house, relating to instructional
alignment, operational excellence, and stakeholder relationships receive increased
emphasis. The third year ‘roof’ targets include increasing student achievement,
closing achievement gaps, and improving college readiness for all students. It is
97
within this House Model, that each of the reform strategies is positioned. The 10 key
reform strategies from the model were identified by the Urban School Leadership
Institute as among those with the greatest potential to influence the improvement of
student achievement and were selected to narrow the focus of the study and provide
a deeper understanding of how change had been implemented.
The 10 key reform strategies, with the Urban School Leadership Institute
definitions, include:
1. Strategic Plan: The strategic plan defines the district’s mission, goals, and
vision. It also assigns performance indicators and work plans to each of
the district’s primary goals and serves as the guiding document for the
district decisions and priorities.
2. Assessment: Assessment activities enable districts to know whether
students are learning what they are supposed to learn (i.e., the standards).
Common, regularly-scheduled district-wide assessments should connect
directly with standards, the curriculum, pacing guides, and professional
development.
3. Curriculum: Curriculum refers to the materials used to teach. Classroom
materials such as textbooks, worksheets, pacing guides, etc. They should
address the scope and sequence of the district’s learning standards.
4. Professional Development: Professional development is any program or
course intended to improve teachers’ and principals’ effectiveness.
Successful districts have an integrated professional development strategy
98
that centers on enabling teachers to detect when students aren’t meeting a
certain standards and to adjust their instruction accordingly, or enables
principals and teachers to improve their knowledge and skills in areas of
district focus.
5. Human Resource System (HR) and Human Capital Management: Human
resource and human capital management research indicate that teacher
quality is a primary influence on student achievement. Effective districts
do a good job in attracting, selecting, and managing talent at the teacher,
principal or district office level. Improving the recruiting and hiring
processes for personnel, developing attractive compensation packages,
and streamlining the process of applications and payments are evidence
of a good HR system.
6. Finance and Budget: The finance and budget of a district should be in
alignment with instructional priorities as well as balanced and
sustainable. Some successful district’s have adopted innovative
budgeting approaches such as “zero-based budgeting” and weighted
students funding to bring their budgets into closer alignment with their
priorities.
7. Communication: The communication of great stories in the district must
be shared. The development of a public relations or communications
office staffed with experts on dealing with the media can enable the
99
district to communicate its vision to the public or proactively build
support for an important initiative.
8. Governance and Board Relations: The area of governance and board
relations is critical since most districts are governed by boards elected
from the local population; others answer to appointed boards. The school
board is responsible for setting policy direction for the district;
superintendents can take a supporting role in developing policy but are
mainly charged with executing it. Winning the support of the board is
time consuming but a critical task for superintendents.
9. Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations: The area of labor relations
and contract negotiations presents the superintendent the opportunity to
build relationships and negotiate with several unions to which various
staff belongs. Success in working with unions requires an upfront
investment in building relationships and understanding the priorities of
union leaders. The content of the contract also requires close attention.
Contract language can restrict or expand the superintendent’s options for
replacing and reassigning staff. This is particularly crucial with teacher
contracts, as teacher quality is one of the most significant influences on
student achievement.
10. Family and Community Engagement offer the district multiple
opportunities for all stakeholders to interact with the district, from
volunteering to partnering with local organizations in support of student
100
success. Many districts take surveys of parents of students and the
community in general to determine how they view the district and what
priorities for improvement are. Surveys should be closely linked to the
district’s performance management system and data dashboard.
Increasing stakeholder satisfaction can lead to greater support for funding
measures, significantly increasing its financial resources.
The instruments used in the study were developed collaboratively by the 10
member research team. Each team member was an Ed.D. candidate at the University
of Southern California who met during the winter of 2007 and spring of 2008 in
seminars facilitated by professors David Marsh, Ph.D. and Rudy Castruita, Ed.D.
The research team conducted a comprehensive review of the literature relating to
five key areas of current research: student achievement and school accountability,
the role of the district in raising student achievement, how system leaders influence
academic performance, strategies implemented by system leaders to improve
academic achievement, and how urban school superintendents are trained. From this
process arose the purpose of the study, the research questions, and the frameworks
for creating data collection instruments.
The2006 Phase I study strengthened understanding of the reform strategies
emphasized by the Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI), focusing on the
strengths, challenges, and strategies used by USLI graduates during their first years
in office. The research in Phase I monitored the use of all reform strategies cited in
the House Model in order to determine which reform strategies produced the greatest
101
change. The Phase I study served to inform Phase II, which refinied the interview
methodology and construction of data analysis tools.
Data Collection Instruments
The House Model and key reform strategy frameworks provided the basis for
creating the data collection instruments to measure and correlate student
achievement to the quality and level of implementation of reform strategies by the
superintendent. The research team met with the Urban School Leadership Institute
lead researcher in order to fully understand how the House Model reform strategies
are presented to USLI students. Additionally, each research team member
investigated one of the 10 reform strategies and developed the research base and
rubrics to be used for that strategy’s data analysis. Key rubric information was
shared during team meetings and each member was responsible for mastering the
findings relating to each topic.
Rubrics and the related instruments were developed through a review of
relevant literature and provided the conceptual framework for the extent of
implementation of each reform strategy. Rubrics were further refined through the
collaborative work of the research team members who field tested each instrument
during the spring of 2008 to ensure alignment with the conceptual framework and
research questions prior to data collection.
A Quality Rubric (Appendix D) and an Implementation Rubric (Appendix E)
were used to measure each reform strategy. Both rubrics used a five point Likert
scale indicating high (5), moderate (3), or low (1) levels. Using the communications
102
reform strategy as an example, the quality of five key communications components
were assessed by the Quality Rubric (Appendix D): communications plan,
communications office, communication of district vision to the community, build
support for district initiatives, and two way communications with the community.
The separate Implementation Rubric (Appendix E) was applied to each reform
strategy to measure implementation in four dimensions: 1) external challenges to full
implementation of the reform strategy; 2) the extent that each component of the
reform strategy was fully implemented; 3) the degree of shared understanding of the
reform strategy; and 4) sustainability of district commitment to the reform strategy
with personnel and fiscal resources.
Three interview guides were created to follow the reform strategy rubrics and
support the process of gathering data to inform the research questions. The
Superintendent Interview Guide (Appendix A) organized each interview question to
the related research question, outlined the superintendent interview process,
established a process for coding interview data, and outlined processes for
identifying artifacts and documents collected. The Key Player Interview Guide
(Appendix B) organized each interview question to the related research question,
outlined the key player selection and interview process, established a process for
coding interview data, and outlined processes for identifying artifacts and documents
collected. The Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Appendix C)
organized interview questions for each of the 10 reform strategies to the related
research question, outlined the participant selection and interview process,
103
established a process for coding interview data, and outlined processes for
identifying artifacts and documents collected. Table 3.1 presents a matrix illustrating
the relationship between the research questions and the three data collection
instruments.
Table 3.1: Relationship of Research Questions to Data Collection Instruments

RQ1:
10 Key
Strategies
RQ1a:
Factors
Context
RQ1b:
Additional
Strategies
RQ1c:
Background/
Experiences
Superintendent
Interview Guide

X X X X
Key Player Interview
Guide

X X X
Specific Dimensions of
Reform Interview Guide
X X

Each of the interview tools provided critical support to the process of
organizing complex and divergent qualitative data to inform the research questions.
The interview process and questioning techniques were developed based on the
semi-structured protocol developed by Creswell (1998). The questions were aligned
with the conceptual frameworks and used open-ended questioning to allow the
research team to tailor probing questions for each participant. Each interviewee was
asked to identify and provide documentation that would support their perceptions
and opinions. Access to documentation was facilitated by the district superintendent.
Instrument 1: The Superintendent Interview Guide
The Superintendent Interview Guide from the 2006 Phase I study was
reviewed and revised collaboratively by the research team to facilitate collection of
104
data relevant to the research questions posed in the study. The guide (Appendix A)
incorporated a script for the interviewer that outlined several lead questions and
included relevant probing questions to provide depth to the information collected.
The Superintendent Interview Guide assumed an initial interview of 60 minutes on
Day One and included a set of open-ended questions with relevant probing questions
designed to allow the researcher to expand and explore issues raised during the
process. The first question and subsequent probes focused on establishing the
strengths and challenges of the district, in terms of student performance upon the
superintendent’s arrival (research sub-question 1a). Those questions included:
a) Describe the overall status of the district when you assumed your position
as Superintendent;
b) What were the major strengths of the district?
c) What were the major challenges facing the district?
d) What was the overall academic profile of the district?
A second question and relevant probes inquired of the change strategies implemented
by the district under the superintendent’s leadership (research sub-question 1b).
Those questions included:
a) Considering the context of the district when you arrived, what strategies
did you use to improve the overall condition of the district?
b) What specific strategies did you employ to improve student achievement
within your district?
105
c) Which participants were significantly involved in those strategies?
d) How would you describe the level of implementation you have achieved
for each strategy used?
On Day Two, a 60 minute follow-up interview was scheduled with the
superintendent to focus on understanding the background and experience of the
superintendent (research sub-question 1c) and facilitate discussion of emergent
themes arising during the key player and strategy specific interviews. Those
questions included:
a) Please describe key aspects of your previous background/experience.
b) How did your preparation and experience help you to select and
implement appropriated reform strategies designed to improve student
achievement?
Instrument 2: The Key Players Interview Guide
The Key Players Interview Guide (Appendix B) was also based on a data
collection instrument utilized during Phase I of the study. The research team made
modifications to the instrument in order to ensure alignment with the conceptual
framework and to provide meaningful data related to each research question. The
Key player Interview Guide assumed interviews of approximately 60 minutes and
included several lead questions, with relevant probing questions to allow the
researcher to explore issues that arose in the process. The questions focused on
developing an understanding of the context of the district prior to the arrival of the
superintendent (research sub-question 1a) and how the reform strategies used by the
106
district superintendent to improve student achievement were implemented. Each
question was designed to provide access to a rich data set that addressed the relevant
research questions and informed the study. Those questions included:
a) Describe the overall status of the district when the superintendent arrived:
b) Considering the context of the district, what strategies did the
Superintendent use to improve the overall condition of the district?
c) What specific strategies did the Superintendent employ to improve
student achievement within the district?
d) What was your involvement in these strategies?
e) How would you describe the level of implementation achieved for each of
the reform strategies used?
Instrument 3: The Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide
The Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Appendix C) was
developed through the collaborative work of the research team in order to collect
data relevant to the research questions as they related to the 10 key reform strategies
studied. Each member of the team conducted significant research into the theoretical
and practical background of one reform strategy proposed by the Urban School
Leadership Institute. From that research, 10 strategy-specific rubrics were developed
by the group, which identified the components of a high-quality implementation of
the reform strategy. Lead and probing questions for each reform strategy interview
were developed by the research team, based on the related rubrics. A single
107
implementation rubric was developed and used to measure the level of the district’s
progress for each reform strategy.
The Specific Dimension of Reform Interview Guide was designed to support
semi-structured group interviews of individuals identified by the superintendent as
having specific knowledge relating to each of the 10 key reform strategies under
study. Each reform strategy group was interviewed for approximately 60 minutes
and presented with open-ended lead questions and relevant probes designed to
provide a picture of the context of the district prior to the arrival of the
superintendent (research sub-question 1a) and describe how the actions taken by the
superintendent may have impacted student achievement. These questions included:
a) What is your district currently doing with regard to (name the specific
reform strategy)? What has been the Superintendent’s specific strategies
regarding this reform strategy?
b) What has been the success in getting the current reform strategy actually
implemented and what challenges are now faced in this regard?
c) How does the current effort for this reform strategy differ from what was
done prior to when the current superintendent came to this district?
d) For the prior approach, to what extent was that approach fully
implemented?
108
Reform strategy Quality Rubrics and an Implementation Rubric (Appendices D and
E) were used to formulate follow on questions and guide discussions in addressing
research questions.
Data Collection
The Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI) staff assisted the research
team by providing information relating to matches between sampling criteria and
USLI graduates. Access to the administrative teams in these districts was facilitated
through collaboration between USLI and the University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education staff. In order to assure district leaders that the
processing and reporting of findings would be managed professionally, USC
professors David Marsh, Ph.D. and Rudy Castruita, Ed.D. served as active members
of the research team and participated in the site interviews. Additionally, these team
members provided additional, unique perspective to the study resulting from years of
practical experience in the field of educational leadership and a deep understanding
of the current research.
The 10 member research team initiated the Institutional Review Board (IRB)
process in April of 2008. The University of Southern California IRB committee is
charged with ethical oversight of research projects conducted by USC students and
staff. The committee reviews research proposals to ensure that participant rights are
protected and that studies adhere to an ethical approach to research and result in
findings that are beneficial to society as a whole. The IRB review secured these goals
by requiring submission of detailed descriptions of the scope, the specific population,
109
and the methodology to be used in the study. For this study, the research team
submitted one IRB proposal for the 10 related studies conducted by cohort members.
Although limiting the freedom of the individual researchers in the cohort to some
degree, the process resulted in increased consistency of the larger research project;
the use of common data collection instruments and methodologies enhanced the
team’s ability to speak to the transferability of the findings. Once IRB approval was
received, the research team began the progress of establishing contact with the sites
and preparing for the initial site visits.
Data for the study was collected from the district by a research team of two
members during a two-day site visit during June 2008. Prior to the visit, the district
was contacted by Dr. David Marsh and Dr. Rudy Castruita and provided with
information relating to the purpose of the study. Superintendents received
documentation containing more detail of the visit and were asked to identify
participants, including two key change leaders who were present when the transition
took place. Superintendents were also asked to identify and provide access to other
participants who held roles in implementing policies related to the 10 key reform
strategies. These volunteers included cabinet members, site principals, directors,
board members, and community and/or parent group leaders. Each participant was
assured of confidentiality. With permission, the interviews were digitally recorded
and detailed field notes were be taken by the researcher. Data collection activities are
presented in Table 3.2 below.

110
Table 3.2: Data Collection Activities
Day One Day Two
Morning • Superintendent Interview (1 hour)
• Key Player #1 Interview (1 hour)
• Key Player #2 Interview (1 hour)
(Interviews conducted by three
data collectors to build shared
understanding.)
• Reform Strategy-Specific Small
Group Interviews (5)
(60 minute interviews conducted
by one to three data collectors)
Afternoon • Reform Strategy-Specific Small
Group Interviews (5)
(60 minute interviews conducted
by one to three data collectors)
• Superintendent Interview (1 hour)
(Interview focused on back-
ground and experience of
superintendent and follow up to
information from Day One.
Evening Data collectors met to debrief, make
initial ratings and identify missing
information.
Data collectors formulated initial
ratings and prepared data for more in-
depth analysis.

A semi-structured interview of approximately sixty minutes was conducted
with the superintendent on the morning of day one, using the Superintendent
Interview Guide (Appendix A). Following the superintendent interview, the research
team interviewed two key players identified by the superintendent. The Key Player
Interview Guide (Appendix B), which mirrors the superintendent’s interview guide,
was used to draw out information and overlapping perspectives of the reform
strategy results. Each of these semi-structured, individual interviews was
approximately 60 minutes in length. In the afternoon, team members met and
conducted 60 minute small group interviews with individuals identified by the
superintendent as having knowledge specific to each of the 10 key reform strategies
using the Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Appendix C). At the end
of the day, the research team met together to review impressions and consider issues
that needed follow-on clarification.
111
On Day Two, the team finished meeting with the change reform strategy-
specific groups. Following interviews with the change reform strategy groups, a 60
minute follow-up interview was conducted with the superintendent. This meeting
focused on the background and experience of the superintendent (research sub-
question 1c) in relation to the reform strategies, and clarified questions that had
arisen during the key player and reform strategy interviews, resulting in a rich data
set.
Structures were put into place to provide participants ample security and
options to withdraw at their discretion. Each participant signed an informed
voluntary consent that specified the right to refuse and/or withdraw from the process
at any time, assuring their confidentiality. Procedures were put in place to mask
potential identifiers so that participants could share freely and maintain their
anonymity throughout the process.
Multiple data sources were accessed during the visits in order to provide
depth and richness to each qualitative data set. Collected data (documents and other
artifacts related to specific reform strategies) were cross-referenced against interview
and longitudinal student achievement data. Credibility of findings was enhanced
through triangulation of information obtained through interview, review of relevant
documents and analysis of district student achievement data.
Data Analysis
The purpose of this study was to describe and analyze the strengths,
challenges and strategies utilized by urban superintendents to improve student
112
achievement, resulting in a useful set of ideas, findings, and implications that
fundamentally enhance the preparation of urban superintendents and support their
early work as superintendents. A guiding research question and four sub-questions
focused the study and assisted in the development of data collection instruments. The
study explored 10 key reform strategies identified by the Urban School Leadership
Institute as those most likely to enhance student achievement. Alignment between
the research questions, the conceptual framework, and the data collection
instruments increased the reliability of findings.
The data analysis process was developed collaboratively during the spring of
2008, incorporating Creswell’s (2003) six steps for data processing: 1) organizing
the data, 2) establishing meaning through a review of data, 3) beginning the coding
process, 4) generating common themes or categories, 5) determining how data will
be presented in the narrative, and 6) developing interpretations. Ultimately,
interviews and analysis of related documents resulted in evidence-based ratings for
the effects of each of the reform strategies.
The process of data analysis began at the end of Day One, when the research
team met to debrief, discuss interview findings, and record overall impressions
(Creswell, 2003). Researchers compared notes from the interviews and discussed
relationship connections to the 10 reform strategies. Issues that required clarification
were determined and follow-up questions were formulated for integration into the
Day Two interviews. Upon conclusion of the site visit, detailed field notes and
digitally recorded interview information were coded for analysis. A spreadsheet
113
format (Appendices D and E) was used to record relevant rubric scores for both the
quality and level of implementation related to each of the 10 key reform strategies.
This facilitated sorting of data and allowed patterns in the data to be revealed.
During the month of August, 2008, the entire cohort met to review detailed
field notes and digitally recorded interviews and summarize initial findings from the
site visits to the 10 districts. The rubrics created by the research team were used to
determine both the quality and level of implementation of key reform strategies in
each district. This process resulted in a comparative analysis of how 10 USLI
superintendents selected and implemented specific reform strategies in an effort to
improve student academic achievement in their large urban school district. This
summary document was presented to the Urban School Leadership Foundation by
Dr. David Marsh and Dr. Rudy Castruita in November of 2008.
Validity and Reliability
Construct validity was enhanced through the collection of data via multiple
evidence sources, establishing data patterns for investigation. Triangulation of data, a
process through which research makes ties between evidence from multiple sources,
enhanced the internal validity of findings (Patton, 2002). Additionally, multiple data
sources were used to minimize subjectivity and enhance the strength of the findings
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). The overall generalization of findings is limited to the
districts under study, although findings may serve to inform readers of practices that
have proven successful in these specific contexts.
114
Summary
Chapter Three contained information regarding the specific research
methodology applied in this study, which included details relating to design, sample,
instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis. The procedures and instruments
used in the study were developed collaboratively by members of the cohort and
approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Southern California.
Permission to access district documents and personnel was granted by the District
superintendent and no actions were taken without express consent. All processes for
collection of data were transparent to the superintendent and disclosed prior to the
site visit. Results and findings from the data analysis are presented in Chapter Four.

115
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presented the findings from a case study of one district
superintendent’s efforts to raise student achievement by implementing systemic
change. In order to learn how reform strategies are implemented by superintendents
in large urban school systems, one district was selected as the unit of analysis.
Within this context, factors relating to conditions in the district prior to the arrival of
the superintendent and his professional background were areas of focus. The
strategies of reform used by the superintendent were measured to determine the
quality of the effort, as well as the level of implementation both prior to and after his
arrival. A case study methodology was used in the data collection process.
The purpose of this study was to examine how superintendents implement
specific reform strategies to improve student performance. The implementation of 10
key reform strategies identified by the Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI), as
part of a comprehensive framework for superintendent leadership (House Model),
were investigated. The 10 key reform strategies were: 1) strategic plan, 2)
assessment, 3) curriculum, 4) professional development, 5) human resource system
and human capital management, 6) finance and budget, 7) communications, 8)
governance and board relations, 9) labor relations and contract negotiation, and 10)
family and community engagement.
Five research instruments, described in Chapter 3, were used in the collection
of data: 1) Superintendent Interview Guide (Appendix A); 2) Key Player Interview
116
Guide (Appendix B); 3) Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Appendix
C); 4) Quality Rubric (Appendix D); and, 5) Implementation Rubric (Appendix E).
The data collected in the study consisted of interviews with key district leaders,
district documents, artifacts, and reports from district and state department of
education web sites. These multiple sources permitted triangulation of data to
support the reliability and validity of the findings. Further interpretation and analysis
of data was done through collaborative analysis sessions with the 11 other members
of the USC research team who were using the same instruments to study nine
additional districts.
The findings of this study were organized around the research question: How
are the 10 key reform strategies being used by large urban school district
superintendents to improve student achievement in his or her respective district? The
study’s goal was to understand how the strengths and challenges of a school district
and the background of a new superintendent impact the selection, quality and
implementation of 10 specific reform strategies used to improve system efforts to
raise student achievement. The findings from the research, as well as a detailed
analysis and discussion of the data, were presented in this chapter.
Findings
District Background
Triangle County Public School District (TCPSD) was a large urban district
located on the eastern seaboard of the United States. It served a diverse student
population of nearly 33,000 students. Students in the district attended 28 elementary
117
(K-5), nine middle (6-8), one secondary (6-12), 10 high (9-12), one alternative, and
one hospital school. TCPSD was the 7th largest school district in the state.
The majority of students who attended Triangle County PSD were from
minority racial groups: African-American 53.9%, white 22.6%, and Hispanic 17.1%.
Approximately 47% of the student population was designated socioeconomically
disadvantaged, receiving free and reduced school lunch (FRSL), 14% were
designated English learners, and 12% were classified as students with disabilities.
Triangle County PSD employed approximately 4,600 staff members, of
which 2,300 were credentialed teachers. The operating budget for the 2007-2008
school year was $369 million. According to 2008 Triangle County PSD’s State of the
Schools report:
In collaboration with our community and parents, the mission of Triangle
County Public School District is to provide all students with an outstanding
education that motivates them to reach their full potential and enables them to
discover their interests and talents, pursue their goals and dreams, and
succeed in college, in the workforce and as engaged citizens.
Also guiding the district are Core Beliefs and Commitments which stated:
All children have talents, skills, and unique abilities; All children want to
pursue their goals and dreams; All children can succeed in their pursuits:
college, the workforce, community engagement; Our children will be
challenged to achieve at their highest capacity; Our school district will ensure
that all of our children have at least one year of growth for one year of
schooling; Our school district will diminish achievement gaps based on race,
ethnicity, and socio-economic status until they are extinguished; Our schools
will be filled with high quality, competent, and caring teachers, principals
and staff.
Table 4.1 summarizes the demographics of Triangle County Public School District.

118
Table 4.1: Demographics of Triangle County Public Schools Student Population
District Size White Black Hispanic Other
Free/Reduced
School Lunch
32,749 22.6% 53.9% 17.1% 6.4% 47.2%
Comments: TCPSD is the seventh largest school district in the state. The district has an operating
budget over $369 million dollars of which 94% is dedicated to salaries and benefits costs. TCPSD
has a total of 50 schools including: 28 elementary schools, 9 middle schools, 10 high schools, 1
secondary (grades 6-12), 1 alternative school and 1 hospital school. The largest demographic shift
over the past 10 years has been in the Hispanic student population, increasing from 726 students
(2%) in 1997 to approximately 5,600 (17%) in 2007.

Background of the Superintendent
Dr. Darnell Bennett brought extensive experience as an educator when he
was appointed Superintendent of Triangle County Public School District (TCPSD) in
July, 2006. Initially a teacher and a coach, Dr. Bennett served in increasingly
responsible administrative positions: principal, associate and deputy superintendent,
as well as superintendent in Franklin County, a rural district of approximately 8,000
students. Dr. Bennett joined the TCPSD staff in 2004, as Associate Superintendent
of Instructional Services, then promoted to Deputy Superintendent in 2005. Dr.
Bennett’s hallmark as county superintendent was his calm demeanor, a leader who
listened to the community yet whose leadership resulted in exceptional gains toward
closing the achievement gap. His calming, healing presence continued during his
initial years at TCPSD as an assistant superintendent, where he gained full support
from the community and a fractious school board.
Born to sharecropper parents, Dr. Bennett holds a Doctorate in Education
Administration from North Carolina State University in Raleigh, North Carolina, a
Master of Arts in Administration from East Carolina University in Greenville, North
Carolina and a Bachelor of Science in Health and Physical Education degree from
119
Southwest State University in Marshall, Minnesota. Dr. Bennett’s awards include:
the 2008 University Council for Educational Administration’s Excellence in
Educational Leadership Award, 2006 National Association for Gifted Children
Educator Award, and Franklin County Principal of the Year. Dr. Bennett is a past
president of the North Carolina Association of School Administrators and in 2005,
chaired the North Carolina Council on Accreditation and School Improvement
(CASI), Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.
Dr. Bennett reported the top three experiences that helped him prepare for the
superintendency at TCPSD as: 1) professional training, 2) interaction with
professionals in the field throughout his career, and 3) growing up and developing as
a leader in the region. During his first superintendency, Dr. Bennett attended the
inaugural superintendent’s class at Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI). He
credited USLI with providing inspiration for improving urban public schools,
encouraging him to make a difference in America through leadership in urban public
schools. “USLI provided me recognition that public education is critical to our
democracy and the significance of urban education is far beyond the consciousness
of most people.”
Condition of District at the Time of Superintendent’s Arrival
At the time of Dr. Bennett’s appointment as Superintendent of Schools, the
Triangle County Public School district was on track to reach the prior
superintendent’s reading goal of 95% of 3
rd
graders on grade level by 2007, set nine
years earlier. This ambitious goal was served by a strong instructional program
120
which included: a highly-successful elementary focus on literacy, managed reading
instruction and an effective reading recovery intervention system. Each elementary
school that had reported a reading proficiency rate of less than 50% in 1996,
improved by at least 25 percentage points in 2006. The progress and success in the
core reading curriculum enabled Dr. Bennett to expand on those gains and carry
them upward to middle and high school improvement plans. A strong supporting
professional development (PD) division was centrally managed by the Human
Resources department (not through curriculum and instruction department), which
administered PD for all employees, certificated and classified.
Triangle County Public School District is located in a wealthy business
district, akin to the Silicon Valley in California, with a large tax base. TCPSD county
appropriations were 6th highest among the 115 districts in the state. In 2007-08, the
$3,000 apportionment per student was the greatest contribution within the top 10
largest county districts (by average daily membership). The high ranking per pupil
expenditure among state districts was recognized by Dr. Bennett as TCPSD’s strong
financial commitment to educate its students.
In addition to significant business partners such as: IBM, Sysco Foods, Nortel
telecom, GlaxoSmithKline pharmaceuticals, Triangle County Public Schools
educational connections were in place with three major universities located in the
nearby communities. The array of opportunities provided include: teacher training,
student mentorships, and advanced learning opportunities. These partnerships were a
potential resource for Dr. Bennett’s plan to involve the community more fully in
121
raising the academic achievement of TCPSD students. Table 4.2 summarizes the key
strengths of Triangle County Public School District.
Table 4.2: Strengths in Triangle County Schools upon Superintendent Arrival
Key Strengths of Triangle County Schools at Time of Superintendent’s Arrival
• Significant gains in: elementary reading, end-of-grade and end-of-course test scores, and a
40% reduction in the dropout rate during the previous four years
• Power of instructional program and professional development resulted in significant
literacy gains
• District well-funded, per pupil allocation high, class sizes were small
• District located in research triangle, offering much opportunity for community
collaboration
• District partnerships with three local colleges and universities as well as other educational
institutions

When Dr. Bennett took office as Superintendent of Triangle County Public
School District (TCPSD), relations between the school board, the community and the
district central office were severely strained. During the past superintendent’s nine-
year tenure, leadership was marred by a lack of communication and collaboration.
Dissention by public stakeholders was reflected in school board telecasts often
marred by audience chanting, shouting and disruption by a small but vocal group
called Concerned Citizens of Triangle County. Many in the local community tuned in
to the live televised broadcast of school board meetings, which had been compared
to The Jerry Springer Show because of outrageous behavior often leading to shouting
matches and arrests.
The prevailing community perception among African American families was
that the district was not responsive to the concerns of minority families. The former
superintendent’s agenda frequently moved ahead with a 4-3 vote, split along racial
lines. Although the District had achieved marked improvements in student
122
achievement, posting high gains in end-of-grade and end-of-course test scores and a
40% reduction in the drop out rate, African American and Hispanic students were
not achieving at the same levels as white students. An achievement gap greater than
37% for end-of-grade tests existed between white and non-white students.
Additionally, the school board was fragmented and there was a lack of
understanding by the Board of its role with regard to district governance. The Board
did not know how and was not involved in the formulation of policy making
strategies to improve student achievement. Internal flow of information from the
board chairman to other board members was a significant weakness, leading to lack
of teamwork and inconsistency regarding District focus. There was no consistent
message from the Board and little attempt to engage the community. Table 4.3
summarizes the challenges of Triangle County Public School District upon Dr.
Bennett’s arrival.
Table 4.3: Challenges in Triangle County Schools upon Superintendent Arrival
Key Challenges for Triangle County Schools at Time of Superintendent’s Arrival
• Lack of communication between district, board and community led to perception that
district was hiding something
• Students of color, i.e., African Americans and Hispanic, were not achieving to same levels
as white students – a 37% achievement gap
• Board was in disarray, dysfunctional, not a team, lack of clarity of board’s role with
respect to leadership and expectations, no knowledge of how to reform district. No
consistent message

The Entry Plan and Launching Strategies
Dr. Bennett’s immediate priority upon taking the reins as superintendent was
to embark upon a mission to regain the public’s confidence in Triangle County
Public School District. He did this by an extensive visiting, listening and speaking
123
tour during his first ninety days in office. Dr. Bennett’s communication strategy was
one of openness and transparency. He made his cabinet completely accessible to the
Board and led by example in terms which clearly communicated the district goals to
all constituents. Dr. Bennett actively engaged the community and welcomed them to
help reform TCPSD. The community responded with renewed commitment,
reinvigorated business alliances and educational partnerships. According to the
TCPSD Board president, the Triangle County community “loves the Superintendent,
he’s out and about everywhere.” Dr. Bennett’s start up plan is presented in Figure
4.1.
Figure 4.1 Superintendent’s Entry Plan
Improve Instructional Leadership
Establish Positive District Culture
Increase Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency
Improve Public Trust and Confidence
Increase Student Achievement
Promote Positive Relations with the School Board

Creating a positive relationship between the board of education and the
superintendent was the next step in Dr. Bennett’s induction plan during the summer
of 2006. He did this by meeting individually with board members to go over roles,
responsibilities, expectations, and systems for mutual accountability, and by
establishing regular communication methods such as weekly phone calls and
information packets. The Board was looking for leadership and a superintendent who
could bring together the district and the community, focus on academic achievement,
and provide leadership to the Board regarding how to set policy and govern TCPSD.
124
Further relationship development was accomplished during Board
Governance Leadership training, a summer board retreat occurring in the first month
of Dr. Bennett’s tenure. At the retreat, Dr. Bennett presented his TCPSD
Superintendent’s Goals, a reprioritization of the entry plan goals. Dr. Bennett’s
proven performance while Deputy Superintendent at TCPSD, following his
Superintendency in Franklin County resulted in early confidence and commitment
from the Board. This culminated in their full support of TCPSD Superintendent’s
Goals.
The goals implemented by Dr. Bennett upon his ascension to the
Superintendency were aligned with the strengths and challenges of Triangle County
Public School District. During one year at TCPSD as Assistant Superintendent for
Curriculum and Instruction, and later as Deputy, Dr. Bennett had the opportunity to
make key observations of Board performance, district communication protocols, and
student achievement challenges. Upon the former Superintendent’s retirement
announcement in October, nine months prior to the actual retirement date, the board
announced Dr. Bennett as successor and immediately promoted him to Deputy
Superintendent. Dr. Bennett made use of this time to start superintendent planning.
Due to the nature of his early appointment, Dr. Bennett felt the commitment from the
Board permitted him to start preparing his plan of action in the months prior to July
1. When the Board left for retreat within the first couple of weeks of his
Superintendency, Dr. Bennett’s plan to commence goal number one of his 90-Day
125
Focus, “Ensure District Governance through Positive Board-Superintendent
Relations,” was already in motion.
The vision of Triangle County Public School District was crafted
collaboratively with the community: “Triangle County Public School District will
ensure that all students achieve at the highest potential regardless of race, gender, or
socio-economic status. Each student will make continuous progress and be at or
above grade level.” In alignment with the District’s vision, Superintendent Goal
number one was increase student achievement. Action in support of this goal was
continued development of the comprehensive instructional delivery model (managed
instruction) in place at TCPSD. To help guide improvement in student achievement,
achieve equity in instruction, and eliminate gaps among student populations, a
comprehensive learning management system (Riverdeep® Instructional Organizer)
was developed and implemented.
In order to more effectively monitor the status of student achievement it was
necessary to determine the adequacy of assessment tools available to the district. Dr.
Bennett discovered, as Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction,
there was no quick fix or any off-the-shelf program which would enable effective
analysis of patterns in student achievement data to guide teaching and learning. An
assessment program director had been commissioned to research and develop end-
of-grade and end-of-course assessments for measuring student performance against
state standards. As Superintendent, Dr. Bennett created a cabinet level position,
Assistant Superintendent of Research Development & Accountability, to fully
126
implement a benchmark assessment program. The results were outstanding, end of
grade and end of course tests coming back with 95% accuracy in providing
diagnostic data to project state end-of-year performance.
Dr. Bennett implemented a tiered school performance system to classify
schools based on results from state end-of-year testing. The system enabled a focus
of leadership and resources on the lowest achieving schools. A five-tiered system
consists of: Tier 1 - a Low Performing school, Tier 2 - close to Low Performing
status, Tier 3 - High Performing but not meeting growth target, Tier 4 - Meeting
Growth, and Tier 5 - Exceeding Growth. Tier 1 and Tier 2 schools received the most
attention, in the form of (District) Executive Leadership Team guidance visits and
extra resources as needed. Tier 3-5 schools earned progressively more autonomy
based on achievement results. The launching strategies employed by Dr. Bennett are
summarized in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Superintendent Reform and Launching Strategies at TCPSD
Overall Reform Strategies Employed by the Superintendent
• Restore public trust and confidence in the school district
• Improve relationship between Board and superintendent
• Development of Board’s governance capacity was key to its potential effectiveness and
school district empowerment
• Superintendent’s 90-day entrance plan transitioned to board-adopted strategic goals during
governance training retreat
• Reform strategies initiated as Deputy Superintendent awaiting planned succession as
Superintendent
• Refinement of managed instruction process is key to student achievement and enhanced
academic gains
• Assessment division elevated to cabinet level with charge to analyze student achievement
in order to set new course for teaching and learning
• Tiered school performance system implemented to better focus leadership and resources
on the lowest achieving schools

127
Ten Key Reform Strategies
This study sought information to answer the research question “How are the
ten key reform strategies being used by Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI)
superintendents to improve student achievement?” The 10 key reform strategies as
identified by USLI are: 1) strategic plan, 2) assessment, 3) curriculum, 4)
professional development, 5) human resource system and human capital
management, 6) finance and budget, 7) communications, 8) governance and board
relations, 9) labor relations and contract negotiation, and 10) family and community
engagement. Superintendent and Key Player interviews identified these and other
reform strategies used by the system leader to influence student achievement across
the district. In addition to interviews, district documents and other data provided
insight on superintendent actions to change and improve the district.
The Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI) House Model (Figure 4.2) was
the conceptual framework that served as the basis for the study. The House Model
was developed by USLI as a method of approach for analysis and improvement of
urban school districts by school system leaders. The House Model is based on
education reform literature and “best practices” identified by researchers and
practitioners in the field of education. The House Model is a metaphorical structure
consisting of a foundation, rooms, and a roof that represent the key (reform
strategies) elements necessary for a high achieving educational system, such as an
urban school district. The foundation includes the system leader’s entry plan and first
activities. The rooms focus on necessary system elements relating to: instructional
128
alignment, operational excellence and stakeholder management. Finally, the roof
identifies the system goals of increasing student achievement, closing the
achievement gaps and improving college readiness for all students. From this Model,
10 key strategic actions or “reform strategies” have been identified (emphasis added
in Figure 4.2) for in-depth observation and analysis.
Figure 4.2: The House Model

Sustainability
Increasing Student Achievement
Closing Achievement Gaps
Improving College and Workplace Readiness

Instructional Alignment
• Standards
• Assessment
• Curriculum
• Instruction
• Professional Development
• Program Effectiveness
• Focus on Lowest
Performers
• Student Support Services
Operational Excellence
• Human Resources System
and Human Capital
Management
• Finance and Budget
• Resource Alignment
• Facilities
• Performance Management
System/Accountability Plan
• Business Services
• Other Operations Services
Stakeholder Management
• Communications
• Governance/Board
Relations
• Labor Relations/Contract
Negotiations
• Political Relationships
• Philanthropic and
Institutional Partnerships
• Family and Community
Engagement
• Constituent Service
Organizational Assessment
and Audits
Organizational & Management
Structure
• Leadership Team
Effectiveness
• Organizational Chart
Strategic Plan
• Theory of Action
• Data Dashboard
Superintendent’s Plan of Entry

The following sections provide information and data acquired through
interviews and review of school district documents for the 10 key reform strategies.
Each strategy was evaluated and assigned rubric ratings (scale of 1 – low to 5 – high)
129
based upon assessment of quality (Appendix D) and level of implementation
(Appendix E).
When asked how he would rate his previous experience in the 10 key reform
strategies, Dr. Bennett gave himself high (4+) ratings in: Strategic Planning,
Curriculum, Professional Development, Human Resources, Finance/Budget,
Communications, Governance/Board Relations, and Family/Community
Engagement. He credited his prior Superintendency for exceptional preparation in
the areas of Strategic Planning, Finance/Budget, Governance/Board Relations, and
Family/Community involvement. His prior district office roles prepared him for high
ratings in Human Resources (Assistant Superintendent for HR) and Curriculum
(came to TCPSD as C&I). He self rated himself as moderate (3) in Assessment and
Labor Relations.
Each of the 10 key reform strategies were examined, beginning immediately
prior to the time the Superintendent entered the district. Specific action steps taken
by the Superintendent were noted. Finally, assessment was made of the impact of the
reforms on the work of the district toward improving student achievement. Rubric
scores were summarized in Table 4.5.
130
Table 4.5: Rubric Ratings of House Model Reform Strategies
House Elements
Quality
Prior
Quality
Post
Level of
Implementation
Strategic Planning 1.9 4.4 4
Assessment 1.7 5.0 5
Curriculum 3.0 4.6 5
Professional Development 1.0 4.5 4
HR System and Human Capital
Management
1.4 3.8 4
Finance and Budget 3.0 4.3 3
Communication 1.8 3.8 3
Governance and Board Relations 1.4 5.0 5
Labor Relations and Contract
Negotiations
1.5 4.0 3
Family and Community Engagement 2.3 4.3 4

Strategic Plan
The strategic plan defines the district’s mission, goals and vision. Table 4.6
compares the difference between the assessment of the quality of the Strategic Plan
key reform strategy prior to and after Dr. Bennett’s arrival, the essence of the
difference in the District’s implementation of the strategy and a summary of the
action steps taken by the Superintendent to implement the reform.
Table 4.6: Summary Evaluation of Strategic Plan by Rubric Scoring
House Element
Reform
Strategy
Quality
Prior
Quality
Post
Essence of the
Difference Between
Prior and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Strategic Plan 2 4 A collaboratively-
constructed vision
statement and theory of
action for change
guides the current
strategic plan in
contrast to ’s sole
direction of strategic
actions with no defined
goals.
• Superintendent’s Goals, a
modified 90-day plan was
adopted during first summer
governance retreat
• Strategic plan includes
detailed project plan to ensure
operationally ready
• Measurable outcomes
established for all goals and
objectives
• Managed instruction key
to student achievement and
enhanced academic gains
131
The key strategic focus of the district was upon Dr. Bennett’s arrival was to
close the achievement gap by improving elementary school reading performance.
The former Superintendent’s 10-year plan was to promote 95% of third graders
reading on grade level. Significant progress was made and the superintendent was
honored for her accomplishments in supporting early literacy through the reading
recovery techniques. Dr. Bennett reviewed the past administration’s
accomplishments:
The District had implemented a pretty good reading recovery program to
catch those readers early. In my opinion, it was a pretty significant financial
commitment on the part of the District to fund about 60 reading recovery
teachers. Looking at the data 10 years out, you see schools go from reading
proficiency in the 30s to in the 60s. That’s a tremendous amount of growth. It
was paying off.
Upon Dr. Bennett’s arrival, he found the district “did not have any defined goals.”
The former Superintendent and central office leadership team developed and
implemented many major decisions without input or informing the school board. The
Chief Financial Officer recalled, “a decision made by the Superintendent to close a
school that only two of the seven board members knew about…another example was
a change to four by four block scheduling with virtually no input from the board.”
There was a lack of trust between the school board and the administration
across the school district and the community. According to the Chief Academic
Officer, “The Board was in complete disarray. It was dysfunctional…there was a
lack of clarity of the Board’s role in terms of leadership, in terms of expectations,
and even knowledge of how you reform a district.” Ultimately, the former
Superintendent proposed a major study of the District that was going to set the
132
course of Triangle County Schools for years to come, involving re-districting
schools, magnet school determination, etc. When the Superintendent received a vote
of no confidence from the Board for the proposal, her retirement was announced.
Table 4.7 summarizes the major strengths and challenges affecting the
implementation of an effective strategic plan at Triangle County Public School
District and describes the initial reform action steps implemented by Dr. Bennett to
address change in Strategic Planning.
Table 4.7: Addressing Change in Strategic Planning
Strengths Challenges
• Superintendent’s 10 year goals achieved
significant gains in: elementary reading, end-
of-grade and end-of-course test scores, and a
40% reduction in the dropout rate during the
previous four years
• Lack of well- defined focus goals for the
district
• Superintendent and central office leadership
team made decisions for district without
board info/input
• Superintendent received no vote of
confidence from board for proposed major
study of district
• State-required strategic plan is historically a
paper “drill” and not used as part of change
effort
Strategic Planning Strategies
• Superintendent’s 90-day entry plan designed to get Board to focus on some key goals.
• Superintendent’s Goals and Project Plan followed entry plan and transitioned to board-adopted
strategic goals during governance training retreat
• Strategic plan developed as a collaborative effort among the executive leadership team and
included detailed project plans with measurable outcomes for all goals and objectives

Dr. Bennett’s actions were to build upon a collaboratively-constructed vision
statement and support it with necessary strategic actions to enhance student
achievement, as there was a lack of district-defined focus goals. His action plan
started with a 90-day entrance plan and transitioned to the Superintendent’s Goals
with detailed project planning. He “wanted to make sure it did not get lost in
everything else. His prior experience with strategic planning in the state was that the
133
‘wonderful plan’ is never consulted.” In addition to promoting student achievement,
increases in organizational effectiveness and improvement in instructional leadership
and professional development of staff are delineated in Dr. Bennett’s strategic
Superintendent’s Goals. Dr. Bennett recounted:
I had a 90-day plan that I turned into a project plan because I wanted to make
sure that all the wonderful ideas of what we were going to do would actually
get done. The way I felt we would stay focused on it was to take them from a
concept of bullets with dates attached to them and actually put them into a
project. The project plan not only had ideas and goals, but also links to
documents created out of the work which would give anyone from the staff or
the public… a living document that we could follow…there were names
assigned and start and finish dates.

Although initially skeptical of Dr. Bennett’s comprehensive project planning
ideas two years prior, the Chief Operating Officer reflected:
This [project work planning] has been one of the best things we have ever
done…because of the interaction. We look forward to bringing a project
work plan forward on an initiative. It has been a huge success and has helped
us to organize a lot better.
Table 4.8 details the evaluation of essential quality components for the
Strategic Plan key reform strategy. Each component was assessed according to
research-based rubrics, comparing prior (to Dr. Bennett) and current quality of the
reform strategy. Additionally, an evaluation of the overall level of strategy
implementation is given.
134
Table 4.8: Evaluation of Strategic Plan Quality by Rubric Components
Rubric Components
Prior Quality
1.9
Current Quality
4.4
Level of
Implementation
Vision 3 5
Mission 3 5
Objectives (goals) 1 5
Strategies 3 5
Action Plan 1 5
Theory of Action 1 3
Data Dashboard 1 3
4

A score of 4.4 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 4 was provided for the level of implementation. The Strategic Plan is at the
high end of the rubric scale. The staff is committed to the plan and the District has
developed written work plans to accomplish goals, targets, and deliverables. The
scores indicate a moderate-high level implementation of a high quality reform
strategy.
Assessment
Assessments of student knowledge enable districts to know whether students
are learning curriculum standards. Table 4.9 compares the difference between the
evaluation of the quality of the Assessment key reform strategy prior to and after Dr.
Bennett’s arrival, the essence of the difference in the District’s implementation of the
strategy and a summary of the action steps taken by the Superintendent to implement
the reform.
135
Table 4.9: Summary Evaluation of Assessment Strategy by Rubric Scoring
House Element
Reform
Strategy
Quality
Prior
Quality
Post
Essence of the
Difference Between
Prior and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Assessment 2 5 Previously, assessment
division focused solely
on state testing
administration. Current
expanded role of RDA
includes achievement
data analysis as well as
development of in-
house formative
assessments.
• Analyze student
achievement to determine
course for teaching and
learning
• Collaboratively designed
assessments aligned with
district curriculum
quarterly
• Develop District
assessments to accurately
project state end-of-year
growth.
• Develop District scorecard
to report metrics that
predict student
achievement

Upon Dr. Bennett’s arrival at TCPSD, the Assessment Division’s primary
responsibility was to administer the state end of year tests. District benchmark
assessments consisted mainly of released state test questions and teacher-created
question banks. Additionally, the Assessment Division provided basic feedback to
schools regarding benchmark test results, e.g., percent correct, item analysis, etc.
Performance at the middle and high school levels had flat-lined and
curriculum committees asked the Assessment Division for formative assessments
aligned to state standards and the end of year test. According to the Assistant
Superintendent of Research, Development and Accountability (RDA):
Prior to Dr. Bennett, the District assessment program gave basic feedback on
test. No projection or remediation assistance. Nothing for high school.
Nothing on the market at that time…assessment consisted of (bad) questions
released by state, that didn’t line up with required curriculum. Assessments
136
developed by curriculum directors were a once of year waste of time. RDA
just scored them.
Additionally, the District benchmarks were not able to project end of year results and
were not able to facilitate remediation assistance.
Table 4.10 summarizes the major strengths and challenges affecting the
implementation of an effective assessment program at Triangle County Public
School District and describes the initial reform action steps implemented by Dr.
Bennett to address change in Assessment.
Table 4.10: Addressing Change in Assessment
Strengths Challenges
• Assessment division administered state
testing
• Assessment program gave basic feedback on
test
• District was not data-focused
• Need for curriculum-aligned local
assessments
• End-of-year test projection and remediation
assistance needed
• Commercial assessment packages were not
adequate
Assessment Strategies
• Assessment division elevated to cabinet level (Assistant Superintendent of Research,
Development and Accountability) with charge to analyze student achievement in order to set
new course for teaching and learning
• Benchmarks designed to mirror state test as close as possible, aligned with state and district
curriculum
• Implement system to track and analyze student achievement to determine course for teaching
and learning
• District scorecard developed which present to schools and community the metrics influencing
student achievement

Dr. Bennett led a highly successful effort to create a District assessment
program which could measure growth efforts during the year and accurately predict
end of year achievement The Superintendent reorganized the Assessment Division
and promoted the director to Assistant Superintendent of Research, Development and
Accountability, an executive level position. Central office staff and teachers were
137
brought together and trained in curriculum evaluation, developing a benchmark exam
process which yielded tests capable of predicting performance on state end-of-year
tests at 95% accuracy. The Assistant Superintendent of Research, Development and
Accountability (RDA) recalled the evolution of his department and the District’s
assessment capability:
In 2005-6, Dr. Bennett set me down and said “I can't find these assessments
and I'm charging you to develop these assessments and putting a team
together.” I put a team of four people together to put together these
assessments…he started this. Dr. Bennett really put our department together
...because he knew we needed all this data. We were not a data focused
system.
Building on the success of the local assessment effort, the Superintendent followed
with the vision of a district scorecard which reported the major metrics affecting
student achievement, e.g., attendance, retention, teacher qualification, etc. Dr.
Bennett reported, “Every school has a scorecard…I wanted schools to understand,
looking at a growth model, what would be an appropriate measure of growth…that
we should expect from each school on a yearly basis.”
Table 4.11 details the evaluation of essential quality components for the
Assessment key reform strategy. Each component was evaluated according to
research-based rubrics, comparing prior (to Dr. Bennett) and current quality of the
reform strategy. Additionally, an assessment of the overall level of strategy
implementation is given.
138
Table 4.11: Evaluation of Assessment Strategy Quality by Rubric Components
Rubric Components
Prior Quality
1.7
Current Quality
5.0
Level of
Implementation
Summative Assessments 5 5
Formative Assessments 1 5
Data Management,
Information, and Reporting
System
1 5
Analysis, Interpretation, and
Utilization of Assessment
Data
1 5
Professional Development 1 5
Fiscal Support and
Resources
1 5
5

A score of 5.0 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 5 was provided for the level of implementation. District tests are 95%
correlated with state tests. Data analysis is used for remediation. Common
assessments have led to improved test results and student growth. The scores reflect
a high level implementation of a high quality reform strategy.
Curriculum
Curriculum is the material and set of courses used to teach the scope and
sequence of the district’s learning standards. Table 4.12 compares the difference
between the assessment of the quality of the Curriculum key reform strategy prior to
and after Dr. Bennett’s arrival, the essence of the difference in the District’s
implementation of the strategy and a summary of the action steps taken by the
Superintendent to implement the reform.
139
Table 4.12: Summary Evaluation of Curriculum Strategy by Rubric Scoring
House Element
Reform
Strategy
Quality
Prior
Quality
Post
Essence of the
Difference Between
Prior and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Curriculum 3 5 Managed instruction
model, successful at
elementary level, was
integrated throughout
secondary.
Additionally, too much
time spent on
remediation and
intervention. Office of
advanced academics
created to accelerate
and provide increased
rigor.
• Comprehensive
instructional management
system implemented for
equity
• Align curriculum,
instruction, and assessment
to state and federal
standards
• Office of advanced
academics created to
address rigor and academic
acceleration.
• Arts promoted, strings in
early grades to provide
opportunity to discover
talents.

Prior to Dr. Bennett’s arrival, district curriculum efforts focused on reading
proficiency improvement. Significant gains had been made in elementary reading
due to the implementation of a balanced literacy model and success in using the
reading recovery intervention. According to the Chief Academic Officer,
There was a focus on elementary schools, particularly in literacy. There were
two goals set; one was 95% of 3rd graders reading at or above grade level,
there was a deliberate focus on elementary and elementary literacy. The other
goal was to close the achievement gap…The previous Superintendent had
formed a closing the gap task force, at a time that was unheard of…that there
was a team focusing on the gap, particularly of African American kids.
In addition, pacing guides and rudimentary benchmarks were standard at elementary
level.
Triangle County Public School District had seen a very large increase in
Hispanic students over the past 10 years, increasing from 726 students in 1997, 2%
of student population, to approximately 5,600 in 2007, a 15% increase of total
140
student population. According to the Assistant Superintendent of Elementary
Curriculum and Instruction, “English learner strategies have been implemented at the
elementary level this year, but they are not yet monitored, not checked for fidelity in
schools yet.” She continued, “Another big challenge for teachers, how to use data.
Data has been made easier to understand by RDA.” Additionally, there was no
program from central office to school site for exceptional children, “Up until two
years ago, everybody was doing their own thing.”
Table 4.13 summarizes the major strengths and challenges affecting the
implementation of an effective curriculum at Triangle County Public School District
and describes the initial reform action steps implemented by Dr. Bennett to address
change in Curriculum.
Table 4.13: Addressing Change in Curriculum
Strengths Challenges
• Significant gains in elementary reading due
to balanced literacy model and success in
reading recovery intervention
• Elementary pacing guides in place
• English Learner teaching strategies
implemented but not monitored
• Instruct teachers how to use performance data
to improve curriculum
• Exceptional Children program weak
throughout district
Curriculum Strategies
• Refinement of managed instruction process key to increased student achievement and enhanced
academic gains
• Implementation of curriculum pacing guides across the district, recommended use of
comprehensive instructional management system (Riverdeep® Instructional Organizer)
• Office of advanced academics created to address rigor and academic acceleration
• Curriculum audits done with schools who are at lower levels of academic performance
• Expanded flexibility and more empowerment to schools who become higher performing
• Refinement of curriculum, instruction, and assessment alignment to state and federal standards

Dr. Bennett implemented a comprehensive instructional management system
throughout all grade levels, making use of a district-wide instructional organizer to
141
standardize curricular resources and address instructional inequities. According to
the Chief Academic Officer, “The comprehensive instructional management system
was a change strategy, because that ensured, through the online format of the
Riverdeep
®
Instructional Organizer, that we were teaching the standard course of
study.”
In response to Dr. Bennett’s observation that there was, “Too much
instruction was devoted to remediation and intervention,” the Department of
Advanced Academics Studies was created. The Department’s purpose was to ensure
that all advanced and gifted learners make continuous progress from elementary
through high school grades. Dr. Bennett discussed his initial steps in addressing
academic rigor:
Under student achievement, one of the first things I did was create an office
of advanced academics because we were spending too much time on
remediation and intervention and hardly any time on acceleration…we started
beefing up our academically gifted program and started an intense nurturing
program where we nurture kids into meeting that criterion. We monitor the
AIG, so, it’s about rigor. ..We beefed up our AP program looking and
monitoring how AP courses were offered at different high schools. What I
noticed, was that our most successful high schools had a tremendous amount
of AP courses, our struggling high schools had hardly any AP courses. So we
beefed up our AP oversight in all of our schools. We started looking at our
honors program, what kids go into honors, what criteria is used to get into
honors. We are encouraging our principals to use the “reverse default”…
[automatically] placing qualified students into rigorous courses and then have
conversations with parents and kids who are trying to get out.
A tiered school performance reporting system was implemented to ensure all levels
of leadership and necessary resources were focused on the lower achieving schools.
The Chief Academic Officer commented on the site visit process:
142
Dr. Bennett, myself, along with the assistant superintendent…we have a
[tiered] level where we go in and actually, we have the data, we meet with the
principal and the assistant principal along with the RDA assistant
superintendent, the assistant superintendent for curriculum elementary or
secondary, the assistant superintendent for student support services, and
recently the chief operating officer. We have a rubric…we have areas we
focus on…we have the data in front of us about these individual schools. This
is how we conduct walk throughs.
High performing schools were given greater flexibility and more autonomy. The
Board was working on a design for site performance empowerment, for example,
flexibility in how high achieving schools use their allocation.
Dr. Bennett summarizes his thoughts about the learning process, “If you’re
truly concerned about kids, you’re going to give them your best effort every single
day. You are going to follow the standard course of study and be committed to the
teaching and learning process – the learning occurs naturally.”
Table 4.14 details the evaluation of essential quality components for the
Curriculum key reform strategy. Each component was assessed according to
research-based rubrics, comparing prior (to Dr. Bennett) and current quality of the
reform strategy. Additionally, an evaluation of the overall level of strategy
implementation is given.
143
Table 4.14: Evaluation of Curriculum Strategy Quality by Rubric Components
Rubric Components
Prior Quality
3.0
Current Quality
4.6
Level of
Implementation
Alignment to Learning
Standards and Assessments
3 5
Equal Access to Learning
Standards
3 3
Fidelity in Implementation 3 5
Sufficiency of and
Appropriateness of Materials
3 5
Clear and Regular
Procedures to Review and
Update the Curriculum
3 5
5

A score of 4.6 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 5 was provided for the level of implementation. The District made
significant gains through a well-developed managed instruction method. District
pacing guides, implementation of instruction organizer to ensure equity in access,
and curriculum audits to review performance of lower performing schools were key
tools of department. The scores indicate a high level implementation of a high
quality reform strategy.
Professional Development
Professional development is training or instruction which improves staff
effectiveness. Table 4.15 compares the difference between the assessment of the
quality of the Professional Development key reform strategy prior to and after Dr.
Bennett’s arrival, the essence of the difference in the District’s implementation of the
strategy and a summary of the action steps taken by the Superintendent to implement
the reform.
144
Table 4.15: Summary Evaluation of Professional Development Strategy by Rubric
Scoring
House Element
Reform Strategy
Quality
Prior
Quality
Post
Essence of the
Difference Between
Prior and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Professional
Development
1 5 Shift from district office
staff development
program to customized
PD at school site to
meet the needs of
individual schools.
• Improve Professional
Development one of
Superintendent’s six
strategic plan goals
• PD division in HR
department provides for
certificated and classified
employees
• Professional growth and
development contacts
positioned at each school
• District maintains staff
development center for
off site training

One strength of Professional Development (PD) as implemented in Triangle
County School District, was in its organizational placement within the Human
Resources Department. According to the Senior Director of Professional Growth and
Development,
The way we are organized, Professional Development is actually in HR, not
in Curriculum and Instruction (C&I). That is an important piece, that has
been instrumental in helping things get done. Even though it’s still in one
side of the house, the closeness that professional development has to both
sides of the house, Operations and C&I, has helped. Both sides hear the PD
message, where I think a lot of times when it’s in C&I, its viewed only as a
C&I function which often leaves out your classified folks.
Prior to Dr. Bennett’s arrival, professional development was mandated by the
District based upon the central office’s assessment of needs, without regard to
individual school needs. According to the Senior Director of Professional Growth
and Development, PD was “a lot more rigid and prescribed…if we say you go to
145
this, you go to this and that’s the end of it. It doesn’t matter if you ever had it, it
doesn’t matter if you need it.” And with regard to implementation of PD and
evidence of training, “there were schools with tons of files and there were schools
that did not have any...you should never go into PD file room for a district and find a
school that didn’t have any records of professional development training.”
Table 4.16 summarizes the major strengths and challenges affecting the
implementation of an effective professional development program at Triangle
County Public School District and describes the initial reform action steps
implemented by Dr. Bennett to address change in Professional Development.
Table 4.16: Addressing Change in Professional Development
Strengths Challenges
• Professional development division part of
Human Resources department (not C&I),
providing PD for all employees, certificated
and classified
• All PD efforts mandated from central office,
without regard to whether PD element was
needed at a particular site
• PD implementation inconsistent across
district
Professional Development Strategies
• Professional development improvement is one of Superintendent’s six strategic plan goals
• Professional Learning Communities established
• Shift focus of staff development to address school site needs
• Maintain district staff development center for off site training use

Goal number six of the Superintendent’s start-up plan, Superintendent’s 90-
Day Focus and his Superintendent’s Goals strategic plan was to improve
instructional leadership and professional development. A professional development
needs assessment was conducted and district performance data was analyzed,
identifying key areas for improvement and undertaking the tasks of: expanding
professional learning communities (PLC), shifting efforts to providing increased site
146
level training in support of individual school growth plans, and increasing coherence
of staff professional development to improve instruction.
Regarding what TCPS was seeking to accomplish with its professional
development program, the PD is trying to accomplish, the Senior Director reflects:
I think with our efforts, particularly with professional learning
communities…you’ll see: more professional development moving to that
school level, where it’s just in time, it’s relevant, its addressing the needs that
will enhance learning… That’s what those goals are trying to establish, even
in the development of rubrics to evaluate professional development, the way
we‘ve been changing the school improvement planning processes, setting up
the superintendents goals…with its project management plan. All of that is
moving towards …making sure this great investment is yielding us the results
we seek.
One of the six Superintendent’s Goals was to improve instructional
leadership and professional development by supporting leadership opportunities for
administrators. This has led to the development and implementation of a new
Principal and Assistant Principal Leadership Development Program. The Chief
Academic Officer reflected on this initiative and the PD model:
For the assistant principals, we have more focus training. We have a
partnership with the Triangle Leadership Academy who’s working with
human resources and staff development, developing some modules for our
assistant principals. We have a deliberate focus on our professional learning
communities. We now have support for early release for certified and
classified staff to focus on professional learning communities.
Table 4.17 details the evaluation of essential quality components for the
Professional Development key reform strategy. Each component was assessed
according to research-based rubrics, comparing prior (to Dr. Bennett) and current
quality of the reform strategy. Additionally, an evaluation of the overall level of
strategy implementation is given.
147
Table 4.17: Evaluation of Professional Development Strategy Quality by Rubric
Components
Rubric Components
Prior Quality
1.0
Current Quality
4.5
Level of
Implementation
Designing Professional
Development
1 5
Implementing Professional
Development
1 5
Evaluating and Improving
Professional Development
1 3
Sharing Professional
Development Learning
1 5
4

A score of 4.5 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 4 was provided for the level of implementation. Staff development focus
was shifting from District-led to site request. "My Learning Plan" was TCPSD’s
online PD tracking program created by teachers. Additionally, school teams went to
the District staff development center to receive training and assistance in planning.
The scores indicate a moderate-high level implementation of a high quality reform
strategy.
Human Resource System and Human Capital Management
Human Resource System and Human Capital Management refer to district
efforts to create, maintain and retain a motivated and effective work force. Table
4.18 compares the difference between the assessment of the quality of the Human
Resource (HR) System and Human Capital Management key reform strategy prior to
and after Dr. Bennett’s arrival, the essence of the difference in the District’s
implementation of the strategy and a summary of the action steps taken by the
Superintendent to implement the reform.
148
Table 4.18: Summary Evaluation of HR System and Human Capital Management
Strategy by Rubric Scoring
House Element
Reform Strategy
Quality
Prior
Quality
Post
Essence of the
Difference Between
Prior and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
HR System and
Human Capital
Management
1 4 Previously, HR was not
a service organization;
today’s HR is customer
service-oriented and a
more inviting
experience for
applicants and
employees.
• Service oriented
atmosphere with
employees and
applicants
• Quality service
initiative, welcoming
and honoring treatment
with constituents
• Full release mentor
model, part of support
network, has enhanced
teacher induction
program and decreased
turnover

The Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources Services, with 20 years of
prior Human Resources experience, was recruited by Dr. Bennett from another
district. Upon her arrival, she quickly recognized that “Triangle County is a great
area, attracting many people.” Its competitive teacher’s salary was explained by the
Chief Financial Officer:
The state sets the salary schedule, but the District provides a local supplement
which comes from county funds. We have a three-tiered salary schedule: 0-9
years is 12.5%, so we get 12.5% from county of their entire pay. Then 10-20
years is 13.5%, then above 20 years it goes to 14.5%. So that is a big
supplement…TCPS is very competitive.
However, the District had a reputation of not being a service-oriented organization.
According to the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resource Services, prior to Dr.
Bennett’s arrival, “That was something I felt was really missing. It was us against
them.” The relationship between the human resources and its customers was not
149
inviting and service-oriented. In addition, teacher turnover was higher than state,
close to 30% at one time and there was no District recruitment and retention plan.
Table 4.19 summarizes the major strengths and challenges affecting the
implementation of an effective human resource program at Triangle County Public
School District and describes the initial reform action steps implemented by Dr.
Bennett to address change in HR System and Human Capital Management.
Table 4.19: Addressing Change in HR System and Human Capital Management
Strengths Challenges
• Great area to live, attracting many people
• Very Competitive teacher’s salary
• District was not service-oriented organization
• High rate of teacher turnover
• District had no recruitment or retention plan
HR System Strategies
• Assistant Superintendent of Human Resource Services with 20 years experience recruited by Dr.
Bennett from another district
• Quality service initiative implemented to change relationship with employees and applicants to
make more inviting and customer service oriented,
• Full release mentor model implemented to address teacher induction
• Focus on refining expectations, recruiting and training aspiring principals
• Thoughtful placement of excellent teachers and administrators, particularly into struggling
schools using incentives

Upon his arrival, Dr. Bennett recognized that the quality of support provided
by the Central Office was not as it should have been. The wide range of actions
implemented to meet the various HR needs included Central Office customer service
improvement, the implementation of a recruitment/retention plan, an administrator
training program initiative, review of teacher data to analyze effect of human
resource programs upon student performance, and supplements paid to teachers and
principals who volunteer to move to “hard to staff” schools. Although individual
performance pay based on student achievement has been discussed, current district
strategy was limited to transfer bonuses and reliance on state-supported whole school
150
incentives. Dr. Bennett’s message to the central office and district regarding support
of sites:
Clearly, the principals are the leaders of schools. It is the District’s
responsibility to support the mission of schools. Central Services is to
provide leadership with best practice suggestions, do data analysis so we can
inform schools about what is working and not working and advise schools the
‘right’ way to effect achievement.
In order to increase organizational effectiveness, and establish a more
supportive, positive district climate and culture, one of his six Superintendent’s
Goals, Dr. Bennett implemented a quality service initiative which included the
following internal components: teacher appreciation messages, bus garage annual
breakfast, Board recognition of Superintendent’s "making a difference" teacher
award, quarterly staff appreciation awards, etc.. The Board President reflected on
the effect of the change in customer support:
He’s got a quality service initiative, where every person on staff has to have a
welcoming and honoring way to deal with our constituents. That has been a
plus, that was non-existent before. People were afraid to come down to the
school system.
In response to Triangle County Schools’ high teacher turnover, Dr. Bennett
implemented a full release mentor model to address teacher induction. Following the
UC Santa Cruz model, 37 teachers were served the district as teacher-mentors, a 1:15
ratio with master teachers. Dr. Bennett reviewed the new teacher retention plan:
About 3 years ago we put a full release mentor program in place to address
that. So we have master teachers assigned to our ILTs (Initial license
Teachers), at a ratio of 1 to 15. So our new and beginning teachers get a
tremendous amount of support, these are master teachers. They spend their
days, full time, supporting these new and beginning teachers. We've seen our
turnover rate come down.
151
With regard to the decision to use significant capital outlay in promoting this Human
Resource strategy, The Chief Operating Officer reflected, “That program costs us
about $1.8M per year with no financial help from state. However, we have seen huge
decreases in teacher turnover from our 0 to 3 years-based teachers because of this
high level of support.”
In keeping with using data to inform critical decision in all areas, not just
academics but also personnel policymaking, Dr. Bennett set a high standard for
collection of the annual state teacher satisfaction survey, asking for 85%
participation – 15% higher than state requirement.
In an effort to change another aspect of the District’s culture, Dr. Bennett
recognized the need to improve the quality of leadership in TCPS. The District
collaborated with the Triangle Research Consortium (local universities and
businesses) to create an Aspiring Principals Academy. The Assistant Superintendent
of Human Resource Services commented on these efforts, in support of
Superintendent Goal Number Six: Improve instructional leadership and professional
development:
During the last two years there has been more focus on who’s leading in the
schools and defining what the expectation is. They [principals] began to
understand his vision and what he wants to see happening in schools…I have
seen the change, as I was new to the district, there’s an attitude change –
more energy and excitement in embracing the process.
Table 4.20 details the evaluation of essential quality components for the HR
System and Human Capital Management key reform strategy. Each component was
assessed according to research-based rubrics, comparing prior (to Dr. Bennett) and
152
current quality of the reform strategy. Additionally, an evaluation of the overall level
of strategy implementation is given.
Table 4.20: Evaluation of HR System and Human Capital Management Strategy
Quality by Rubric Components
Rubric Components
Prior Quality
1.4
Current Quality
3.8
Level of
Implementation
Recruitment, Selection and
Placement of new
Administrators
1 3
Recruitment of Highly
Qualified Teachers
1 3
Teacher Support and
Development
3 5
Salaries, Wages and
Benefits
1 3
Use of Incentives 1 5
4

A score of 3.8 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 4 was provided for the level of implementation. HR transformed into a
service organization with goals to change relationship with employees and applicants
and to make HR more inviting and customer service-oriented. Recruitment, retention
and staff development efforts supported the goal of improving student achievement.
The rating scores indicate a moderate-high level implementation of a moderate-high
quality reform strategy
Finance and Budget
Highly effective district finance and budget efforts strive to maintain a
balanced and sustainable budget aligned to instructional priorities. Table 4.21
compares the difference between the assessment of the quality of the Finance and
Budget key reform strategy prior to and after Dr. Bennett’s arrival, the essence of the
153
difference in the District’s implementation of the strategy and a summary of the
action steps taken by the Superintendent to implement the reform.
Table 4.21: Summary Evaluation of Finance and Budget Strategy by Rubric Scoring
House Element
Reform Strategy
Quality
Prior
Quality
Post
Essence of the
Difference Between
Prior and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Finance and
Budget
3 4 Previously resources
were not aligned to
support schools that
need more help. Today
focus is on resources for
equity rather than
equalization.
• Budget aligned to
strategic plan
• Budget resources aligned
to support needs of
struggling schools.
• Board governance
training resulted in
budget oversight review
• Transportation budget
aligned to support school
choice initiative

According to the Chief Operating Officer, the budget process at TCPSD was
stable and provided for District staff input and community stakeholder participation
through budget advisory committee meetings held beginning in January with public
viewing of budget beginning in March. He added that “TCPSD was a very wealthy
school district, with a huge county tax base due to its location in proximity to the
Research Triangle Park, like the Silicon Valley of the east coast.” With the resulting
per-pupil allocation highest among large districts in the state, TCPSD is able to
provide “over 500 local paid professionals: teachers, guidance counselors, assistant
principals – above and beyond the state allocation.” The Chief Academic Officer
commented, “The District has always been well-funded, per pupil allocation high,
class sizes small. That was a major strength. Principals were provided resources.”
154
Although Dr. Bennett found a community committed to provide resources he
also discovered that his district team was departmentalized and fragmented,
operating in silos. He recognized that he had good people, but saw that they were
“not working as a team. It was the way they looked at their tasking, and their funding
sources. Directors were good watchdogs over their budgets, but saw the budgets as
theirs, not the school district’s.”
The Chief Operating Officer remarked that an example of the silo mentality
was the Exceptional Children (EC) budget, which had been out of control due to an
over identification of EC students and lack of budget management. This resulted in
inordinate differences in support compared to surrounding districts, e.g., a
neighboring, comparable district spent $400K to support 51,000 EC students while
TCSD spent $5M to support 32,000 EC students. Additionally, funds were not
deployed effectively. While awaiting a custom-ordered EC software package, 500
laptops sat in district warehouses for 2 years. In the end, the state adopted a
completely different software suite.
In commenting about the financial state of the district when Dr. Bennett
arrived, the COO commented:
We were very stable from an audit perspective, but our fund balance, the
amount of money we have for contingencies and emergencies was extremely
low. In fact, I had talked with the former Superintendent the last two years,
before she left, that we were in the “red zone” as far as our fund balance. In
fact, one year, with a budget of $380M, we had less that $1M in undesignated
fund balance. If we had a cold winter, we could burn that in natural gas.
Table 4.22 summarizes the major strengths and challenges affecting the
implementation of an effective finance and budget program at Triangle County
155
Public School District and describes the initial reform action steps implemented by
Dr. Bennett to address change in Finance and Budget.
Table 4.22: Addressing Change in Finance and Budget
Strengths Challenges
• Budget process stable
• Wealthy area
• District well-funded, per pupil allocation
high
• Department operated as financial silos
• Fund balance (reserve) very low
• Recruiting and training teachers and
principals
Finance and Budget Strategies
• Improve capital outlay, increase reserve balance
• Aligned resources using equity model to support needs of struggling schools
• Budget aligned to district mission statement and strategic plan
• Chief Operating Officer is a member of the Central Services Support Team, an audit team for
struggling schools

An early budget initiative undertaken by Dr. Bennett was to improve the
outlay of capital and increase the reserve balance. According to the COO, “While Dr.
Bennett was Deputy, and through the transition, he worked on several strategies,
about getting more money in capital outlay, and to increase the fund balance. It has
gone from about $900K 3 years ago, to $4-5 million.”
Struggling schools were supported with District dollars to the extent
necessary to provide instruction and programs in accordance with the
Superintendent’s Goals, to “create a plan for equitable access to programs and
resources at the school level.” Regarding resource allocation, the Chief Operating
Officer commented:
We have the money to be on an equity model, giving them what they need
versus just doling out the money by the numbers. We do some of that, like
with some office expenditures, like copier money. We have a very complex
set of allotments. Those schools that are struggling receive a lot more
allocations in the instructional arenas. We give extra dollars for them to do
staff development, the big PLC model, and many other areas where they
receive the dollars so they can tailor-make.
156
Another indicator of how fiscal equity is ensured and how struggling schools receive
necessary resources at TCPSD, the Chief Operating Officer is a member of the
Central Services Support Team. The team is comprised of: the Superintendent, Chief
Academic Officer, Assistant Superintendents of RDA, Curriculum, and Student
Support; as well as the site principal. This executive leadership team made periodic
formal visits to Tier 1 & 2 (struggling) schools in order to assess their progress and
assist with procuring necessary resources.
Table 4.23 details the evaluation of essential quality components for the
Finance and Budget key reform strategy. Each component was assessed according to
research-based rubrics, comparing prior (to Dr. Bennett) and current quality of the
reform strategy. Additionally, an evaluation of the overall level of strategy
implementation is given.
Table 4.23: Evaluation of Finance and Budget Strategy Quality by Rubric
Components
Rubric Components
Prior Quality
3.0
Current Quality
4.3
Level of
Implementation
Strategic Budget
Planning
3 5
Organizational Culture 3 5
Operational Procedures 3 3
3

A score of 4.3 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 3 was provided for the level of implementation. Finance and budget
allocation are aligned to strategic plan. These scores reflect a moderate level
implementation of a high quality reform strategy.
157
Communications
Key to meeting the needs of district stakeholders is an effective
communications program, which can instill trust, spread the district’s message, and
draw resources to the district. Table 4.24 compares the difference between the
assessment of the quality of the Communications key reform strategy prior to and
after Dr. Bennett’s arrival, the essence of the difference in the District’s
implementation of the strategy and a summary of the action steps taken by the
Superintendent to implement the reform.
Table 4.24: Summary Evaluation of Communications Strategy by Rubric Scoring
House Element
Reform
Strategy
Quality
Prior
Quality
Post
Essence of the
Difference Between
Prior and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Communications 2 4 Lack of communi-
cation between
district, board and
community led to
mistrust, misunder-
standing and chaos.
Upon Dr. Bennett’s
arrival, a spirit of
transparency and
openness has led to a
community openly
proud of district and
its leadership.
• Improve public trust and
confidence through open,
honest communication and
positive relationships
• Developing public trust was
top priority – many speeches
and outreach to inform
community who TCPSD is,
and how to partner to help
kids
• Transparency in getting the
district message out, whether
news was good or bad

Triangle County Public School District maintained an adequately staffed
public affairs department led by a communications director with over twenty years of
experience. She directed a staff of four reaching out to major community access
points through: commercial and District cable TV stations, District internet website,
community and education partnerships and two daily newspapers, although the
158
director remarked “we can’t rely on newspaper and TV. They are not there, they’re
not going to cover the positive things, they may cover a bus wreck, but that’s about
it.”
A major challenge to communication efforts at the community level was its
mistrust of the district, due in large part to the board meeting chaos captured weekly
on District cable TV, plus perception that the former Superintendent was only
concerned with her own agenda. The Executive Director of Public Affairs recalled
her impressions of the school board and the Superintendent upon her arrival at
TCPSD five years earlier, “I got over here and the Board was dysfunctional and her
leadership style was not approachable to parents. It was adversarial in a lot of cases.”
The message regarding the importance of student achievement was not
getting out and little information regarding academic programs or progress was
communicated to TCPSD parents. According to the Director of Community
Education,
Principals were (not) pushed to be open with parents. Before it was, ‘you run
the building, don’t worry about the parents.’ But now, they see that parents
are a very important part of what they do, because in order for the kids to
succeed, you‘ve got to have parent input and buy in.
Table 4.25 summarizes the major strengths and challenges affecting the
implementation of an effective communications plan at Triangle County Public
School District and describes the initial reform action steps implemented by Dr.
Bennett to address change in Communications.
159
Table 4.25: Addressing Change in Communications
Strengths Challenges
• Experienced Director of Public Affairs
• Communication department adequately
staffed
• External communication through multiple
access points: website, TV, newspaper,
business partnerships
• Former Superintendent seen as adversarial
and not approachable
• Lack of communication between district,
board and community
• Student achievement message not getting
out
• Little academic information communicated
to parents
Communications Strategies
• Restored confidence in the school district by engaging the community through open, honest
communication and positive relationships
• Used multiple media techniques to make district more transparent to the community, e.g., school
websites, “Bright Ideas” spot on local TV, “Be Our Guest” pre-Board meeting honors, etc
• Media relations training for principals

Mission number one upon Superintendent Bennett’s arrival was to heal the
division between the District, the Board and the community. Dr. Bennett’s response
to the communications challenge was to make it one of the top three priorities on his
entry plan, “Superintendent’s 90-Day Focus”: Number 3. Improve Public Trust and
Confidence through Open, Honest Communication and Positive Relationships.
Establishing trust with the public was accomplished by extensive community
outreach.
Numerous meetings and speeches were made to inform the community about
who Triangle County Public School District (TCPSD) was, what TCPSD was doing,
and how to partner to get the job done for kids. Dr. Bennett engaged the community
and welcomed them to help him reform TCPSD:
As far as the public trust and confidence, many public comments and
speeches and outreach to a church or a community building. A tremendous
amount of outreach to the public, to help them understand who we are, what
we are doing, how we partner to get the job done for kids. We're not there,
but the community will tell you we do a tremendous job of outreach.
160
The Chief Academic Officer reflected on the progress made thus far in
reaching out to the District:
The board meetings have become more instructionally focused, they are
focusing more on achievement and we’re actually getting work done. We
have more systems in place now, so. Something has changed in the district
and in the community, which is really good because whether it’s the county
commissioners, whether it’s the city council, whether it’s the controversial
Durham Affairs of Black People, people now can access the district and the
district responds. They are proud of the progress the district is making.
The Public Affairs Department emphasized multiple media techniques to get
the district story out to its stakeholders and become more transparent to the
community. In addition to the district website, press releases, it disseminated
community outreach activities such as the “Kitchen Table Conversations,” pre-Board
meeting “Be Our Guest” and employee-honoring “Bright Ideas” on District TV.
Media relations training was implemented for all principals in order to prepare them
to take advantage of communication opportunities.
Table 4.26 details the evaluation of essential quality components for the
Communications key reform strategy. Each component was assessed according to
research-based rubrics, comparing prior (to Dr. Bennett) and current quality of the
reform strategy. Additionally, an evaluation of the overall level of strategy
implementation is given.
161
Table 4.26: Evaluation of Communications Strategy Quality by Rubric Components
Rubric Components
Prior Quality
1.8
Current Quality
3.8
Level of
Implementation
Communications Plan 1 3
Communications Office 3 3
Communication of District
Vision to the Community
3 3
Build Support for District
Initiatives
1 5
Two-way Communications
with Community
1 5
3

A score of 3.8 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 3 was provided for the level of implementation. TCPSD communications
department focused on having "own" communications method, e.g., school website,
flyers, while building connection with local media. Internal communication was
extensive: teacher appreciation messages, bus garage annual breakfast, Board
recognition of Superintendent’s "making a difference" teacher award, quarterly staff
appreciation awards, etc. These scores reflect a moderate level implementation of a
moderate-high quality reform strategy.
Governance and Board Relations
Maintaining good relations between the superintendent and the school board
promotes effective governance in a system where the school board sets policy
direction and the superintendent is responsible for its execution. Table 4.27 compares
the difference between the assessment of the quality of the Governance and Board
Relations key reform strategy prior to and after Dr. Bennett’s arrival, the essence of
the difference in the District’s implementation of the strategy and a summary of the
action steps taken by the Superintendent to implement the reform.
162
Table 4.27: Summary Evaluation of Governance and Board Relations Strategy by
Rubric Scoring
House Element
Reform Strategy
Quality
Prior
Quality
Post
Essence of the
Difference Between
Prior and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action
Steps
Governance and
Board Relations
1 5

Before: Board did not
know how to participate
in management of
district. Today
superintendent and
board speak with one
voice in support of
strategic plan.
• Effective governance
ensured through
positive Board-
Superintendent
relations
• Focused Board on
providing the
leadership to set
direction for TCPSD
• Center for Reform
Governance training
enabled community-
designed vision
statement conversion
to Board policy,
empowering the
superintendent and
his staff

According to the Dr. Bennett, Triangle County Public School District’s five
member board “recognized the need to provide a quality education to all kids.” The
Board supported the prior Superintendent in most of her initiatives, even though
there was a lack of communication between the District leadership and the Board.
This was particularly evident when significant policy was presented to the Board for
vote without prior discussion. “Although distractions and chaos took attention away
from improvement…academic achievement took place in the district.”
There was, however, a lack of clarity of the Board’s role in the governance
of the district. Because of the dissention between the Board, the community and the
District, the Superintendent remembered, “Board members felt their role was to
advocate, particularly with those families who did not understand how to navigate
163
the district, there was a lack of trust with District administration.” According to the
Board President:
Board members were not encouraged to speak to constituents. There was no
consistent message, and in fact, because board members did speak to
constituents, many times they talked against the District. It was push-
pull…whenever the community came, they came to fight, they never came to
learn.
An advocacy group called the Concerned Citizens of Durham was a regular
destabilizing influence at most Board meetings prior to Dr. Bennett’s arrival. The
group contended the former Superintendent didn’t respond to the concerns of black
parents and ran a school system that set black students up to fail. Additionally, the
Board was not functioning as a team. The Board President reflected, prior to Dr.
Bennett’s arrival:
We had a school board that was always divided along racial lines, every
decision. The school board meetings were just horrid. People tuned into them
for Thursday night entertainment. We had at least 16 or 17 policemen. People
got arrested, shouting threats. It was terrible!
Table 4.28 summarizes the major strengths and challenges affecting the
implementation of effective governance and board relations at Triangle County
Public School District and describes the initial reform action steps implemented by
Dr. Bennett to address change in Governance and Board Relations
164
Table 4.28: Addressing Change in Governance and Board Relations
Strengths Challenges
• Board recognized need to provide quality
education to “all kids”
• Poor communications between Superintendent
and Board
• Distractions and chaos at board meetings took
attention away from district improvement
• Lack of clarity of board’s role with respect to
leadership and expectations
• Board was not operating as a team
Governance and Board Relations Strategies
• Improved relationship between Board and superintendent
• Development of Board’s governance capacity enhanced its effectiveness
• Center for Reform Governance training enabled community-designed vision statement
conversion to Board policy, empowering the superintendent and his staff

Dr. Bennett responded to the governance challenge by making it number one
on his entry plan, “Superintendent’s 90-Day Focus”: Number 1. Ensure Effective
District Governance through Positive Board-Superintendent Relations.
I think the Board was looking for leadership. They were looking for a
superintendent who could bridge the district and community together. They
were looking for someone focused on academic achievement for our students,
and I think they were looking for a superintendent that would provide some
leadership to school board. They were looking for leadership in regards to
how we do this thing, as board members. How do we govern and lead and do
it in such a way that the community will embrace it and support it. I
definitely think the school board was focused on bridging the community, or
healing the community. The community was extremely fragmented; there
was this lack of trust between the school district and the community. I know
the school board was looking for a superintendent who could bring about
some type of healing.
Dr. Bennett engaged the Board and the result was overwhelmingly positive.
The Chief Operating Officer quipped, “Board members from the prior administration
reflect having gone from the Titanic to the Love Boat. Now, board members respect
one another and get along.” The Board President added, “One of the first things he
did was he allowed people access to him as Superintendent, and engaged his
165
community. He welcomed the community and engaged the community in helping to
reform TCPSD.”
In response to the Superintendent’s defining of the Board’s governance role,
the Chief Academic Officer adds, “He brought in the training with the Board of
Education with CRSS [Center for Reform of School Systems], that was another way
he started changing the District in terms of…the board having a better understanding
of their role in oversight and governance.” The Urban School Leadership Institute
assisted the TCPSD governance team by providing training through CRSS, a two
year program. The workshops focused on urban school governance, the work of the
school board and the desired relationship between the superintendent and the board.
The Board President reflected on the changes, “…learning what it meant to be a
school board member. To be a policy maker, to actually devise policy…to raise
student achievement, to be accountable, to have community access, to work on
climate, all these things – that is key work.” The Director of Community Education
added:
Three years ago we didn’t want parents to come to our board meetings
because we didn’t want celebrations at our board meetings. We didn’t want
students to be there to see the behavior. Now our board meetings are very
supportive, they’re focused on what is important.
Table 4.29 details the evaluation of essential quality components for the
Governance and Board Relations key reform strategy. Each component was assessed
according to research-based rubrics, comparing prior (to Dr. Bennett) and current
quality of the reform strategy. Additionally, an evaluation of the overall level of
strategy implementation is given.
166
Table 4.29: Evaluation of Governance and Board Relations Strategy Quality by
Rubric Components
Rubric Components
Prior Quality
1.4
Current Quality
5.0
Level of
Implementation
Setting the Direction for the
Community’s Schools
3 5
Establishing an Effective
and Efficient Structure for
the District
1 5
Providing Support and
Resources
1 5
Ensuring Accountability to
the Public
1 5
Actions as Community
Leaders
1 5
5

A score of 5.0 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 5 was provided for the level of implementation. The Superintendent’s first
order of business was to solidify ties with the Board. He has forged a strong
relationship and has guided the Board through his Superintendent’s Goals while
working with Board through governance training. The Superintendent has
established a strong relationship with the Board President. These scores reflect a high
level implementation of a high quality reform strategy.
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiation
Maintaining good labor relations between the District and employee
bargaining units requires a mutual understanding of agreed-upon priorities, careful
attention to contract language and good relationships with union leadership. Table
4.30 compares the difference between the assessment of the quality of the Labor
Relations and Contract Negotiation key reform strategy prior to and after Dr.
Bennett’s arrival, the essence of the difference in the District’s implementation of the
167
strategy and a summary of the action steps taken by the Superintendent to implement
the reform.
Table 4.30: Summary Evaluation of Labor Relations and Contract Negotiation
Strategy by Rubric Scoring
House Element
Reform
Strategy
Quality
Prior
Quality
Post
Essence of the
Difference Between
Prior and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Labor Relations
and Contract
Negotiation
2 4 District transition to
service oriented
organization and
improved employee
access to District staff
• Focus on establishing positive
relationships between district
leadership and all staff
• Although a “right to work”
non-collective bargaining
state, employee and national
labor organization
representatives invited to
attend employee meetings.
• Relaxed employee access to
superintendent and staff

Triangle County Public School District was located within a “right to work,”
non-collective bargaining state. Most classroom working conditions are set by state
law, for example, salaries, class size, number of work, vacation, and sick days, etc.
According to the Executive Director of Employee Relations, “Labor relations prior
to Dr. Bennett were much more rigid and less customer-focused.” The District didn’t
allow teacher site representatives to be part of disagreement meetings. Additionally,
teacher turnover was high, particularly among new teachers.
Table 4.31 summarizes the major strengths and challenges affecting the
implementation of effective labor relations at Triangle County Public School District
and describes the initial reform action steps implemented by Dr. Bennett to address
change in Labor Relations and Contract Negotiation.
168
Table 4.31: Addressing Change in Labor Relations and Contract Negotiation
Strengths Challenges
• “Right to work” state – non-collective
bargaining
• Most classroom working conditions set by
state law
• Low focus on employee relations
• High teacher turnover
Labor Relations Strategies
• Superintendent’s “open door” communication policy
• Quality service initiative greatly improved employee relations
• Positive relationships established between district leadership and school level staff, including
labor representatives
• “All star service” employee recognition program

According to the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, Dr.
Bennett’s approach to labor relations was an open door policy. The Superintendent
“makes sure employees understand that the District wants to hear their concerns.”
One effect is that teachers are returning to TCPSD saying things have changed for
the better.
Representatives from the state teachers’ association and the teacher assistant
organization, whose salaries are reimbursed by the District, were allowed to attend
District meetings since Dr. Bennett’s arrival. According to the Executive Director,
Employee Relations, “There is a good relationship with employees. The positive
results throughout the district are related to the relationship and the understanding of
what the expectation is, and knowing that people care about you.”
Other processes in place to build confidence and trust with employees
included employee recognition programs in place throughout the District.
Recognition was given to employees who receive comments for exceptional service.
Personnel are recognized for their “All Star Service” at breakfast celebrations with
169
the Superintendent. Additionally, according to the Executive Director of Public
Affairs:
Dr. Bennett started the “Superintendent’s Making a Difference Award” to
recognize teachers who go above and beyond. Staff appreciation awards are
done on a quarterly basis. It has been important to him to be out with staff.
Under the former administration, the teacher council meetings were painful,
the teachers did not feel comfortable bringing issues, there was no follow
through to make sure the teacher’s questions were answered. Dr. Bennett is
very approachable, after the teachers sessions, the teachers always hang
around and talk to him about their issues.
Table 4.32 details the evaluation of essential quality components for the
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations key reform strategy. Each component
was assessed according to research-based rubrics, comparing prior (to Dr. Bennett)
and current quality of the reform strategy. Additionally, an evaluation of the overall
level of strategy implementation is given.
Table 4.32: Evaluation of Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations Strategy
Quality by Rubric Components
Rubric Components
Prior Quality
1.5
Current Quality
4.0
Level of
Implementation
Relationships,
Communications and Trust
1 5
Negotiation Principles and
Objectives
1 3
Strategies for Negotiation 1 3
Fair and Equitable Outcomes 3 5
3

A score of 4.0 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 3 was provided for the level of implementation. North Carolina is a “is a
right to work” state; therefore unions are not a part of the labor process except as
advisors. The Superintendent worked hard with the HR department to make sure
employees understand that the District wants to hear their concerns. A positive
170
attitude was felt throughout district and there was a clear understanding of work
expectations and knowing that people care about them. These scores reflect a
moderate level implementation of a moderate-high quality reform strategy.
Family and Community Engagement
Enhanced interaction among family and community stakeholders in the
district can pay great dividends in support of student success at the individual student
level, as well as through institutional partnerships and philanthropic support. Table
4.33 compares the difference between the assessment of the quality of the Family
and Community Engagement key reform strategy prior to and after Dr. Bennett’s
arrival, the essence of the difference in the District’s implementation of the strategy
and a summary of the action steps taken by the Superintendent to implement the
reform.
Table 4.33: Summary Evaluation of Family and Community Engagement Strategy by
Rubric Scoring
House
Element
Reform
Strategy
Qualit
y
Prior
Qualit
y
Post
Essence of the
Difference Between
Prior and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Family and
Community
Engagement
2 4 Previously, there was
little district effort to
engage parents and
community agencies,
now parents are viewed
as key supporters of
academic achievement
and the community is
welcomed as a partner in
forging solutions to the
tough urban problems
• Engage parents as primary
supporters for their child’s
academic achievement
• “System of Care” partnership
with community: housing
authority/public health/etc
• Parent academy initiative to get
behavior support staff out to
community
• Extended day program for all
who want/need, maybe not
staffed with teachers, but
providing character and
supporting education during
after school program
171

Triangle County Public School District was located in a cradle of educational
and commercial opportunity. Three colleges and numerous wealthy business and
research partners were in the immediate vicinity and had extended invitations to
participate with the District. Some community partnership opportunities had been
developed.
Another strength of the area was family participation in local schools. Dr.
Bennett recalled his impressions:
In most places parent involvement was pretty good in many schools,
particularly in those schools with the highest achievement. There was a
correlation between the achievement of the students and the engagement of
the parents. One of our core goals when I became superintendent was to get
more and more parents involved in their child's learning at the school level.
Significant community concerns about the District were evident at Board meetings.
The School Board President reflected:
Parents felt like there were things that were secret, even when they weren’t.
They had a perception that there was always something to hide…People were
losing their belief and faith in TCPS in terms of providing a quality
educational experience for their children.
The District had not effectively engaged parents and community-based agencies. The
outreach to the growing Hispanic community had been limited although the largest
demographic shift over the past 10 years had been in the Hispanic student
population, increasing from 726 students (2%) in 1997 to approximately 5,600 (17%)
in 2007. Limited English Proficient (LEP) students comprised 14% of the student
population and their average growth rate in the past five years was 16%.
172
Table 4.34 summarizes the major strengths and challenges affecting the
implementation of effective family and community engagement at Triangle County
Public School District and describes the initial reform action steps implemented by
Dr. Bennett to promote change in Family and Community Engagement.
Table 4.34: Addressing Change in Family and Community Engagement
Strengths Challenges
• District located in research triangle, offering
much opportunity for community
collaboration
• Parent involvement good in many schools
• Distrust evident in the community, at board
meetings
• No push to be engaged with parents and
community based agencies
• Lack of outreach to growing Hispanic
community
Family and Community Engagement Strategies
• Parents engaged as primary supporters for their child’s academic achievement through “Power
of Parents” (POP) parent involvement initiative
• Involvement of parents and community in district affairs such as “Be Our Guest” program prior
to board meetings increased transparency of district.
• District school volunteer office, volunteer service academy, volunteer service coordinator at
every school established as outreach vehicles for district
• “System of Care” partnership with community established with housing authority, public health,
etc.
• Outreach activities initiated with Hispanic parents, Board sessions provide headsets for Spanish
translation

Dr. Bennett responded to the parent engagement challenge by making it a key
objective in his Superintendent Goals: Engage parents as primary supporters for their
child’s academic achievement. He remarked, “Parent engagement is a big piece of
what the superintendent has been focused on. Last year’s challenge was "goal 75,
every school, 75% active membership in PTA.” The school board president added:
Another strategy is the Parent Academy because we want our parents to be
our children’s best first teachers. We have sessions that we think will be
helpful for them…. We’re going to expand that, we hired a parent liaison
because we know we need somebody in an official position to help engage
our parents and to help them be better parents. And to listen, we got a
volunteer coordinator.
173
Triangle County Public School District facilitated volunteer outreach through a
District School Volunteer Office staffed with a Volunteer Coordinator, established a
Volunteer Service Coordinator at every school and organized periodic Volunteer
Service Academy courses to teach parents how to volunteer at school.
Involvement of parents and the community in district affairs increased the
transparency of district. The “Be Our Guest” initiative brought parents to every
Board meeting. The Board President explained:
Each month the Superintendent and all Board members have dinner with
parents from five schools and we talk with them, one board member at each
table, about whatever issues they’re having at their school, up front and
personal, in a very civil environment. We invite them to watch the board
meeting afterwards. They walk the red carpet and we give them gifts. It has
become an excellent program.
A “System of Care” partnership with the community has been established
with the housing authority, public health, welfare department and other agencies.
According to the Executive Director of Student Services,
We went to our public housing area last week to look for our dropouts, we
along with the Durham Housing Authority. In talking with the parents, for
every child that has an issue, there is a parent with an issue. Until the parent
can be fixed, the child won’t be fixed.
Outreach activities have been initiated with Hispanic parents. The Executive Director
of Public Affairs adds:
We’ve done some outreach activities with our Hispanic parents… the board
actually held a session with Hispanic parents where the board members wore
headsets and the Hispanic parents talked about changes they would like to see
in the education program. That was very, very effective, wonderful for the
board to hear, to feel what the Hispanic parents feel.
174
The Director of Community Education summarized the change in family and
community strategy from the prior Superintendent’s:
I think if you look back four years ago, we didn’t have a parent involvement
coordinator. We didn’t have a volunteer services coordinator, we didn’t have
community learning centers, none of that. There wasn’t a push to be engaged
with community-based agencies, and in many cases, parents. That has
changed now…It has gone very well.
The evaluation of essential quality components for the Family and
Community Engagement key reform strategy is detailed in Table 4.35. Each
component was assessed according to research-based rubrics, comparing prior (to
Dr. Bennett) and current quality of the reform strategy. Additionally, an evaluation
of the overall level of strategy implementation is given.
Table 4.35: Evaluation of Family and Community Engagement Strategy Quality by
Rubric Components
Rubric Components
Prior Quality
2.3
Current Quality
4.3
Level of
Implementation
Parenting 3 5
Communication 3 5
Volunteerism 1 3
Learning at Home 3 5
Decision Making 1 3
Collaboration with the
Community
3 5
4

A score of 4.3 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 4 was provided for the level of implementation. District volunteer service
community coordinators, student/parent learning centers and engagement with
community-based agencies and parents have reversed the negative feeling of the
community towards the District. Outreach to the community’s resources has been
175
met with business and academic alliances. These scores reflect a moderate-high level
implementation of a high quality reform strategy.
Other House Model Reform Strategies
Dr. Bennett’s plan for systemic reform in TCPSD included additional House
Model strategies which were outside of those identified for study by the Urban
School Leadership Institute and reported above. The elements are briefly described
and key aspects of the reform strategy are reported below. Each “other” reform
strategy was evaluated using the Implementation Rubric (Appendix E) and given a
score of 1 (low), 3 (moderate) or 5 (high), representing the level of progress the
Superintendent has made towards full implementation of each “other” reform
strategy.
Plan of Entry
The Superintendent’s plan of entry details the district leader’s priorities and
focus during the first few months on the job and postures him as accessible,
transparent and action-oriented. Dr. Bennett’s "90 Day Focus" was a major effort to
get TCPSD on the road to becoming a high performance organization. He addressed
immediate political and community demands as well as student achievement: 1)
Ensure effective governance through positive Board-Superintendent Relations; 2)
Increase student achievement; 3) Improve public trust and confidence though open,
honest communication and positive relationships; 4) Increase organizational
effectiveness and efficiency; 5) Establish a supportive, positive district climate and
culture; 6) Improve instructional leadership and professional development. His
176
immediate, most significant endeavor was to engage the community. The effort of
the Superintendent to implement his entry plan as a reform strategy to raise student
achievement was rated high (5).
Organizational Assessments/Audits
Organizational audits allow an incoming superintendent to gain an objective,
critical assessment of their district’s status and needs, effectively informing
subsequent decisions. Upon Dr. Bennett’s arrival, a professional development needs
assessment was conducted and district performance data was analyzed, identifying
key areas for improvement. Additionally, he commissioned Boston Consulting
Group to evaluate district readiness for change. He acted upon recommendation from
consultants to reduce the number of focus areas. The effort of the Superintendent to
implement organizational assessments and audits as a reform strategy in raising
student achievement was rated moderate (3).
Leadership Team Effectiveness
Incoming superintendents evaluate their leadership team’s cooperativeness,
cohesiveness and effectiveness. Dr. Bennett restructured his cabinet, cutting senior
level central office positions to increase organizational efficiency and break down
departmental barriers. His site visits to underperforming schools included key
District leaders from each resource area as part of the performance evaluation team.
Additionally, he directed the creation of an aspiring leaders program to equip next
generation administrators. The effort of the Superintendent to increase leadership
177
team effectiveness as a reform strategy in raising student achievement was rated high
(5).
Organizational Chart
The District’s organizational chart defines responsibilities and reporting lines
for the senior leadership team, central office departments and schools. The
Superintendent’s 90-day Focus (later Superintendent’s Goals) included goal number
4, increase organizational effectiveness and efficiency. Dr. Bennett restructured his
cabinet. Many senior level positions at the central office were cut and emphasis was
placed on breaking down the walls of isolation between the staff. The Superintendent
made it clear that the job of the central office was to support the mission of schools
by providing leadership of best practice and performing the data analysis needed to
be able to advise schools the “right” way to effect student achievement. The
organizational chart was redrawn to include two key advisors, the chief operating
officer and chief academic officer. The Assessment Division Director was reassigned
research and data analyst duties and elevated to cabinet level position. The effort of
the Superintendent to increase the organizational and management structure
effectiveness using the organizational chart as a reform strategy in raising student
achievement was rated high (5).
Standards
Each state has defined as standards the core knowledge students should have
in each subject at each grade level. TCPSD’s instruction is aligned with state-
developed standards, supported with district developed pacing guides and aligned
178
assessments. Standard course of study ensured through use of comprehensive
instructional management system, Riverdeep
®
Instructional Organizer. The effort of
the Superintendent to implement standards as a reform strategy in raising student
achievement was rated high (5).
Instruction
The how of teaching, instruction is the way in which teachers deliver the
curriculum. Professional Learning Communities (PLC) were implemented district-
wide and professional growth contacts were established at each site to enhance the
activities of improved instruction. The effort of the Superintendent to implement
instructional reform as a strategy in raising student achievement was rated moderate
(3).
Program Effectiveness
Redundancies and incoherence among instructional programs can be
minimized by evaluating their effectiveness. Dr. Bennett directed components be
embedded in all strategic reform areas to ensure program effectiveness. Professional
development tracking incorporating “My Learning Plan” and use of data to
determine impact of PD on professional development; use of Boston Consulting
Group to evaluate district change management; and Research, Data and Assessment
department’s development of a District scorecard to evaluate program effectiveness
across all schools are noteworthy examples of this strategy. The effort of the
Superintendent to implement program effectiveness as a reform strategy in raising
student achievement was rated moderate (3).
179
Focus on Lowest Performers
After aligning the elements of instruction and raising standards, an explicit
effort by the district to focus on lowest performers, often by separate intervention, is
necessary to address achievement gaps. Dr. Bennett addressed the underperformance
of his African American, Hispanic and low socioeconomic subgroups by offering
financial incentives to staff who relocated to “hard to staff” minority schools,
formulating a tiered performance reporting system to focus leadership and resources
on lowest achieving schools, and establishing a “System of Care” partnership with
the housing authority, public health, welfare department and other community
agencies. The effort of the Superintendent to focus on lowest performers as a reform
strategy in raising student achievement was rated high (5).
Student Support Services
Student support services should build upon what students are learning in the
classroom, although some are non-instructional such as health services which help
students better concentrate on academics. Triangle County Public Schools actively
promotes site-based extended learning opportunities, partners with 21
st
Century
Community Learning Centers through the District Community Education
Department, and coordinates a summer reading program with local libraries. The
effort of the Superintendent to implement student support services reform as a
strategy in raising student achievement was rated moderate (3).
180
Resource Alignment
Alignment between institutional goals and objectives, as set forth in the
district strategic plan and theory of action, to allocation of resources across the
system was necessary to maintain coherence of effort. District attention and support
to the bottom two tiers of school performance include extra dollars for staff
development, remedial instructional staff and instructional supplies. Dr. Bennett’s
goals of increasing student achievement as set forth in the Superintendent’s Goals,
and implemented by key programs specified in the project plans are supported by
district allocation of dollars. The effort of the Superintendent to implement resource
alignment reform as a strategy in raising student achievement was rated moderate
(3).
Facilities
A professional learning environment starts with safe and comfortable
buildings and a physical atmosphere which signals and generates pride in the
organization. Dr. Bennett’s vision of increased student achievement by providing
expanded choice for students and their families led to TCPSD’s creation of
alternative learning settings, numerous new school buildings, as well as smaller
schools within schools. The offerings included: Montessori, magnet (science,
technology, engineering, medical, arts, college) and a performance learning center- a
Communities in Schools (CIS) high school. The effort of the Superintendent to
implement facilities-related reform as a strategy in raising student achievement was
rated high (5).
181
Performance Management Systems / Accountability Plan
Indicators for successful staff performance help build accountability into the
system and should reflect performance standards for each position. Dr. Bennett
started a performance management model (District Scorecard) with specific
indicators to measure and monitor school performance. When asked about staff
accountability, Dr. Bennett spoke of “expectations.” The strength of his character
and leadership presence as he broke down the walls separating the District staff, the
Board, and the community were evident as frequent comments were made by all
interviewed. “We have this leader who is enlisting others and captivating them to
follow the vision” (Chief Academic Officer). “The board members, the public in
general, and his business partners...know that he is genuine and …have embraced his
personality” (Chief Operating Officer). “What Dr. Bennett does is push you to be the
best, allowing you to use your gifts and talents” (Board President). The effort of the
Superintendent to implement performance management system and accountability
plan reform as strategies in raising student achievement were rated high (5).
Business Services
Developing and maintaining effective systems to manage contracts for goods
and services can lead to increased efficiency and cost savings. Upon Dr. Bennett’s
arrival, the District was viewed as very inefficient, reverting large amounts of
categorical dollars while spending local dollars on the same funding lines. His
implementation of project work planning around the Superintendent’s Goals served
to help monitor and guide key service initiatives and was hugely successful in
182
organizing and accomplishing diverse tasks and becoming a more efficient district..
The effort of the Superintendent to implement business services reform as a strategy
in raising student achievement was rated high (5).
Other Operational Services
Other large-budget operations services, like transportation and nutrition, must
be actively monitored as potential cost savings could be redirected to instruction.
Key to the accomplishment of District achievement goals were strategies such as
small schools, choice or advanced academics. These notions could only be
accomplished through effective and efficient management of District transportation
resources. The effort of the Superintendent to implement reform strategies related to
other operational services in raising student achievement was rated moderate (3).
Political Relationships
Political contacts can be leveraged into financial or media support for district
initiatives. Upon his arrival, Dr. Bennett immediately set about to change the closed
atmosphere the District was known for. During an initial listening and speaking tour,
Dr. Bennett reached out to key community business contacts, laying the groundwork
for the highly collaborative Triangle County Business Alliance. His overwhelmingly
successful outreach efforts culminated in the passage of the largest-ever $194M bond
with an overwhelming 78% approval. The effort of the Superintendent to use
political relationships as a strategy in raising student achievement was rated as high
(5).
183
Philanthropic and Institutional Partnerships
Public-private bodies can be engaged in improving area schools, using their
strengths in service to the district. Within his first few months of Superintendency,
Dr. Bennett addressed an underutilized resource by more fully engaging the Triangle
County business and educational community, whose partners included three local
universities, IBM, Sysco, Nortel, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck and more. In 2007, the
Institute for a Competitive Workforce (ICQ) awarded the Triangle County
community its first annual Community Competitiveness Award, acknowledging a
community whose initiatives have promoted public and private sector cooperation
and contributed to education and workforce development. The effort of the
Superintendent to use philanthropic and institutional partnerships as a strategy in
raising student achievement was rated as high (5).
Constituent Service
Responding to the needs of constituents, usually parents, requires an effective
district process for collecting and quickly addressing requests or complaints.
Immediately upon his appointment, Dr. Bennett implemented the Quality Service
Initiative and Open Door Policy, successful in restoring public confidence in the
efficacy of the Triangle County School District. Additionally, to facilitate and
increase parent involvement in the District, the Superintendent established a District
School Volunteer Office, Parent Involvement Coordinator and Volunteer Services
Academy. The effort of the Superintendent to implement constituent services as a
reform strategy in raising student achievement was rated moderate (3).
184
Sustainability
District leaders must keep their staff focused on student achievement past
initial gains in order to truly change the organizational culture. While attending a
Board retreat, Dr. Bennett turned his 90-day entry plan into the Superintendent’s
Goals, backed by a detailed planning schema with names, dates, and documents
created for each project. This paradigm shift in the approach to reform set the stage
for sustained, transformational change. The effort of the Superintendent to
implement sustainability as a reform strategy in raising student achievement was
rated high (5).
Superintendent’s Contract
The superintendent’s employment contract was a positive factor in the
success of TCPSD reform. Superintendent Bennett stated his contract gave him the
specific authority needed to take necessary managerial action. It defined the criteria
and process for his annual evaluation. The effort of the Superintendent to leverage
his contract as a reform strategy in raising student achievement was rated moderate
(3).
Personal Demeanor and Style
Superintendent’s even-tempered, open leadership style made a positive
impression with constituents and stakeholders. Intelligence, modesty, and strength of
character were key traits. Superintendent Bennett epitomizes Collins’ (2001) Level 5
leader, a paradoxical mixture of personal humility and professional will, with
compelling modesty, self-effacing and understated. The effort of the Superintendent
185
to leverage his personal demeanor and style as a reform strategy in raising student
achievement was rated high (5).
Discussion
The findings presented in this study were developed and presented by
reviewing the data collected in the context of the conceptual framework of the House
Model. The purpose of this section was to make sense of the findings in ways that
provide purpose and meaning to the actions under study. Four themes emerged from
the findings that help in understanding “why it turned out that way”: a) improved
relations between the Board and the Superintendent; b) improved communications
with all stakeholders; c) increased spirit of accountability; and d) Superintendent
action vis-à-vis Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames of leadership.
Board Relations
Dr. Bennett successfully established Triangle County Public School District
(TCPSD) as an organization with a reputation for collaborating with the community
in support of raising student achievement. School districts cannot improve student
achievement without a good working relationship and teamwork between the school
board and the superintendent (Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000; Land, 2002). The
relationship between the TCPSD Board of Trustees and the Superintendent prior to
Dr. Bennett’s arrival was “chaotic.” “We had a couple Board members who ran on
an anti-administration theme.” Similarly, "People were losing their belief and faith in
TCPSD in terms of providing a quality educational experience for their children.”
The feeling from the community was “there was always something to hide.”
186
The first goal outlined in the start-up (90-day) plan was to improve Board-
Superintendent relations. The superintendent attended to the lack of trust towards the
district he found upon his arrival at TCPSD by increasing the transparency of the
school district: in his work, Board interaction with his staff, and by making his senior
staff accessible to the public. Superintendent Bennett recognized that open
communications and a good relationship with the Board is one of the most important
predictors of future success in the district (Task Force on School District Leadership,
2001; McAdams, 2006).
Communications
Beginning in the spring, Dr. Bennett met with major community groups and
made decisions which would affect the following school year. Listening, learning
and leaving each encounter with new constituents understanding expectations and
laying a foundation of credibility is critical to getting off to a good start (Neff &
Citrin, 2005; Watkins, 2003; Jentz & Murphy, 2005). Dr. Bennett came to TCPSD
with a six-point game plan: 1) repair Board relations; 2) increase student
achievement; 3) improve public trust and confidence; 4) increase organizational
effectiveness and efficiency; 5) establish a supportive, positive district climate and
culture; and 6) improve instructional leadership and professional development.
In keeping with goal number three of his start-up plan, “Improve public trust
and confidence through open, honest communication and positive relationships,” Dr.
Bennett attended to repairing the lines of communication and galvanized support
with the community by meeting many groups of people in a listening and learning
187
campaign, addressing all major constituencies: community, civic action, and faith
groups; local businesses, and educational institutions; as well as individuals
(Howlett, 1993). Where previously there had been a sense that many decisions were
made “along racial lines,” Dr. Bennett facilitated a sense of openness and attention to
equity. The new transparency he brought to the district resulted in constituents being
heard.
Dr. Bennett changed the culture of the district to one with a service
orientation. He led those in his organization to be open and responsive in
communicating with the public. He brought parents in to participate, included them
in making decisions about their children’s education and gave them choices. The
result of the Districts efforts were soon evident. When included, public and
community organizations committed their time and money, participated in initiatives
and provided tremendous support for the Districts objectives (Carlsmith &
Railsback, 2001; West, Whitehurst, & Dionne, 2009).
Accountability
Dr. Bennett drew diverse stakeholders to him by his soft spoken, gentle, yet
authoritative manner. Upon his arrival, he established an atmosphere of respect, trust
and readiness to listen. Expectations became the glue of accountability that Dr.
Bennett brought to the Triangle County Public School District, the accountability
that leads to improvement (Hanushek & Raymond, 2004). His quality service
initiative, his honoring of staff, parents, and all stakeholders, as well as his
188
willingness to work alongside the community in every endeavor led to a complete
turnaround of the District-community climate.
Accountability, according to Reeves (1998), “provides a clear strategic
direction for schools and their leaders, with a laser-like focus on student achievement
and specific strategies that will be used at the school level to create improvement” (p.
6). The Superintendent adopted a system-wide approach to improving instruction and
clearly communicated the strategic plan to key leaders and their subordinates,
correlating the plan with their job responsibilities and assignment (Togneri &
Anderson, 2003). He made it plain to his staff and site leadership that the schools
belonged to the district and needed to respond to its efforts to provide assistance. The
District was responsible to provide leadership to schools with best practice
suggestions, perform data analysis, inform schools about what is working and advise
schools in the way to effect achievement.
Dr. Bennett implemented a five-tiered system of accountability to follow up
on the expectations of actions to be accomplished by all schools, with more focus on
those lower performing tier one and tier two sites (Shannon & Bylsma, 2004). Along
with the increased visibility came additional resources. The Superintendent was not
afraid to have a hard talk with leaders who were not on board with the process for
increasing student achievement (Anderson, 2003). Though his style was low-key and
methodical, his passion for improving TCPSD schools and the heat of his
expectations were felt by mediocre leaders. The schools at the higher achieving tiers
were given greater autonomy and flexibility in their instructional delivery and
189
decision making. Performance empowerment was given to those who were achieving
at high levels (Elmore, 2000; Waters & Marzano 2006).
Four Frames of Leadership
Bohlman and Deal (2003) provided an insightful lens to look at the results of
Dr. Bennett’s leadership efforts at TCPSD. Their four-frame model offers a means to
evaluate any given situation in at least four different ways, from the vantage point of:
structural, human resources, political and symbolic frames of reference.
Dr. Bennett recognized the performance (achievement) gap and immediately
put into place structural changes within the organization to positively affect its
closure. One example of decisive action in this frame of leadership is the elevation of
the Research, Development and Accountability department to a cabinet level
position. Another change was the “flattening” of the organizational chart: cutting
many central office, senior level positions; placing principals as direct reports to the
Superintendent; aligning staff support through two key Deputies, the Chief Operating
Officer and the Chief Academic Officer from which functional Assistant
Superintendents (elementary, secondary, etc.) provided oversight and resources to
school sites.
Dr. Bennett’s first priority upon taking the reins as Superintendent was
attending to the human resource needs of his people, particularly those involving
relationships and communication. He recognized that his people included all stake
holders – the community, as well as the school board and District employees. He
immediately opened lines of communication, reaching out with listening and
190
learning tours, and presented himself and his staff in a transparent and accessible
manner. He established a District quality service initiative, where every person on
staff has a welcoming and honoring way to deal with constituents, whether internal
or external, as a first step.
Dr. Bennett attended to the political frame of his organization by making
Positive Board-Superintendent Relations the number one goal of his
“Superintendent’s 90-Day Focus” (start up plan). After solidifying relations with his
key constituents, Dr. Bennett established strong business, educational, and parent
coalitions. His efforts were patently successful as the largest bond measure in the
history of the county passed with a 78% approval rating.
Dr. Bennett effectively employed many symbols as part of his campaign to
draw the community together around advancing student achievement for the children
of Triangle County Public School district. He was the face of the District, appearing
at numerous venues to help the public understand “who we are, what we are doing
and how we partner to get the job done for kids.” Each month parents from five
schools walk the red carpet of honor into the evening school board meeting. District
branding on posters, stationary and multimedia proclaim consistent messages of
success, achievement and future possibilities.
Bolman and Deal’s four-frame leadership model was used to look at the
results of Dr. Bennett’s leadership efforts at TCPSD. The four-frame model, viewing
structural, human resources, political and symbolic frames of reference provided
191
insight into Dr. Bennett effective implementation of change strategies in support of
increased student achievement.
Summary
This chapter reviewed the findings based on data collected in the case study.
A detailed analysis and discussion of how those findings related to the research
questions and their roots in the relevant research (Chapter 2) was presented. The
chapter considered the level and quality of implementation of the reform strategies
selected by the superintendent to improve student achievement. The findings
presented in this study were based on multiple data sources, which served to
strengthen the validity of findings. The summary, conclusions, and implications of
this study are presented in Chapter 5.

192
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
The job of today’s school district superintendent has been described as nearly
impossible because of increasing student academic accountability standards and
limitations in resources and existing authority (Fuller et al., 2003). Although a
significant amount of research has been done on school improvement strategies and
the role of district leadership in their implementation, there is much to be learned
about how system wide change is accomplished by the superintendent and how
district leaders are best prepared for this significant challenge (Waters & Marzano,
2006; Childress et al., 2005; Broad Foundation, 2008).
The actions taken by a superintendent will be influenced by the unique
strengths and challenges of the district as well as his own background and training.
These district variables include all aspects of: governance team, relationship of prior
superintendent with Board and community, local culture and socioeconomic
conditions, community relationships, access to business and educational
partnerships, district academic performance trends, and recent demographic shifts
(Byrd et al., 2006; Fuller et al, 2003). The superintendent’s background and training
is a readiness factor in preparation for a particular district’s challenges, e.g
superintendent from a “traditional” (educator) or non-traditional background,
relevant advanced education received in preparation to serving as the organization’s
top leader, or prior leadership experience in the district environment (Glass, 2000).
193
In mapping a course for district reform, there are a number of dimensions to
each improvement strategy that a superintendent must be aware of and attend to.
These include: district strategic plan formulation, bargaining effects on human
resource policies, governance relationships, curriculum and instruction non-
negotiables, etc. It is important that a superintendent have a good understanding of
the nature of these change levers, recognize the effect of the district context in which
the strategy is to be used, and know how to select and apply the proper reform
strategies for the district environment.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine how a superintendent implemented
specific reform strategies in order to improve student academic achievement in a
large urban district. This study built upon a similar project (Phase I) conducted by
Takata, Marsh, and Castruita (2007), of “change levers” (reform strategies) used by
two Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI) graduates to improve student
achievement. In this Phase II study, 10 key reform strategies were studied and
analyzed in depth: strategic plan; assessment; curriculum; professional development;
human resource system and human capital management; finance and budget;
communications; governance/Board relations; labor relations/contract negotiations;
and family and community engagement. These 10 strategies were identified as
elements of USLI’s “House Model,” a framework of reform actions to be undertaken
by successful urban school districts. This study focused on how the superintendent
influenced the quality and implementation of strategic action, within the context of
194
district strengths and weaknesses, leading to increased levels of student achievement.
The study also sought to understand how the results correlated to the
superintendent’s training and professional background. The research question and
three related sub questions which framed this study were:
1. How are the ten key reform strategies being used by large urban
school superintendents to improve student achievement in his or her
respective district?
a. How does the quality and implementation of ten key reform
strategies correspond to the strength and challenges of the
district when the superintendent took office?
b. What additional reform strategies (if any) were used? How do
they correspond to the elements of the House Model?
c. How does the choice and implementation of the ten key
reform strategies correspond to the previous
background/experiences of the superintendent?
Methodology
In undertaking a study of how an urban superintendent effectively uses
reform strategies to influence academic reform, a qualitative case study methodology
was selected. Data generated from this analysis was well-grounded, rich in
description and explanation of the process at work- in the context under study (Miles
& Huberman, 1994). Additionally, studying information-rich cases generated
insights and in-depth understanding of the subtleties of action, e.g., board politics,
195
district culture, etc., through which the district leader navigated in order to
implement a reform strategy (Patton, 2002). Another advantage of case study
methodology was that it allowed the researcher to gather preliminary insights to
inform and guide subsequent data collection (Locke et al., 1998).
Strategic interviews with an urban superintendent and key staff members
were the primary data gathering for this study. Individual and small group interviews
were conducted to collect information relating to the superintendent’s
implementation of 10 key reform strategies and their effectiveness upon district
efforts to increase student achievement. The unit of analysis in this study was one
urban school district, the district superintendent and other key players.
Sample
A purposeful sampling strategy was employed for this study in order to fully
illuminate the information-rich case used to answer the research questions posed of
the reform strategies under study (Patton, 2002). This strategy enabled close
examination of the specific actions taken by the superintendent and how the actions
taken to increase student achievement may have been influenced by past experience
and preparation programs. Study participants included the district superintendent,
key players identified by the superintendent as persons with knowledge of the
strengths and challenges in the district at the time that the superintendent took office,
including the chief academic and operating officers, district level administrators
knowledgeable of the reform strategies used to increase student achievement, and
one school board member.
196
Data Collection and Analysis
Data for the study was collected during interviews taken on a two-day visit to
the district in June, 2008. The conceptual framework used for this study was the
Urban School Leadership Institute’s House Model, an educational reform scaffold of
approximately 25 research-based strategies used by the Institute to train future large
urban district superintendents. For the purpose of this study, 10 key reform strategies
identified above were examined.
Five instruments were developed and provided the foundation for data
collection and analysis:
1. Superintendent Interview Guide (Appendix A) correlated each interview
question to the related research question, outlined the superintendent
interview process, established a process for coding interview data, and
defined processes for identifying artifacts and documents that were
collected from the district.
2. Key Player Interview Guide (appendix B) correlated each interview
question to the related research question, outlined the key player selection
and interview process, established a process for coding interview data,
and created linkages to artifacts and documents collected from the
district.
3. Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Appendix C) correlated
interview questions for each of the 10 key reform strategies to the related
research question(s), outlined the participant selection and interview
197
processes, and established a procedure for recording and coding interview
data.
4. Quality Rubric (Appendix D) measured the quality of relevant actions for
each of the 10 key reform strategies, utilizing a five-point Likert scale
indicating high (5), moderate (3), or low (1) quality. For example, the
Finance & Budget Rubric included the following components: Strategic
Budget Planning, Organizational Culture, and Operational Procedures as
critical elements for assessing the quality of district fiscal reform efforts.
5. Implementation Rubric (Appendix E) measured how each reform strategy
was implemented utilizing a five-point Likert scale indicating high (5),
moderate (3), or low (1) implementation levels according to four criteria:
1) the external challenges to full implementation; 2) the extent that each
component of the reform strategy is fully implemented in practice; 3) the
level of shared understanding, values, and expectations; and 4) the
sustainability of staff and fiscal resources.
In addition to the benefit of accurate evaluation yielding from documentation
of actual superintendent actions, these data collection tools, multiple interviews and
reviews of district documents supported the triangulation of data from multiple
sources increasing the validity of this study.
Selected Findings
The findings of this study were organized around the research question: How
are the ten key reform strategies being used by large urban school district
198
superintendents to improve student achievement in his or her respective district?
This section summarizes key findings relating to each of the 10 reform strategies.
Interviews and district documentation were the primary sources of data collected for
analysis. This process was supported by the Superintendent Interview Guide, the Key
Player Interview Guide, and the Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide.
Research Question 1: Ten Key Reform Strategies
Strategic Plan – A collaboratively-constructed vision statement and theory of
action for change guided the strategic plan which was set into motion upon the
superintendent’s arrival. The strategic plan, which was developed by key district
players encompassed a detailed project plan format which developed measurable
outcomes for all goals and objectives.
Assessment – The superintendent reorganized and expanded the role of the
former Assessment Division, creating the cabinet level position Assistant
Superintendent of Research, Development and Accountability (RDA). The increased
scope of RDA moved the department from primarily state testing administration
duties to district-wide achievement data analysis and resulted in the development of
highly predictive (95% accuracy) in-house formative assessments.
Curriculum – A comprehensive managed instruction system, aligned with
state and federal standards, previously successful at elementary level, was initiated
throughout the secondary system. Upon assessment that too much time was spent on
remediation and intervention, the superintendent directed the creation of the
Department of Advanced Academics whose purpose was to accelerate and provide
199
increased curricular rigor in district high schools. A five-tiered system of school
performance reporting was implemented to ensure all levels of leadership and the
necessary resources were focused on lower achieving schools.
Professional Development – One of six goals in Superintendent’s (Strategic)
Plan, professional development reform started with a district-wide needs assessment.
The program evolved from traditional district office-centered staff development to
customized on-site professional development delivered through professional learning
communities. The needs of individual schools were better met through increased
coherence with site assessed needs, and the effectiveness of training received was
evaluated.
HR System and Human Capital Management – Changing the district HR
climate was another of the Superintendent’s goals. The “Quality Service Initiative”
set a new baseline for district human resource operations. By changing the
fundamental relationship among employees and in dealings with external partners, a
complete customer service turnaround was observed by all stakeholders. Elements of
improved customer service initiatives extended to improvements in: recruitment
plans, recognition programs, aspiring administrator training, and “hard to staff”
school incentives.
Finance and Budget – Dr. Bennett restored fundamental financial stability to
the district by increasing the reserve balance and improving capital outlay. District
resources were aligned to the strategic plan goals through detailed project planning.
Financial focus provided resources to ensure equity among educational outcomes
200
rather than equalization based on student numbers, providing necessary support for
schools and students that needed more help.
Communication – Lack of communication between district, board and
community was assessed by Dr. Bennett to be a major contributor to the mistrust,
misunderstanding and chaos within the district. He developed a spirit of transparency
and openness which led to a community now openly proud of the district and its
leadership. Internal communication efforts to publicize stakeholder contributions and
train site administrators in communication opportunities supported district
communication efforts.
Governance and Board Relations – Dr. Bennett came into a dysfunctional
Board relationship rife with mistrust and racial tensions. His open manner and active
spirit of cooperation quickly broke down the walls separating the governance team.
Dr. Bennett worked with the board through their participation in governance
workshops. He led the board in adopting increased transparency to parents and
community by involving these stakeholders in district affairs. Today superintendent
and board speak with one voice in support of the strategic plan.
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations – Although TCPSD is in a right-
to-work state with no officially recognized unions, the superintendent fostered a
positive, inclusive relationship with the union presence. His professional, people-
oriented climate and the district’s transition to a service oriented organization
improved morale and enhanced employee access to district support.
201
Family and Community Engagement – Parents are viewed as key partners to
improving academic achievement and help to forge solutions to the tough urban
problems affecting student education. District efforts to engage parents and the
community were facilitated by volunteer services and parent involvement
coordinators through a parent liaison office and a “System of Care” partnership with
community social agencies. Outreach to the growing English Language Learner
(ELL) community was exemplified by a special Board meeting to discuss concerns
with Hispanic parents, facilitated by a translation headset system.
Research Question 1a: Strengths and Challenges of the District
Research question 1a asked: How does the quality and implementation of ten
key reform strategies correspond to the strengths and challenges of the district when
the superintendent took office?
When Dr. Bennett took office as Superintendent of Triangle County Public
School District (TCPSD), significant challenges influenced his initial course of
action. Relations between the school board, the community and the district central
office were severely strained, and Board meetings were frequently out of control.
Although the District had achieved marked improvements in student achievement,
posting high gains in end-of-grade and end-of-course test scores and a 40% reduction
in the drop out rate, African American and Hispanic students were not achieving at
the same levels as white students – a significant achievement gap existed between
white and non-white students. The former Superintendent’s agenda frequently
moved ahead with a 4-3 vote, split along racial lines. The school board was
202
fragmented and did not understand its role with regard to district governance and
policy making strategies to improve student achievement. There was no consistent
message from the Board and little attempt to engage the community.
District strengths, in addition to the accomplishments made in elementary
literacy, lay in TCPSD’s strong budget and financial base. The district was located
in a wealthy business district and was 6
th
highest among 115 districts ranking for per-
pupil expenditure. Significant business partnership potential existed with partners
such as IBM, Sysco foods, Nortel, and GlaxoSmithKline pharmaceuticals. Three
major universities were located nearby, providing educational and business resources
to draw on in the plan to raise the academic achievement of TCPSD students.
Dr. Bennett’s start-up/entry plan was named Superintendent’s 90-Day Focus.
It consisted of six primary goals, each having strategic objectives and activities
detailed to meet each objective. In addition to its function as the initial strategic plan
for the superintendent’s actions, three of the key reform strategies studied herein
were named as elements of the Superintendent’s six goals: governance/board
relations, communications, and professional development. The six remaining key
reform strategies, assessment, curriculum, human resources, finance & budget, labor
relations, and family & community engagement, were addressed as objectives within
the superintendent’s entry plan goals. It is noted that within the first two months of
Dr. Bennett’s superintendency, the entry plan transitioned to become the
Superintendent’s Goals and Project Plan, adopted by the Board as the district’s
strategic plan. The current-quality ratings of all 10 key reform strategies were
203
adjudged to be “moderate to high” with moderate and above level of implementation
ratings. Table 5.1 is a summary of the 10 key reform strategies quality and level of
implementation corresponding with the strengths and weaknesses noted when Dr.
Bennett took office.
Table 5.1: 10 Key Reform Strategies vis-à-vis Superintendent Arrival – District
Strengths and Weaknesses
Key Reform
Strategies
Quality: Post Arrival
Level of
Implementation
District
Strength
District
Weakness
Strategic Planning 4.4 - High 4 - Moderate to High
Assessment 5.0 - High 5 - High
Curriculum 4.6 - High 5 - High X
Professional
Development
4.5 - High 4 - Moderate to High
HR System and
Human Capital
Management
3.8 - Moderate to High 4 - Moderate to High
Finance and Budget 4.3 - High 3 - Moderate X
Communication 3.8 - Moderate to High 3 - Moderate X
Governance and
Board Relations
5.0 - High 5 - High X
Labor Relations and
Contract Negotiations
4.0 - Moderate to High 3 - Moderate
Family and
Community
Engagement
4.3 - High 4 - Moderate to High X

Interviews and district documentation were the primary sources of data
collected for analysis. This process was supported by the Superintendent, Key
Player, and Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview guides, as well as the strategy-
specific Quality Rubric and the Implementation Rubric.
Research Question 1b: Other Reform Strategies
Research question 1b asked: What additional reform strategies (if any) were
used? How do they correspond to the elements of the House Model?
204
Dr. Bennett’s plan for systemic reform in TCPSD included additional House
Model strategies which were outside of those identified for detailed study by the
Urban School Leadership Institute and reported above. Key aspects of the additional
reform strategies are briefly described.
The Superintendent’s 90-Day Focus, detailed Dr. Bennett’s priorities and his
spotlight during the first few months on the job and postured him as accessible,
transparent and action-oriented. The start-up plan’s success was key to getting
TCPSD on the road to becoming a high performance organization. Dr. Bennett used
organizational assessments/audits in the areas of professional development and
change readiness to allow him to gain an objective, critical assessment of TCPSD’s
status and needs which effectively informed subsequent decisions.
Dr. Bennett evaluated his leadership team’s effectiveness, cohesiveness and
cooperativeness, immediately restructuring his cabinet. He cut many senior level
central office positions to increase organizational efficiency and break down
departmental barriers.
The Superintendent’s 90-day Focus (later Superintendent’s Goals) included
Goal Number Four: Increase organizational effectiveness and efficiency. Dr. Bennett
redrew his organizational chart to include two new key advisors, the chief operating
officer and chief academic officer. He redefined responsibilities and reporting lines
for the senior leadership team.
TCPSD’s instruction was aligned with state-developed standards, supported
with district developed pacing guides and aligned assessments. Equity within the
205
standard course of study was ensured through use of a comprehensive instructional
management system.
Professional Learning Communities (PLC) were implemented district-wide
and professional growth contacts were established at each site to enhance the
activities of improved instruction. In addition, Dr. Bennett directed program tracking
components, e.g. the district scorecard and professional development’s “My
Learning Plan,” be embedded in all strategic reform areas to ensure program
effectiveness, reducing redundancy and increasing coherence among instructional
programs.
After aligning the elements of instruction and raising standards, Dr. Bennett
made an explicit effort to focus on lowest performers. He addressed the
underperformance of his African American, Hispanic and low socioeconomic
subgroups by offering financial incentives to staff who relocated to “hard to staff”
minority schools, formulating a tiered performance reporting system to focus
leadership and resources on lowest achieving schools, and establishing a “System of
Care” partnership with community agencies.
Triangle County Public Schools’ student support services actively built upon
what students were learning in the classroom through site-based extended learning
opportunities. A partnership formed through the District’s Community Education
Department with a local 21
st
Century Community Learning Center, provided after
school assistance and a summer reading program with local libraries.
206
In order to promote a coherence of effort, resource alignment ws maintained
between TCPSD’s institutional goals and objectives, and allocation of resources to
support school performance. Dr. Bennett’s goals of increasing student achievement
were supported by district resource allocation, to include extra dollars for struggling
schools’ staff development, remedial instructional staff and instructional supplies.
Dr. Bennett’s vision of increased student achievement involved rethinking
facilities use, by providing expanded school choice for students and their families.
This led to TCPSD’s creation of alternative learning settings, numerous new school
buildings, as well as smaller schools within schools.
The Superintendent’s efforts to implement a performance management
system and accountability plan included indicators for successful staff performance
reflecting standards for each position. Dr. Bennett initiated a performance
management model (District Scorecard) with specific measures to monitor school
performance. When asked about staff accountability, Dr. Bennett spoke of
“expectations.” The strength of his character and leadership presence was an
overwhelmingly positive influence on staff productivity evidenced by comments in
every interview.
Dr. Bennett’s implementation of project work planning around the
Superintendent’s Goals and Project Plan served to monitor and guide key business
services initiatives. This was hugely successful in organizing and accomplishing
diverse business tasks and becoming a more efficient district.
207
Other operational services, particularly large-budget operations services like
transportation, played a key role in reform efforts, e.g. advanced academics or small
schools. These strategies were successfully accomplished through effective and
efficient management of all District operational resources.
Dr. Bennett reached out to key community business contacts, laying the
groundwork for the highly collaborative Triangle County Business Alliance. His
overwhelmingly successful political relationship efforts culminated in the passage of
the largest-ever $194M bond with an overwhelming 78% approval.
Dr. Bennett addressed a previously underutilized resource, philanthropic and
institutional partnerships, by engaging the Triangle County business and educational
community. Full partners in the Triangle Research Consortium were: TCPSD, three
local universities, IBM, Sysco, Nortel, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck and more.
Immediately upon his appointment, Dr. Bennett implemented the Quality
Service Initiative and an open door policy, constituent services efforts to restore
public confidence in the ability of Triangle County School District to respond to
stakeholder concerns. To address specific parent needs and facilitate increased parent
involvement, the Superintendent established a District School Volunteer Office,
Parent Involvement Coordinator and Volunteer Services Academy.
Dr. Bennett’s strategic plan, The Superintendent’s Goals, was backed by a
detailed planning schema with names, dates, and documents created for each project.
This paradigm shift in reform efforts set the stage for sustainable, transformational
change to the organizational culture.
208
Two non-House Model reform strategy measures were also noted. The
superintendent’s employment contract was a positive factor in the success of TCPSD
reform. Superintendent Bennett stated his contract gave him the specific authority
needed to take necessary managerial action. Further, it defined the criteria and
process for his annual evaluation.
Dr. Bennett’s even-tempered, open leadership style made an overwhelmingly
positive impression with constituents and stakeholders alike. Intelligence, modesty,
and strength of character were key traits, epitomizing Collins’ (2001) Level 5 leader,
a paradoxical mixture of personal humility and professional will, with compelling
modesty, self-effacing and understated.
Interviews and district documentation were the primary sources of data
collected for analysis. This process was supported by the Superintendent, Key
Player, and Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview guides.
Research Question 1C: Relationship to the Previous Background/Experience of the
Superintendent
Research question 1c asked: How does the choice and implementation of the
ten key reform strategies correspond to the previous background/experiences of the
superintendent?
Dr. Bennett arrived in Triangle County Public School District following a
successful Superintendency in Franklin County, a rural district of approximately
8,000 students. His preparation for superintendent was traditional and included
leadership roles as teacher, coach, and principal, as well as senior positions within
209
several school districts. His advanced education consisted of a Master of Arts in
Administration and a Doctorate in Education Administration. Additional leadership
capacity was developed and demonstrated in service as past president of the State
Association of School Administrators and chairman of the State Council on
Accreditation and School Improvement.
Dr. Bennett credited his prior superintendency for exceptional preparation in
the areas of Strategic Planning, Professional Development, Finance/Budget,
Governance/Board Relations, and Family/Community involvement. His prior district
office roles prepared him for high ratings in Human Resources (Assistant
Superintendent for HR) and Curriculum (came to TCPSD as C&I). He self rated
himself as moderate in Assessment and Labor Relations.
Dr. Bennett reported the top three experiences that helped him prepare for the
Superintendency at TCPSD as: 1) professional training, 2) interaction with
professionals in the field throughout his career, and 3) developing as a leader in the
region. During his first Superintendency, Dr. Bennett attended the Urban School
Leadership Institute (USLI). He credited USLI with providing inspiration to improve
urban public schools. This led him to make a difference in America by seeking
leadership in an urban public school system. Interviews and district documentation
were the primary sources of data collected for analysis. This process was supported
by the Superintendent Interview guide.
210
Conclusions
Key reform strategies are being used effectively by large urban school district
superintendents to improve student achievement. Significant launching strategies
were initiated by the superintendent studied to effect district reform. The first step
was a communications/engagement strategy that emphasized transparency of District
efforts. Next, a governance strategy was implemented to improve board-
superintendent relations and develop the Board’s leadership capacity. The third
significant action was a reorganization of district office leadership and lines of
authority, creating a top academic and operating officer, as well as an assessment
official to provide relevant data for decision-making and formative assessment.
The quality and implementation of the 10 key reform strategies were affected
by the strengths and challenges of the district when the superintendent took office.
The context in which a leader operates necessarily influences his actions. In order to
achieve the results desired, i.e., increase student achievement, the urban
superintendent must decide which actions to take. How key actions are implemented
by a school leader and the order of action are affected by the conditions that are
being faced by the leader and the district, along with an assessment of priority among
possible actions. There are some actions which should not be undertaken until
foundational actions have been accomplished. The school leader must assess, from a
number of possible actions which advance the strategic plan, and choose the next-
most critical action which can be successfully accomplished. An example, taken
from this case study, was devoting significant effort to developing collaborative
211
relationships with a distrustful community (communication reform strategy) before
embarking on a campaign to ask voters to pass a large school bond measure to fund
initiatives in support of strategic plan goals.
Other reform strategies, in addition to the 10 which were the study’s focus,
were successfully applied to improve student achievement. Most significant in the
effort at Triangle County Public School District, was the Superintendent’s entry plan,
a high performance organizational element which followed Covey’s well-known
maxim “begin with the end in mind” (1989). The Superintendent’s 90-Day Focus,
with minor changes, became the improvement plan for the district, the strategic plan.
Other critical reform strategies included: restructuring the cabinet to enhance the
leadership team’s effectiveness, aligning resources to promote equity in educational
outcomes, creating the district scorecard as a tool to effect a performance
management system and accountability plan, and implementing a project
management process to guide the accomplishment of strategic plan action items.
The background preparation and prior experience of the superintendent
affected the Superintendent’s choice and implementation of key reform strategies
used to increase student achievement. John Maxwell (2007), admonishes leaders to
stay in their strength zone for maximum effectiveness. Dr. Bennett used the strength
of his experiences and past background: rural state Superintendent; involvement in
local and regional politics; human resources and curriculum & instruction expertise;
and urban leadership institute organizational preparation to successfully implement
key reform strategies at Triangle County Public School District.
212
Implications for Practice
The findings and conclusions of this study have led to the following
implications for districts seeking to increase academic achievement, close
achievement gaps, and improve college readiness for their students. The implications
are divided into specific areas of responsibility, including: superintendents and
aspiring administrators, school boards and community stakeholders, and institutions
preparing future superintendents.
Superintendents and Aspiring Administrators
Good Superintendent-Board relationships are critical to the successful
implementation of reform initiatives. The new superintendent must expend a
significant amount of planning and effort in order to quickly develop effective lines
of communication and maintain transparent relationships with all board members.
Effective strategic planning, which takes into account a district’s strengths
and weaknesses when planning key reform strategies appropriate to the district
situation, is the lynchpin to successful accomplishment of reform efforts. A
superintendent’s implementation of a collaboratively-created strategic plan will
focus improvement efforts and provide a unifying theme throughout the district.
A managed curriculum that is rigorous, aligned to standards and accessible to
all students and teachers will enhance equity and promote coherence within the
district academic program. A non-negotiable implementation of key curriculum
components will ensure the required course of study is taught.
213
Development of district capacity to use performance data for decision-
making, evaluation, and formative assessment of student achievement and district
programs provide a path to increased levels of student learning. Superintendent focus
on data systems, such as TCPSD’ Accountability Department development of
content exams, led to the development of effective and reliable benchmarks for
curriculum attainment.
School Boards and Community Stakeholders
In order to effectively provide reform governance, school boards need to:
establish core beliefs, vision and goals; formulate a theory of action; develop polices;
allocate resources; and oversee effective policy implementation and management
systems (McAdams, 2006). School boards who are unclear on their core functions
must seek training if necessary in order to understand their role in district
governance.
Superintendent search and evaluation efforts are crucial. The selection of a
superintendent whose background, experience and leadership style “fit” a district’s
strengths, challenges and requirements is essential to minimizing turnover, key to
long-term reform leadership and resultant increases in student achievement. Board
leadership is required to ensure a significant search planning and comprehensive
evaluation effort is in place to accomplish this critical task.
Community stakeholders must be involved in the affairs of the district.
Among the many areas for possible contribution is participation in the parent
education, off-campus after school centers, budgeting and strategic planning
214
processes. Effective community outreach is another means of getting the district
message out, particularly during times of district reform or fiscal instability. The
district strategic plan must include goals for parent and community involvement and
action plans to maintain focus.
Institutions Preparing Future Superintendents
Preparation for future superintendents must include a thorough grounding in
current, research-based reform strategies tied to increasing student achievement.
Courses taught by “clinical” instructors who are current or prior superintendents and
key district leaders provide critical insight into course subject matter. The study of
district leaders and their staffs through term papers, thesis, and dissertation (such as
this study) serve as effective teaching/learning methods for prospective district
leaders, allowing up close and hands-on observation of actual reform actions.
Superintendent preparation programs, both University based, and non-University
based upper-level leadership courses such as those provided by the American
Association of School Administrators (AASA), Association of California School
Administrators (ACSA), and The Broad Foundation Superintendent’s Academy must
continue to expand upon hands-on practical application of new (reform) knowledge
and provide capstone activities which are grounded in real-world situations.
Future superintendents must be schooled in the formulation of an entry plan.
The selection of the key components of the start-up plan, based on an analysis of the
prospective district, and the development of the entry plan’s launching strategies are
critical to laying the groundwork for the superintendent’s success.
215
An introduction to collaboration methods and the development of a
mentoring and coaching network can provide superintendents with additional future
resources to solve tough problems. Preparation programs which employ a cohort
approach teach and encourage networking skills, as well as provide alumni services
will lay the foundation for future problem-solving success and foster beneficial long-
term relationships among superintendent-graduates.
Recommendations for Future Research
Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, the following
recommendations are made regarding future research in this area:
The superintendent of the large urban (K-12) district of study had been in
this position for two years. Consequently, the evaluation of the quality and
implementation of key reform strategies and their effect on student achievement was
of a limited time horizon. It is recommended that this qualitative study be repeated
with the same superintendent in two to three years to allow study of a full and
stabilized implementation of the key reform strategies. Additionally, a quantitative
study of the effect of the 10 key reform strategies upon achievement results would
further solidify and triangulate results.
This study focused on results obtained by a graduate of the Urban School
Leadership Institute (USLI). A comparison study using a similar methodology,
including quality/level of implementation rubrics, could compare the impact of the
10 key reform strategies used by non-USLI urban superintendents. Significant
216
information could be gained regarding strategies and best practices in raising student
academic achievement.
This study was one of 10 independent research projects that used common
data collection tools and analysis processes to study 10 different Urban School
Leadership Institute (USLI) graduates. It is recommended that a meta-analysis of the
findings from the 10 district superintendents be conducted in order to provide a
better understanding of the effect of the 10 key reform strategies upon student
achievement across multiple large urban districts. Further, the meta-analysis could
identify “other reform strategies” highlighted as possible key reform strategies upon
which to focus a future study.
This study is based on the information provided in interviews with key
district office leaders and a school board member. A duplicate study using
information gained from site leaders, including principals and teachers, would
provide additional insight into the effect of key reform strategies used by the
superintendent to increase student achievement.
217
REFERENCES
American Institutes for Research. (2003). California's public schools accountability
act (PSAA): Evaluation findings and implications [Report]. Palo Alto, CA:
American Institutes for Research.
Anderson, S., (2003). The school district role in educational change: A review of the
literature [Electronic Version]. International Center for Educational Change
Working paper #2. http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~icec/workpaper2.pdf
Augustine, C., Gonzalez, G, Ikemoto, G., Russell, J., Zellman, G., et al. (2009).
Improving school leadership: The promise of cohesive leadership systems.
Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Baer, J., Baldi, S., Ayotte, K., Green, P., & McGrath, D. (2007). The reading literacy
of US fourth-grade students in an international context: Results from the
2001 and 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department
of Education.
Banks, P., & Maloney, R. (2007). Changing the subject of your evaluation. School
Administrator, 64(6), 10-14.
Barton, R. (2007). Research brief: What matters at the district level. Northwest
Education, 12(2).
Bausch, P. & Goldring, E. (1995). Parent involvement and school responsiveness:
Facilitating the home-school connection schools of choice. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(1), 1-21.
Bird, J., Wang, C. & Murray, L. (2009). Building budgets and trust through
superintendent leadership. Journal of Education Finance, 35(2).
Bjork, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2005). Learning theory and
research: A framework for changing superintendent preparation and
development. In L. Bjork & T. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary
superintendent: Preparation, practice and development (pp. 71-106).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bjork, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Young, M. D. (2005). National education reform
reports: Implications for professional preparation and development. In L.
Bjork & T. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation,
practice and development (pp. 45-69). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
218
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through
classroom assessment. The Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-144, 146-148.
Blank, M., & Berg, A. (2006). All together now: Sharing responsibility for the whole
child. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Blank, R., de las Alas, N., & Smith, C. (2008). Does teacher professional
development have effects on teaching and learning? Analysis of evaluation
findings from programs for mathematics and science teachers in 14 states.
Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boyd, W., & Crowson, R. (1981). The changing conception and practice of public
school administration. Review of Research in Education, 9(1), 311-373.
The Broad Foundation. (2008). The Broad Superintendents Academy qualitative
project: Phase II. Los Angeles: J. Takata Welsh.
The Broad Foundation & Thomas B. Fordham Institute. (2003). Better leaders for
America's schools: A manifesto. Los Angeles: The Broad Foundation.
The Broad Foundation for Education. (2010). Mission and overview. Accessed
August 11, 2010, at http://www.broadeducation.org/about/overview.html
The Broad Superintendents Academy. (2008). Broad framework for district success.
Los Angeles, CA: J. Takata Welsh.
The Broad Superintendents Academy. (2010). The Broad Superintendents Academy
home page. Accessed March 1, 2010 at http://broadacademy.org/
Bybee, R. (1997). The Sputnik era: Why is this educational reform different from all
other reforms? Paper presented at symposium, Reflecting on Sputnik: Linking
the Past, Present, and Future of Educational Reform, Washington, D.C.
Retrieved June 27, 2009, from http://www.nas.edu/sputnik/bybee.doc
Byrd, J., Drews, C., & Johnson, J. (2006). Factors impacting superintendent
turnover: Lessons from the field. NCPEA Education Leadership Review,
7(2).
219
Caboni, T., & Proper, E. (2009). Re-envisioning the professional doctorate for
educational leadership and higher education leadership: Vanderbilt
University's Peabody College Ed.D. program. Peabody Journal of Education,
84(1), 61-68.
California Department of Education. (2010). Overview of California’s 2009–10
Accountability Progress Reporting System. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/overview10.pdf
Candoli, C., Cullen, K., & Stufflebeam, L. (1997). Superintendent performance
evaluation: Current practice and directions for improvement. Boston:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Carlsmith, L. & Railsback, J. (2001). The power of public relations in schools.
Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate [CPED home]. (2010). Retrieved April
8, 2010 from The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
website: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/education-doctorate
Carr, J. & Harris, D. (2001). Succeeding with standards: Linking curriculum,
assessment, and action planning. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Carr, N. (2009). Leveraging seasons for better PR. The American School Board
Journal, 196(8), 38-39.
Childress, S. (2004). Note on strategy in public education. Public Education
Leadership Project, PEL-011. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School
Publishing.
Childress, S., Elmore, R.F., & Grossman, A. (2005). Promoting a management
revolution in public education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School
and Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Childress, S., Elmore, R. F., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school
districts. Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 1-14.
Childress, S., Elmore, R. F., Grossman, A., & King, C. (2007). Note on the PELP
coherence framework. Public Education Leadership Project, PEL-010.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
220
Chrispeels, J., Gonzales, M., & Edge, K. (2006). Uniting in reform: The power and
importance of bringing all stakeholders to the table. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in San
Francisco, CA.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964).
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Coleman, James S., Ernest Q. Campbell, Carl F. Hobson, James McPartland,
Alexander M. Mood, et al. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity.
Washington: U. S. Office of Education.
Collins, J. (2001). Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve.
Harvard Business Review 79(1), 66-76.
Conley, D., (1993). Strategic planning in practice: An analysis of purposes, goals and
procedures. Paper presented at the American Educational Research
Association (AERA) Annual Meeting in Atlanta, GA.
Cook, W. (2001). Strategic planning for America's schools. Montgomery, AL:
Doubleday Dell.
Cooper, B., Fusarelli, L., Jackson, B., & Poster, J. (2002). Is "Superintendent
Preparation" an oxymoron? Analyzing changes in programs, certification,
and control. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1(3) 242-245.
Corcoran, T., Fuhrman, S., & Belcher, C. (2001). The district role in instructional
improvement. The Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1).
Council of Great City Schools. (2010). Fact sheet. Retrieved June 29, 2010, from
http://cgcs.org/about/statistics.aspx
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Cuban, L. (2001). Leadership for student learning: Urban school leadership -
different in kind and degree. (Essay). School Leadership for the 21st Century
Initiative. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
221
Dailey, D., Fleishman, S., Gil, L., Holtzman, D., O'Day, J., & Vosmer, C. (2005).
Toward more effective school districts: A review of the knowledge base.
Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Dalton, M. H. (2007). Internship and portfolio for superintendent preparation.
National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 24
(4), 1-6.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of
state policy evidence. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the
Study of Teaching and Policy.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Securing the right to learn: Policy and practice for
powerful teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 13-24.
Datnow, A., Park, V. & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-
performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary
students. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Center on
Educational Governance.
Dembo, M., & Marsh, D. (2007). Developing a new Ed.D. program in the Rossier
School of Education at the University of Southern California. Los Angeles:
University of Southern California.
DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. (2009). High-leverage strategies for princpal leadership.
Educational Leadership, 66(5), 62-68.
Duncan, A. (2010). Superintendent prep programs must change. Speech given at the
American Association of School Administrators annual conference.
Washington, DC. 12 Feb. 2010. Retrieved from:
http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2010/02/02122010.html
Eaker, R., DuFour, R., & DuFour, R. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to
become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National
Educational Service.
Eberts, R. (2007). Teachers unions and student performance: Help or hindrance. The
Future of Children, 17(1), 175-200.
EdSource. (2005). Holding school districts accountable. Palo Alto, CA: EdSource.
Education Projects in Education (EPE). (2010). Diplomas count: Graduation By the
numbers. Putting data to work for student success. Education Week, 29(34),
4-5.
222
Eiter, M. (2002). Best practices in leadership development: Lessons from the best
business schools and corporate universities. In M. Tucker & J. Codding
(Eds.), The principal challenge: Leading and managing schools in an era of
accountability (pp. 99-122). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-10.
Elmore, R.F., (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington,
DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R. (2003). Knowing the right thing to do: School improvement and
performance-based accountability. Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best
Practices.
Elmore, R. F. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 6-
10.
Elmore, R. F. (2007). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and
performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.
Epstein, J. (1995). School/Family/Community partnerships: Caring for the children
we share. The Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701-712.
Epstein, J. & Sanders, M. (2002). Family, school, and community partnerships. In
Bornstein, M.H. (ed.), Handbook of Parenting. Vol. 5: Practical Issues in
Parenting (pp. 407-437). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Everson, S. (2009). A professional doctorate in educational leadership: Saint Louis
University's Ed.D. program. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(1), 86-99.
Fan, W. & Williams, C. (2010). The effects of parental involvement on students'
academic self-efficacy, engagement and intrinsic motivation. Educational
Psychology, 30(1), 53-74.
Fullan, M., Bertani, A., & Quinn, J. (2004). New lessons for districtwide reform:
Effective leadership for change at the district level has 10 crucial
components. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 42-46.
Fuller, H., Campbell, C., Celio, M. B., Harvey, J., Immerwahr, J., & Winder, A.
(2003). An impossible job? The view from the urban superintendent’s chair.
Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
223
Garofano, A. and Sable, J. (2008). Characteristics of the 100 largest public
elementary and secondary school districts in the United States: 2005–06,
NCES 2008-339. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
Gates, W. (2005). Keynote Address. Speech given at National Governors
Association 2005 National Education Summit on High Schools. Washington,
D. C., 26 Feb. 2005. Retrieved July 24, 2009, from
http://www.nga.org/cda/files/es05gates.pdf
Ginsburg, A., Cooke, G., Leinwand, S., Noell, J. & Pollock, E. (2005). Reassessing
U.S. international mathematics performance: New findings from the 2003
TIMSS and PISA. American Institutes for Research. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education.
Glass, T. (2006). Preparing and training superintendents for the mission of executive
management. Retrieved from the Connexions Web site:
http:cnx.org/content/m13689/1.1/
Glass, T. (2007). Superintendent evaluation: What AASA's study discovered. School
Administrator, 64(6), 24-26.
Glass, T., Bjork, L., & Brunner, C. (2000). The 2000 study of the American school
superintendency. Arlington, VA: American Association of School
Administrators.
Glass, T. & Franceschini, L. (2007). The state of the American school
superintendency. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Golde, C. (2006). Preparing stewards of the discipline. In C. Golde & G. Walker, G.
(Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of
the discipline. Carnegie essays on the doctorate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Golde, C. (2007). Signature pedagogies in doctoral education: Are they adaptable for
the preparation of education researchers? Educational Researcher, 36(6),
344-351.
Goodman, R. & Zimmerman, W. (2000). Thinking differently: Recommendations for
21st century school board/superintendent leadership, governance, and
teamwork for high student achievement. Arlington, VA: Education Research
Service.
Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., & Laine, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources
on student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66, 361-396.
224
Grogan, M., & Andrews, R. (2002). Defining preparation and professional
development for the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2),
233-256.
Guskey, T. (2009). Closing the knowledge gap on effective professional
development. Educational Horizons, 87(4), 224-233.
Guskey, R., & Yoon, K. (2009). What works in professional development. The Phi
Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495-500.
Guthrie, J. (1996). Reinventing school finance: Alternatives for allocating resources
to individual schools. Selected Papers in School Finance. NCES 98-217.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics.
Haglund, D. (2009). Systemic change and the system leader: A case study of
superintendent action to improve student achievement in a large urban
school district. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional Leadership: How has the model evolved and what
have we learned? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association (Montreal, Canada, April 2005).
Hannaway, J., & Rotherman, A. (2006). Collective bargaining in education:
Negotiating change in today’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.
Hanushek, E. (2003). The failure of input-based schooling policies. The Economic
Journal, 113(485), F64-F98.
Hanushek, E., Kain, J. & Rivkin, S. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. The
Journal of Human Resources, XXXIX(2), 326-354.
Hanushek, E., & Raymond, M. (2004). The effect of school accountability systems
on the level and distribution of student achievement. Journal of the European
Economic Association, 2(2-3), 406-415.
Harvard Graduate School of Education. (2010). Doctor of education leadership
(Ed.L.D.). Retrieved from Harvard Graduate school of Education website:
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/academics/doctorate/edld/index.html
Harvey, J. (2003). The urban superintendent: Creating great schools while surviving
on the job. Orlando, FL: Council of Great City Schools. Retrieved from
www.cgcs.ort/pdfs/UrbanSuptReport.pdf
225
Henderson, A. & Mapp, K. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school,
family, and community connections on student achievement. Annual
synthesis, 2002. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory.
Hess, F. (2003). A license to lead: A new leadership agenda for America's schools.
Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
Hess, F. (2009). Cages of their own design. Educational Leadership, 67(2), 28-33.
Hess, F. & Loup, C. (2008). The leadership limbo: Teacher labor agreements in
America's fifty largest school districts. Dayton, OH: Thomas B. Fordham
Institute.
Hess, F. & West, M. (2006). A better bargain: Overhauling teacher collective
bargaining for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: Program on Education
Policy & Governance.
Hewitt, P. (2007). Bargaining within the school culture. Leadership 36(5), 26-30.
Hill, P. (2008). The school finance redesign project: A synthesis of work to date.
Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Houston, P. (2001). Superintendents for the 21st century: It's not just a job, it's a
calling. The Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 428-433.
Howlett, P. (1993). The politics of school leaders, past and future. The Education
Digest, 58(9), 18-21.
Hoxby, C. (1996). How teachers' unions affect education production. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 111(3), 671-718.
Hoyle, J., & Skrla, L. (1999). The politics of superintendent evaluation. Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(4), 405-419.
Hughes, R. C., & Haney, R. (2002). Professional military education: A serious
enterprise for leaders. In M. Tucker & J. Codding (Eds.), The principal
challenge: Leading and managing schools in an era of accountability (pp.
123-142). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ingram, R. & Snider, B. (2008). An educator's guide to contract negotiations.
Leadership, 37(4), 30-34.
226
Ingram, M., Wolfe, R., & Lieberman, J. (2007). The role of parents in high-
achieving schools serving low-income, at-risk populations. Education and
Urban Society, 39(4), 479-497.
Iver, M.& Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the central
office in improving instruction and student achievement. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University.
Jasparro, R. (2006). Strategic planning: Is it worth the effort? The superintendent's
perspective. E-Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership, 5(1).
Retrieved from: http://www.leadingtoday.org/weleadinlearning/feb06rjj.htm
Jentz. B., & Murphy, J.T. (2005). Starting confused: How leaders start when they
don't know where to start. The Phi Delta Kappan, 86(10), 736-744.
Johnson, S. (1996). Leading to change: The challenges of the new superintendency.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Joyce, B. and Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through professional
development. In B.Joyce and B.Showers (Eds.) Designing training and peer
coaching: our need for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Karathanos, D. & Karathanos, P. (2005). Applying the balanced scorcard to
education. Journal of Education for Business, 80(4), 222-230.
Kerchner, C. & Koppich, J. (2007). Negotiating what matters most: Collective
bargaining and student achievement. American Journal of Education, 113(3),
349-365.
King, M. & Blumer, I. (2000). A good start. The Phi Delta Kappan, 81(5), 356-360.
Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kowalski, T. (2006). Evolution of the school district superintendent position. In L.
Bjork & T. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation,
practice and development (pp. 1-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in
relation to student's academic achievement. Review of Educational Research,
72(2), 229-278.
Lashway, L. (2002). The superintendent in the age of accountability. University of
Oregon: Clearinghouse on Educational Policy Management.
227
Lee, J. & Bowen, N. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the
achievement gap among elementary school children. American Educational
Research Journal, 43(2), 193-218.
Lee, J., Grigg, W., and Donahue, P. (2007). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading
2007, NCES 2007–496. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., and Hopkins, D. (2006).
Successful school leadership: What it is and how it influences pupil learning
p. 800. DfES Research Report , London.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004a). How
leadership influences student learning. Executive summary. (paper
commissioned by the Wallace Foundation). Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004b). How
leadership influences student learning. Review of research. (paper
commissioned by the Wallace Foundation). Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota.
Leithwood, K. & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school
leadership. Philadelphia: Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University.
Levine, A., (2005). Educating school leaders. [Electronic Version]. Washington DC:
The Education Schools Project.
Lippman, L., Burns, S., & McArthur, E. (1996). Urban schools: the challenge of
location and poverty, NCES 96-184. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences.
Locke, L., Silverman, S., & Spirduso, W. (1998). Reading and understanding
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Loss, C. (2009). Building, sustaining, and expanding the educational doctorate at
Peabody College: An administrative view. Peabody Journal of Education,
84(1), 44-47.
Loveless, T. (2000). Conflicting missions? Teachers unions and educational reform.
Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution.
228
Lunenburg, F. & Irby, B. (2002). Parent involvement: A key to student achievement.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Professors
of Educational Administration, Burlington, VT. Education and Urban
Society, 19, 119-136.
Lutkus, A., Grigg, W., and Donahue, P. (2007). The Nation’s Report Card: Trial
Urban District Assessment Reading 2007, NCES 2008-455. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
Institute of Education Sciences.
Marsh, D., & Dembo, M. (2009). Rethinking school leadership programs: The USC
Ed.D. program in perspective. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(1), 69-85.
Marsh, J. (2000). Connecting districts to the policy dialogue: A review of literature
on the relationship of districts with states, schools, and communities. Center
for the Study of Teaching and Policy Working Paper. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington.
Marsh, J. & Robyn, A. (2006). School and district improvement efforts in response
to the No Child Left Behind Act. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Marzano, R., Waters, J., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works; From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Massell, D. (1998). State strategies for building local capacity: Addressing the needs
of standards-based reform (CPRE Policy Briefs, RB-25). Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Maxwell, J.C. (2007). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership. Nashville, TN: Thomas
Nelson, Inc.
McDonnell, L. (2005). No child left behind and the federal role in education:
Evolution or revolution? Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2).
229
McAdams, D. (2006). What school boards can do: Reform governance for urban
schools. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2003). Reforming districts: How districts support
school reform. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the Study
of Policy.
Milanowski, A., Longwell-Grice, H., Saffold, F., Jones, J., Schomisch, K., & Odden,
A. (2009). Recruiting New Teachers to Urban School Districts: What
Incentives Will Work? International Journal of Education Policy and
Leadership, 4(8).
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Miles, K., & Roza, M. (2006). Understanding student-weighted allocation as a means
to greater school resource equity. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(3), 39-
62.
Miller, D.C., Sen, A., Malley, L.B., and Burns, S.D. (2009). Comparative indicators
of education in the United States and other G-8 countries: 2009, NCES 2009-
039. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
Murphy, J., & Vriesenga, M. (2005). Developing professionally anchored
dissertations: Lessons from innovative programs. School Leadership Review,
1(1), 33-57.
Murphy, J., & Vriesenga, M. (2006). Research on school leadership preparation in
the United States: An analysis. School Leadership & Management, 26(2),
183-195.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2010a). NAEP: Overview.
Retrieved July 11, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2010b). NAEP data explorer,
1992 and 2008 long-term trend mathematics and reading assessments.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/lttdata
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office.
230
National School Boards Association. (2010). Key work of school boards. Retrieved
March, 27, 2010, from
http://www.nsba.org/MainMenu/Governance/KeyWork.aspx
National School Boards Foundation. (2001). Improving school board decision
making: The data connection. Alexandria, VA: Author.
National School Public Relations Association. (2002). Raising the bar for school PR:
New standards for the school public relations profession. Rockville, MD:
Author.
Neff, T.J., & Citrin, J.M. (2005). You’re in charge—now what? The 8 point plan.
New York, NY: Crown Publishing Company.
Nestor-Baker, N., & Hoy, W. (2001). Tacit knowledge of school superintendents: Its
nature, meaning, and content. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1),
86-129.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2008).
Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S. & Hedges, L. (2004). Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237-257.
O'Day, J., Bitter, C., Kirst, M., Carnoy, M., Woods, M., Fuller, B., & Ruenzel, D.
(2004). Assessing California's accountability system: Successes, challenges,
and opportunities for improvement. Policy brief 04-2. Berkeley, CA: Policy
Analysis for California Education, PACE.
Ouchi, W. G., Cooper, B. S., & Segal, L. G. (2003). The impact of organization on
the performance of nine school systems: Lessons for California. California
Policy Options. Los Angeles: School of Public Policy and Social Research.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2008).
Education at a glance 2008: OECD indicators. Retrieved July 24, 2009, from
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/16/39245042.xls
Olson, J., Martin, M., & Mullis, I. (2008). TIMMS 2007 technical report. Boston:
TIMMS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education,
Boston College.
Park, V. & Datnow, A. (2009). Co-constructing distributed leadership: District and
school connections in data-driven decision-making. School Leadership and
Management, 29(5), 477-494.
231
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes
professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum
implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.
Perie, M., Marion, S., Gong, B. (2007). A framework for considering interim
assessments. National Center for the Improvement of Educational
Assessment. Dover, NH: NCIEA.
Perie, M., Moran, R., & Lutkus, A.D. (2005). NAEP 2004 trends in academic
progress: Three decades of student performance in reading and mathematics.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
Plecki, M., Knapp, M., Castaneda, T., Halverson, T., LaSota, R., & Lochmiller, C.
(2009). How leaders invest staffing resources for learning improvement.
Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Program for International Student Assessment. (2010). Overview. Retrieved July 11,
2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/
Provasnik, S., Gonzalez, P., & Miller, D. (2009). U.S. performance across
international assessments of student achievement: Special supplement to the
condition of education 2009. NCES 2009-083. Jessup, MD: National Center
for Education Statistics.
Quinn, T. (2007). Preparing non-educators for the superintendency. School
Administrator, 64 (7), 22-29.
Reeves, D. (1998). Holding principals accountable. School Administrator, 55(9), 6-9.
Reeves, D. (2000). Accountability in action. Denver, CO: Advanced Learning Press.
Reeves, D. (2002). The daily disciplines of leadership: How to improve student
achievement, staff motivation, and personal organization. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Reeves, D. (2003). High performance in high poverty schools: 90/90/90 and beyond.
Center for Performance Assessment. Retrieved August 21, 2009, from
http://eastgarneres.wcpss.net/highperformance909090.pdf
232
Reeves, D. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build
commitment, and get results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Resnick, L. B., & Glennan, J., Jr. (2002). Leadership for learning: A theory of action
for urban school districts. In A. M. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. A. Marsh,&
M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp.
160-172). New York: Teachers College Press.
Rice, D., Delagardelle, M., Buckton, M. Jons, C., Lueders, W., Vens, M. J., et al.
(2000). The lighthouse inquiry: School board/superintendent team behaviors
in school districts with extreme differences in student achievement. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association (Seattle, WA, April, 2001).
Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.
Saint Louis University (SLU), College of Education and Public Service, Department
of Educational Leadership and Higher Education. (2010). Graduate student
handbook 2008-2010. St. Louis, MO: Author.
Schmoker, M. (2004). Tipping point: From feckless reform to substantive
instructional improvement. The Phi Delta Kappan, 85(6), 424-432.
Scott, E. & Cantor, J. (1996). Gotta tell somebody. Thrust for Educational
Leadership, 26, 38-41.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday Dell.
Shannon, G. S., & Bylsma, P. (2004). Characteristics of improved school districts:
Themes from research. Olympia, WA: Office of Superintendent of Public
Instruction.
Shatkin, G. & Gershberg, A. (2007). Empowering parents and building communities:
The role of school-based councils in educational governance and
accountability. Urban Education, 42(5), 582-615.
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3),
52–59.
Shulman, L., Golde, C., Bueschel, A., & Garabedian, K. (2006). Reclaiming
education's doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher,
35(3), 25-32.
233
Smrekar, C., & McGraner, K. (2009). From curricular alignment to the culminating
project: The Peabody College of Ed.D. capstone. Peabody Journal of
Education, 84(1), 48-60.
Southeast Missouri State University (SMSU). (2010). Specialist in educational
administration. Accessed May 15, 2010 at
http://www2.semo.edu/gradschool/gradbulletin/apr03/aprhtmlfiles/Specialist'
s%20Degreeframe6.html#1036807
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional
learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational
Change, 7, 221-258.
Stronge, J., Ward, T., Tucker, P. & Hindman, J. (2007). What is the relationship
between teacher quality and student achievement? An exploratory study.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20, 165-184.
Takata, J., Marsh, D., & Castruita, R. (2007). The Broad Superintendents Academy
qualitative project: Final report. Los Angeles: The Broad Foundation.
Task Force on School District Leadership. (2001). Leadership for student learning:
restructuring school district leadership. Washington, DC: Institute for
Educational Leadership.
Thomas, J. (2001). The public school superintendency in the twenty-first century:
The quest to define effective leadership. CRESPAR Report #55. Baltimore,
MD and Washington, DC: Center for Research on the Education of Students
Placed at Risk.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts
can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington,
DC: The Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. (2005). Quality curriculum and instruction for highly able students.
Theory into Practice, 44(2), 160-166.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). What works clearinghouse. U.S. Department
of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved April 5, 2010, from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/aboutus/
234
Vanneman, A., Hamilton, L., Anderson, J., Baldwin, J., & Rahman, R. (2009).
Achievement Gaps: How black and white students in public schools perform
in mathematics on the National Assessment of Educational Programs.
Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2009-455. Jessup, MD: National Center
for Education Statistics.
Walker, G., Golde, C., Jones, L., Bueschel, A., & Hutchings, P. (2008). The
formation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first
century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Waters, T., & Cameron, G. (2007). The balanced leadership framework: Connecting
vision with action. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and
Learning.
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The
effect of superintendent leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO:
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30
years of research tell us about the effect of leadership on student
achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and
Learning.
Watkins, M. (2003). The first 90 days: Critical success strategies for new leaders at
all levels. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
West, D., Whitehurst, G. & Dionne, E. (2009). Invisible: 1.4 percent coverage for
education news is not enough. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Whitehurst, G. (2009). Don't forget curriculum. In Brown Centers Letters on
Education, (#3). Retrieved from The Brookings Institution website:
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/1014_curriculum_whitehurst.aspx
Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., et al. (2005). Similar students, different results:
Why do some schools do better? A large-scale survey of California
elementary schools serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA:
EdSource.
Williams, T., Kirst, M. Haertel, E. et al. (2010). Gaining ground in the middle
grades: Why some schools do better. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
Wong, H. K. (2004). Induction programs that keep new teachers teaching and
improving. NASSP Bulletin, 88(684), 41-58.
235
Yoon, K., Duncan, T., Lee, W., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the
evidence on how teacher professional development affects student
achievement. Issues and Answers Report, REL 2007 – No. 033. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional
Educational Laboratory Southwest.
Young, M. (2006). From the director: The M.Ed. and Ph.D. in educational
leadership. UCEA Review, XLV(2), 6-9.
Zavadsky, H. (2009). Bringing school reform to scale. Boston: Harvard Education
Press.
236
APPENDIX A
Superintendent Interview Guide – DAY 1
Please log: Name, data/time of interview, contact information, documents to be
obtained after the interview, part of the interview guide that were not fully covered
and digital tape location.
Q# Question RQ:

1

Describe the overall status of the district when you assumed your
position as Superintendent?

What were the major strengths of the district? (ask for 3 most
salient)

What were the major challenges facing the district? (ask for 3
most salient)

What was the overall academic profile of the district?

1a

1a

1a

1a

2

Considering the context of the district when you arrived, what
strategies did you use to improve the overall condition of the district?

What specific strategies did you employ to improve student
achievement within your district?

Which participants were significantly involved in these
strategies?

How would you describe the level of implementation you
have achieved for each strategy used?

1a/b

1a/b

1a/b

1a/b

237
APPENDIX A, Continued
Superintendent Interview Guide – DAY 2
Q# Question RQ:

3

Please describe key aspects of your previous background/
experience
(Probe: Rate top 3 experiences in terms of importance)

How did your preparation and experience help you to select and
implement appropriate reform strategies designed to improve
student achievement?
(Probe: TBA experience, non-TBA experience, K-12 background,
degree programs, work experience, etc.)

1c

1a/b/c

4

Please rate your previous professional experience with the
following reform strategies [On a scale from 1 = Low to
5 = Extensive].
(Reform Strategies: Strategic Plan, Assessment, Curriculum,
Professional Development, HR System and Human Capital
Management, Finance and Budget, Communications, Governance
and Board Relations, Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations, and
Family and Community Engagement)
(Probe: Identify her/his rationale for each rating)

1c

238
APPENDIX B
Key Player Interview Guide
Please log: Name, title, data/time of interview, contact information, documents to be
obtained after the interview, part of the interview guide that were not fully covered
and digital tape location.
Q# Question RQ:

1

Describe the overall status of the district when the Superintendent
arrived (or when the key player arrived if after the Superintendent)?

What were the major strengths of the district? (ask for 3 most
salient)

What were the major challenges facing the district? (ask for 3
most salient)

What was the overall academic profile of the district?

1a

1a

1a

1a

2

Considering the context of the district, what strategies did the
Superintendent use to improve the overall condition of the district?

What specific strategies did the Superintendent employ to
improve student achievement within the district?

What was your involvement in these strategies?

How would you describe the level of implementation
achieved for each of the reform strategies used?

(Note: Request documents mentioned).

1b

1b

1b

1b

239
APPENDIX C
Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide
Please log: Names, titles, data/time of interview, contact information, documents to
be obtained after the interview, parts of the interview guide that were not fully
covered and digital tape location.
Q# Question

1

In this whole discussion, we want to focus directly on (the specific
dimension)

What is your district currently doing with regard (name the
dimension)? What has been the superintendent’s specific strategies
regarding this dimension?

Is your current strategy at all linked to improving student
achievement—please explain?

What has been your success in getting your current reform in this
dimension actually implemented and what challenges do you now
face in this regard?

How does your current effort for this dimension differ from what you
were doing prior to when the current superintendent came to this
district?

For your prior approach, to what extent was that approach fully
implemented?
240
APPENDIX C, Continued
Specific Dimensions of Reform (Probes) Interview Guide
Questions
Strategic Plan:

What is your district currently doing with regard to (name the dimension)? What
has been the superintendent’s specific strategies regarding this dimension?

Is your current strategy at all linked to improving student achievement—please
explain?

What has been your success in getting your current reform in this dimension
actually implemented and what challenges do you now face in this regard?

Assessment:

What strategies or, does your district have in place in regards to summative and
formative assessment to improve student performance?

What assessment practices are carried out both at the district-level and school-site
level to improve student achievement?

How does your district ensure that assessment policies and practices are carried
out throughout the district?

241
APPENDIX C, Continued
Specific Dimensions of Reform (Probes) Interview Guide (continued)
Questions
Curriculum:

What steps does the district take to ensure that the curriculum provides all
students with opportunities to access content and learning standards, (e.g., under-
performing students, students with disabilities, and English Language Learners)?

What steps does the district take to ensure fidelity of implementation of the
curriculum across all schools and classrooms?

What steps does the district take to review and update the curriculum and adopted
materials for alignment to learning standards and student learning needs?
Professional Development:

Describe how the district’s professional development plan includes emphasis on
improving student achievement, building teacher effectiveness, maintaining high
standards, and promoting continuous learning to enhance intellectual and
leadership capacity?

How are resources specifically designated and available to support the district's
professional development plan?

To what extent does the district's organizational structure and policies ensure the
implementation, evaluation, and monitoring of the professional development
plan?

242
APPENDIX C, Continued
Specific Dimensions of Reform (Probes) Interview Guide (continued)
Questions
HR System and Human Capital Management:

What structures are in place to support the recruitment, selection, and placement
of new teachers and administrators?

What district policies and practices are in place to ensure teachers and
administrators build collective capacity to understand and respond to student
achievement data?

How are incentives used to attract and retain highly qualified teachers and strong
administrators for hard to staff schools?
Finance and Budget:

Prior to the superintendent’s tenure, did the districts mission, vision, and value
statements align resources to the districts instructional goals and priorities?

Describe the process used to create an organizational culture which includes all
stakeholders in the development of district-wide budget and spending priorities?

What effective controls are in place to ensure the district’s resources are managed
properly, including financial reports for fiscal management and decision-making?

243
APPENDIX C, Continued
Specific Dimensions of Reform (Probes) Interview Guide (continued)
Questions
Communications:

What structures are in place to support communication of the district's vision to
the key stakeholder groups: (e.g., students, staff, and community members)?

What district policies and practices are in place to ensure district personnel build
collective capacity to "tell the story" concerning policies, activities, and events
employed to improve student achievement?

How is the communication plan used to inform the community of district interests
and activities?
Governance and Board Relations:

Describe how the districts’ vision, mission, value, and priorities are focused on
the achievement and needs of all students providing a coherent "road map" to
success?

What procedures are in place and guide how the governance team
(superintendent/board members) works together to establish systems and
processes to monitor student achievement while communicating the information
to the larger community?

What district-wide policies, culture and practices are currently utilized which
reflect a commitment to implementing systemic reform, innovative leadership,
and high expectations to improve student learning and achievement?

244
APPENDIX C, Continued
Specific Dimensions of Reform (Probes) Interview Guide (continued)
Questions
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations:

What processes are in place to build trust, foster relationships and ensure open
communication between the District and labor union negotiating teams?

What are the procedures for establishing principles and objectives for the
negotiating process?

What strategies are employed by the negotiating teams to ensure accountability
and fair and equitable outcomes for the District’s employees?
Family and Community Engagement:

How does the district support capacity building and encourage parents and
community members to participate in governance and advisory roles?

Please describe the district’s process for gathering information about
parent/community needs related to supporting their children’s education and how
the district responds to this information?

What kind of training or support is provided to administrators, teachers, and other
school staff in working with parents as equal partners in student academic
achievement?

245
APPENDIX D
Quality Rubric - Strategic Plan
Definition: The strategic plan defines the district’s vision, mission, and goals. It also assigns the
performance indicators and work plans to each of the districts goals and serves as the guiding
document for the district decisions and priorities.

Components High (5) Moderate (3) Low (1)
Vision

The district’s vision is
well articulated in the
strategic plan. It expresses
the ethical code,
overriding convictions,
and the moral convictions
of the district

The vision represents the
personal values of those
vested in the organization
and is easily understood

The district’s vision is
somewhat articulated in
the strategic plan. To
some extent it expresses
the ethical code,
overriding convictions,
and the moral convictions
of the district

Vision somewhat
represents the personal
values of those vested in
the organization and is
moderately understood

The district’s vision is not
articulated in the strategic
plan. It does not express
the ethical code,
overriding convictions,
and moral convictions of
the district

Vision does not represent
the personal values of
those vested in the
organization and is not
easily understood
Mission

The mission statement is a
clear and concise
expression of the district’s
identity, purpose, and
means

The mission statement is a
bold declaration of what
the district will be and is
known and understood by
most in the district

The mission statement is
somewhat an expression
of the district’s identity,
purpose and means

The mission statement
somewhat states what the
organization will be and
is known and understood
by some in the
organization

The mission statement is
a not clear and lacks
concise expression of the
district’s identity, purpose
and means

The mission statement, to
a limited extent, is
declaration of what the
organization will be. It
understood by few people
in the organization
Objectives
(Goals)

Objectives clearly commit
to achieve specific,
measurable results

Objectives are very
closely aligned with the
mission statement and
they are district objectives
that are measurable and
observable

Objectives moderately
commit to achieve
specific, measurable
results

Some objectives are
aligned with the mission
statement; they are
district objectives
moderately measurable
and observable

Limited commitment to
achieve specific,
measurable results

Few objectives are
aligned with the mission
statement and few are
district objectives that are
measurable,
demonstrated, and
observable
Strategies

Full commitment to
deploy any and all of the
districts resources-people,
facilities, equipment and
funding- to execute the
strategies to meet
objectives is clearly
articulated

The strategies strongly
indicate the districts
priorities and standards

Some commitment to
deploy districts
resources-people,
facilities, equipment and
funding- to execute the
strategies to meet
objectives

The strategies indicate
moderate commitment to
the districts priorities and
standards

Limited commitment to
deploy districts
resources-people,
facilities, equipment and
funding- to execute the
strategies to meet
objectives

Few strategies indicates
the districts priorities and
standards

246
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric - Strategic Plan (continued)
Components High (5) Moderate (3) Low (1)
Action Plan

Specific reference to the
strategy it supports

States the objective of the
action plan itself

Has a detailed description
of each step required to
complete the plan.

Indicates assignments and
responsibilities

Includes a timeline for
plan

Some reference to the
strategy it supports

States some of the
objectives of the action
plan

Has some description of
steps required to complete
the plan.

Indicates some
assignments and
responsibilities

Includes some timeline for
plan

Limited reference to the
strategy it supports

Objective of the action
plan not clearly stated

Has a little description
steps required to complete
the plan

Indicates few assignments
and responsibilities

Timeline for plan very
limited
Theory of
Action

Superintendent has a
written “theory of action”
that clearly articulates
structure; specifies what is
tightly managed and what
decisions should be left to
school leaders

It is aligned with district
context, capacity, &
system leader’s beliefs

Superintendent has a
“theory of action” that
loosely articulates what is
managed by district and
what decisions should be
left to school leaders

It is loosely aligned with
district context, capacity,
& system’s beliefs

Superintendent does not
have a “theory of action.”
What is managed by
district and decisions
school leaders

It is aligned with district
context, capacity, & sups.
belief system
Data
Dashboard

District has clearly
identified several key
indicators that give
district’s pulse

Indicators are aligned with
district’s strategic plan;
accountability plan assigns
responsibility for
achieving district goals to
specific people/depts.

District has some
indicators that give
district’s pulse

Indicators somewhat
aligned with strategic
plan; accountability plan
assigns some
responsibility for district
goals to specific
people/depts.

District has few indicators
that give district’s pulse

Indicators not aligned with
district’s strategic plan;
accountability and
responsibility for
achieving district goals not
clearly defined

247
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Assessment
Definition: Assessment activities enable districts to know whether students are learning what they
are supposed to learn (i.e., the standards). Common, regularly-scheduled district-wide assessments
should connect directly with standards, curriculum, pacing guides, and professional development.

Components High (5) Moderate (3) Low (1)
Summative
Assessments

Full district-wide
implementation of state
standardized
assessments.

Full compliance to state
and federal (NCLB)
requirements.

Moderate
implementation of state
standardized
assessments.

Compliance to state and
federal (NCLB)
requirements.

Low district-wide
implementation of state
standardized
assessments

Low or no compliance
to state and federal
(NCLB) requirements.
Formative
Assessments

District-wide use of
standards-based
common benchmark and
curriculum-embedded
assessments.

Common rubrics to
review student work.

Assessment schedule
and pacing guides
developed and utilized.

Moderate district-wide
use of common
benchmark assessments.

Some common rubrics to
review student work.

Assessment schedule
and pacing guides
developed.

Low or no district-wide
use of formative
assessments.

Low or no use of
common rubrics to
review student work.

No or unclear
assessment schedule
and/or pacing guides.
Data Management,
Information, and
Reporting
System/Technology

District-wide (Internet-
based) infrastructure
system for assessment
data collection,
management, and
reporting.

Data collection every 6-
8 weeks.

Easy system for
entry/retrieval of
assessment data and
results/reports.

User friendly data
reports.

District/school staff
technology trained,
supported and proficient.

Moderate infrastructure
for assessment data
collection, management,
and/or reporting.

Periodic data collection.

System for
entry/retrieval of
assessment data and
reports.

District/school staff
technology trained.

Low or no infrastructure
for assessment data
collection, management,
or reporting.

Low or no periodic data
collection.

Limited or no
district/school staff
technology trained,
supported or proficient.

248
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Assessment (continued)

Component High (5) Moderate (3) Low (1)
Analysis,
Interpretation
and
Utilization of
Assessment
Data

District-wide analysis,
interpretation, and
utilization of assessment
data to improve
instructional practices,
decision-making, and
support for learning.

Meaningful feedback to
identify areas of focus and
needs for student mastery
of standards.

District-wide schedule for
data analysis to plan and
improve curriculum,
instruction, and student
achievement.

Moderate district-wide
analysis, interpretation
and/or utilization of
assessment data.

Moderate feedback to
identify areas of focus and
student needs.

Intermittent schedule for
data analysis.

Low or no district-wide
analysis, interpretation or
utilization of assessment
data.

Limited or no schedule for
data analysis.
Professional
Development
(PD)

District-wide plan to
ensure all district/school
staff have knowledge and
receive support in:

District-wide assessments
(summative and
formative)

Effective utilization of
data
management/reporting
system

Analysis/interpretation of
assessment data, student
achievement and meeting
of standards

Collaborative data teams
to analyze/interpret data
and design next steps
improve instruction and
student performance
aligned to proficiency of
standards.

Moderate district-wide
plan for district/school
staff to receive training
and support in:

District-wide assessments

Utilization of data
management/ reporting
system

Analysis/interpretation of
student assessment data
and student achievement

Limited or no district-
wide plan for
district/school staffs to
receive PD and support on
district-wide assessments.

Limited or no PD for the
utilization of data
management/reporting
system.

Limited or no PD for the
analysis/interpretation of
student assessment data.
Fiscal
Support and
Resources

District-wide fiscal
policies and resources
support systematic
assessment plan and
implementation aligned to
state and federal
accountability measures
for student performance.

Fiscal resource allocation
and policies support
district-wide assessment
plan.

Limited or no district-
wide fiscal policies and
resources in support of
systematic assessment
plan and/or
implementation.

249
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Curriculum

Definition: Curriculum refers to the materials used to teach. Classroom materials (e.g., textbooks,
worksheets, pacing guides, etc.) should address the scope and sequence of the district’s learning
standards.

Components High (5) Moderate (3) Low (1)
Alignment to
Learning
Standards &
Assessments

The district has adopted
and implemented a
curriculum that is based
upon content standards
and frameworks, and is
aligned to required
assessments of learning

The district curriculum
contains all of the
essential knowledge and
skills students need master
the state and district
learning standards

The district provides
pacing plans in all content
areas that assist teachers
in delivering the required
content during the
academic year, aligned to
periodic assessments of
student learning

The district has an adopted
curriculum that is based
upon content standards and
frameworks, and is partially
aligned to required
assessments of student
learning

The district curriculum
contains some of the
essential knowledge and
skills students need master
state and district learning
standards

The district provides pacing
plans in some content areas
that assist teachers in
delivering the required
content during the academic
year

The district does not have
has an adopted curriculum
that is based upon content
standards and frameworks,
or aligned to required
assessments of student
learning

The district curriculum
contains little of the
essential knowledge and
skills students need master
state and district learning
standards

The district does not
provide pacing plans that
assist teachers in delivering
the required content during
the academic year

Equal Access to
Learning
Standards

The district curriculum
optimizes all students’
opportunities to access
content and learning
standards, including
under-performing
students, students with
disabilities, and ELs

The district curriculum
provides many students
with opportunities to access
content and learning
standards

The district curriculum
provides few students with
opportunities to access
content and learning
standards
Fidelity in
Implementation

The district communicates
the required curriculum
clearly and systematically
with all stakeholders,
especially site
administrators, teachers,
students, and parents

The district provides
adequate funding for
schools to support
professional development
and full implementation of
the curriculum

The district demonstrates
a systemic commitment to
long-term implementation
of the curriculum

The district communicates
the required curriculum
with site administrators, and
teachers

The district provides some
funding for schools to
support professional
development and
implementation of the
curriculum

The district demonstrates
some commitment to long-
term implementation of the
curriculum

The district does not fully
communicate the required
curriculum to site
administrators, teachers, or
other stakeholders

The district provides little or
inadequate funding for
schools to support
professional development
and implementation of the
curriculum

The district demonstrates
little or no commitment to
long-term implementation
of the curriculum
250
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Curriculum (continued)

Components High (5) Moderate (3) Low (1)
Sufficiency of
and
Appropriateness
of Materials

The district provides
sufficient instructional
textbooks and
curricular materials
(including intervention
materials) for all
students.

The district provides all
schools with abundant
supplemental materials
to support and enhance
implementation of the
curriculum in all
subject areas.

The district provides
curricular materials are
appropriate for and
culturally relevant to all
students

The district provides
instructional textbooks and
curricular materials for all
students.

The district provides
schools with some
supplemental materials to
support implementation of
the curriculum in some
subject areas.

The district provides
curricular materials are
appropriate for and
culturally relevant to many
students

The district does not
provide sufficient
instructional textbooks and
curricular materials for all
students.

The district provides
schools with few or no
supplemental materials to
support implementation of
the curriculum.

The district provides
curricular materials are
appropriate for and
culturally relevant to some
students
Clear and
Regular
Procedures to
Review and
Update the
Curriculum

There is a system in
place that provides for
regular review of the
adopted materials for
core subjects by district
and site administrators
and teachers to verify
alignment and universal
access

There is a system in
place that provides for
district and site
administrators and
teachers to adapt
materials to ensure
alignment and access

There is a system in
place that provides for
District and site
administrators and
teachers to use
assessment results to
determine what
materials are needed to
supplement the adopted
curriculum to ensure
that all key standards
are mastered.

Key staff members
periodically review the
adopted materials for core
subjects to verify
alignment

Key staff members
periodically adapt
materials to ensure
alignment and access

Key staff members
periodically use
assessment results to
determine what materials
are needed to ensure that
all key standards are
mastered.

Some district staff
members may
occasionally review the
adopted materials for core
subjects to verify
alignment

Some district staff
members may
occasionally adapt
materials to ensure
alignment and access

Some district staff
members may
occasionally use
assessment results to
determine what materials
are needed to ensure that
key standards are
mastered.

251
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Professional Development

Definition: Professional development is any program or course intended to improve teachers’ or
principals’ effectiveness. It may center on content (e.g., teaching about force in physics instructional
techniques (e.g., Cornell note-taking), leadership (e.g., workshop for principals and assist principals),
or habits (e.g., collaboration among teachers in the same grade-level/subject matter). In many
districts, professional development topics are arbitrarily chosen. Successful districts have an
integrated professional development strategy that centers on enabling teachers to detect when students
aren’t meeting a certain standards and to adjust their instruction accordingly, or enables principals and
teachers to improve their knowledge and skills in areas of district focus.

Component High (5) Moderate (3) Low (1)
Designing
Professional
Development

LEA includes budgeted,
coherent PD activities that
reflect the best available
research-based strategies for
improved student achieve-
ment and focus on standards-
based content knowledge.
PD supports the district’s
long-term plan and goals.
Plan includes needs
assessment process, goals of
PD include the following:
improving all students’ learn-
ing, improving teacher
effectiveness, setting high
standards for teachers,
promoting continuous staff
learning, and enhancing staff
intellectual and leadership
capacity.
Resources are designated
and available to support PD
plan and specific personnel
stay abreast of and in-
corporate best practices into
teaching, learning, and
leadership.
LEA includes PD activities
but they do not reflect the best
available research-based
strategies and may focus on
standards-based content
knowledge.
PD minimally supports the
district’s long-term plan.
Plan may include a needs
assessment process may
include two or less of the
following: improving all
students’ learning, improving
teacher effectiveness, setting
high standards for teachers,
promoting continuous staff
learning, and enhancing staff
intellectual and leadership
capacity.
Resources are available to
support PD plan and few
personnel stay abreast of best
practices.
The LEA has little or no
connection to PD activities
which do not necessarily
focus on standards-based
content knowledge.
PD plan is not in alignment
with district’s long-term plan.
The plan does not include a
needs assessment process and
goals of PD include one or
none of the following:
improving all students’
learning, improving teacher
effectiveness, setting high
standards for teachers,
promoting continuous staff
learning, and enhancing staff
intellectual and leadership
capacity.
Minimal resources are
available to support PD plan
and little or not effort has
been made to identify
personnel stay abreast of best
practices in teaching, learning,
and leadership.
Implementing
Professional
Development

LEA’s organizational
structures and policies support
the implementation of PD
activities on the individual,
collegial, and organizational
levels.
PD is integral to the district
culture and promotes inquiry.
PD plan includes “coaching
model” and all staff receives
coaching support.
LEA ensures that resources
remain available to organize
and implement PD.
Most LEA’s organizational
structures and policies support
the implementation of PD.
PD is inconsistent across
the district and may promote
inquiry and improvement.
Plan includes the “coaching
model” and participation is
sporadic.
Some resources are
available to support PD.
Minimal number of the
organizational structures and
policies support the
implementation of PD.
PD is disconnected to
classroom practices and does
not support and promote
teacher effectiveness in the
classroom.
Plan does not include
“coaching model.”
Minimal resources are
available to support PD.
252
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Professional Development (continued)

Component High (5) Moderate (3) Low (1)
Evaluating
and
Improving
Professional
Development

LEA uses PD design
goals to determine
evaluation measures and
standards for success.
Personnel for collecting,
analyzing, and reporting
data and for facilitating the
“PD next steps” decisions
are clarified.
Evaluation findings are
used to make improvements
in PD plan and criteria
include: 1) improved
teaching, improved student
learning, 3) narrowing of
student achievement gaps.
LEA has a process for
monitoring and documenting
the alignment of the school
improvement plan(s),
professional development
activities, and teacher and
student outcomes.
LEA has a plan to
determine PD evaluation
measures but lacks clarity
and specifics as to what
measures will be used as
standards for success.
Minimal personnel are
selected for collecting,
analyzing, and reporting
data and developing next
steps (lacks depth).
Evaluation findings exist
but are not used to make
improvements in PD plan.
Lack of alignment in the
school improvement plan(s),
PD activities, and teacher
and student outcomes.

Little or no connection
between PD design goals
and evaluation process.
Personnel have not been
identified to collect and
analyze data.
Little or no connection
between evaluation findings
of make improvements in
PD plan.
The process for
monitoring and
documentation of the school
improvement plan(s) exists
but lacks alignment between
PD activities, and teacher
and student outcomes.
Sharing
Professional
Development
Learning

LEA has a plan to
document professional
development learning
(challenges and successes)
changes in order to sustain
excellence when major
changes in personnel occur.
Records are kept to guide
future PD decisions.
Implementation materials
are organized and available
to serve as models of
effective practice. This
strategy is essential for
keeping staff,
administrators, parents,
students, and community
moving in the same
direction.
LEA has moderate
documentation of PD
learning (challenges and
successes).
Records are kept.
Some implementation
materials are organized and
available to others to serve
as models of effective
practices. Therefore, most
of the staff, administrators,
parents, students, and
community all moving in the
same direction.
LEA lacks documentation
of PD challenges and
successes.
Few or no records are
kept to guide future PD
decisions.
Little or lack of evidence
to support that
implementation materials
are organized and available
to others to serve as models
of effective practices.

253
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – HR System and Human Capital Management

Definition: Research indicates that teacher quality is perhaps the primary influence on student
achievement, yet many districts do a poor job of attracting, selecting, and managing talent, whether at
the teacher, principal, or central office level. Improving the recruiting and hiring processes for
teachers and principals, developing attractive compensation packages, and processing applications
and payments quickly—which a good HR system should be able to do—can greatly improve the
quality of instruction in schools and classrooms across the district. Districts then need to develop
clever support and retention strategies to keep talent in the district. Most importantly, districts can
proactively improve their capacity for providing a quality education by examining and refining their
selection process.

Component High (5) Moderate (3) Low (1)
Recruitment,
Selection and
Placement of
New
Administrators

Achievement data,
demographics, staffing,
and culture of the district
are used to define
qualities of new
administrators

District program in place
to recruit outstanding
teachers as administrators

Achievement data,
demographics, staffing,
and culture of each school
are used to develop a
customized set of required
principal skills at all sites

Strongest principal
leaders are placed at the
most underperforming
schools

Some criteria are used
when identifying potential
school leaders during the
administrator hiring
process

Informal referral process
is in place to encourage
in-house recruitment

Placement of principals is
determined by district
personnel

Strong principals are
encouraged to take on
underperforming schools

Hiring decisions have
little to no connection to
student achievement

In-house recruitment
program is nonexistent or
inconsequential

Placement is driven by
availability or other
criteria

Performance of school is
not considered in
placement
Recruitment of
Highly
Qualified
Teachers

Quarterly report to
community regarding the
percentage of classes with
highly qualified teachers
(HQT)

Compensation incentives
are used to recruit HQTs

District and employee
organizations work
collaboratively to recruit
HQTs from high-
performing schools to
teach in underperforming
schools within the district

Annual HQT reporting is
completed as required by
law

Incentives limited to few
curricular areas or special
circumstances

Strong effort made by
district, without union
support, to encourage
HQTs from high-
performing schools to
teach in underperforming
schools

No reporting policy in
place or inconsistent
reporting to community

No incentive policy in
place to support
recruitment of HQTs

No or inconsistent efforts
to recruit HQTs from high
performing schools to
teach in underperforming
schools in the district

254
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – HR System and Human Capital Management (continued)

Component High (5) Moderate (3) Low (1)
Teacher
Support and
Development

All teachers have access
to ongoing PD that is
targeted at district
achievement goals and
delivery of standards-
aligned curriculum,
instruction, and
assessment

District has established a
new teacher support
system the promotes high-
quality support and
resources

PD activities are strongly
tied to board-adopted
district goals and
objectives

District collects data to
measure the effectiveness
of PD as it related to
improved student
achievement

Some teachers have
access to ongoing PD that
is targeted at district goals
and delivery of a
standards-aligned
curriculum and instruction
program

District provides some
site-level support for new
teachers through formal
and informal processes

PD activities are generally
supportive of district goals
and objectives

Teachers are encouraged
to measure the
effectiveness of PD as
related to student
achievement

There exists little
evidence that PD activities
are tied to district
achievement goals or
specific curriculum
objectives

New teachers receive the
majority of support
through university teacher
preparation programs

No evidence of ties
between PD and district
goals and objectives

No effort is made by the
district to measure the
effectiveness of PD or
impact on student
achievement
Salaries,
Wages, and
Benefits

District and employee
organizations work
collaboratively to ensure
salaries, wages, and
benefits are sufficiently
competitive to attract and
retain highly qualified
teachers (HQT) with an
emphasis on math,
language arts, reading,
and teaching ELs

District conducts quarterly
analyses of recruitment
and retention data

The district has negotiated
competitive salaries,
wages, and benefits as
compared to surrounding
school districts

District conducts annual
analyses of recruitment
and retention data

No evidence suggests a
collaborative effort on the
part of the district and
employee organizations to
attract and retain HQTs in
math, language arts,
reading, and teaching ELs

No evidence suggests
analysis plans exist in the
district
Use of
Incentives

Compensation incentives
are used to recruit highly
qualified teachers (HQT)
and administrators to
work in hard-to-staff
schools

Incentives include: extra
compensation,
opportunities for
collaboration, reduced
class size, and recognition
programs

Compensation incentives
are used to recruit HQTs
in certain content areas at
hard to staff and/or
underperforming schools

Limited monetary and
non-monetary incentives
in use by the district to
attract and retain HQTs
and strong administrators

Compensation incentives
are not used to attract
HQTs / administrators to
hard to staff and/or
underperforming schools

Incentives are not in place
or in use to attract and
retain HQTs and/or strong
administrators

255
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric - Finance & Budget Rubric

Definition: While student achievement is the ultimate bottom line, more superintendents are fired for
poor financial management than for poor student achievement results. In addition to ensuring that
their budget is balanced and sustainable, superintendents should closely align their budget with
instructional priorities. Some districts have adopted innovative budgeting approaches such as “zero-
based budgeting” and weighted student funding to bring their budgets into closer alignment with their
priorities.

Component High (5) Moderate (3) Low (1)
Strategic
Budget
Planning

Strategic plan is linked to
the superintendent’s goals
and priorities, incorporates
measurable objectives and
outcomes, and is used as
the basis of budget
planning.

The budget is closely
aligned to the district’s
mission, goals, and
operational activities and
identifies who is
accountable
organizationally for
specified outcomes.

School budget is explicitly
tied to the district’s
instructional goals and
priorities.

Changes in district
priorities are reflected in
the budget in a timely
fashion.

Fiscal team understands
the districts past fiscal
issues, problems,
challenges, and
accomplishments in order
to gain perspective on
how to guide the district in
the future.

District goals and
priorities, outlined in the
strategic plan, are found in
budget priorities, but the
links between the strategic
plan and the budget
process are not evident.

There is some evidence of
the district’s instructional
goals and priorities in the
budget.

Changes in district
priorities are reflected in
the budget, but not in time
to make meaningful
decisions.

The budget is somewhat
aligned to the district’s
mission, goals, and
operational activities but
organizational
accountability is not clear.

The district’s past fiscal
issues, problems,
challenges, and
accomplishments are not
considered in planning
process.

Strategic plan is not
referenced in budget
planning.

Changes in district
priorities are not reflected
in the budget.

The budget is not
understood by
stakeholders.

Fiscal team has no
historical perspective of
past fiscal issues.

256
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric - Finance & Budget Rubric (continued)

Components High (5) Moderate (3) Low (1)
Organizational
Culture

Expands participation in
budget process to include
stakeholders and secure
buy-in by constituencies.

Presents audit findings &
corrective action plans to
Board.

Establish a clear process
to solicit input from Local
District personnel,
principals, and others on
the annual budget process
and to pilot-test ideas
before they are rolled out
to the field.

Participation in budget
process limited to upper
and middle management.

Board is made aware of
audit findings.

Processes for input from
Local District personnel,
such as principals, is not
clearly established.

Little participation in
budget process outside of
fiscal.

Audit findings are not
sun-shined.

Input from Local District
personnel, principals, and
others on the annual
budget process is not
solicited.
Operational
Procedures

Establishes effective
controls to ensure that the
district’s resources are
managed properly,
including monthly
financial reports for fiscal
management & decision-
making.

Uses the district’s annual
external audit to improve
district operations,
including— the timely
review and follow-up of
findings, development of
corrective action plans,
and implementation of
corrective actions.

Establish uniform
comprehensive financial
procedural manuals for
school sites, Local
Districts, and central
offices and conduct
appropriate training for
users.

Controls to ensure that the
district’s resources are
managed properly,
including periodic
financial reports for fiscal
management & decision-
making, are restricted to
few district personnel.

District’s annual external
audit is discussed only
when produced and not
revisited in planning
process.

Financial policies are not
readily available to school
sites, Local Districts, and
central offices.

Financial reports for fiscal
management & decision-
making are only
produced, or made
available to decision-
makers, in times of crisis.

District’s annual external
audit is not used to inform
decisions or future policy.

No formal financial
procedural manuals are
available.

257
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Communications

Definition: Effective school districts need to showcase the great stories in their district and to
counteract misinformation or negative news. Developing a public relations or communications office
staffed with experts on dealing with the media can enable the district to communicate its vision to the
public or proactively build support for an important initiative.

Component High (5) Moderate (3) Low (1)
Communications
Plan

Communications plan is
aligned with district’s
strategic plan

Communications plan
actively supports district
mission and vision

Communications plan
tailored to reflect
diversity of district
schools

Communications plan
designed to seek
community input

Communications plan is
up to date

Communications plan is
understood by district
office and school staff

Communications plan
addresses needs of all
stakeholders

Communications plan is
out of date or missing

Schools are unaware of
district communications
plan

Schools contact district
office when
communications issues
arise
Communications
Office

Communications office is
integral part of district
decision making

Communications office
maintains close liaison
with community

Communications office
routinely consults with
district schools to ensure
reporting of “great
stories”

Communications office is
adequately staffed

Communications office
consulted for input in
decision making

Communications office
contacts schools and
community stakeholders
with news of events and
decisions

Communications office is
not functioning

Communications office is
inadequately staffed

Communications office
not routinely informed of
decisions affecting
community stakeholders
Communication
of District Vision
to the
Community

District meets with
community leaders to
discuss district vision

Multiple interactive
means are used to
disseminate district
vision

District employees take a
proactive approach to
telling honest district
message

District communicates
vision via periodic
releases in local
newspapers

District notifies
community organizations
of district vision

School leaders are
required to maintain
coherence of district
vision with school goals

District vision is not
communicated to the
community

Mission and vision are
displayed on district
home page

School bulletins and
newsletters relay district
vision to homes

258
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Communications (continued)

Component High (5) Moderate (3) Low (1)
Build Support
for District
Initiatives

Family and community
members are engaged as
decision makers in
communicating district
initiatives

District initiatives are
communicated and
understood by
community

District notifies
community organizations
of initiatives

Key community leaders
are informed of district
initiatives

School leaders are
encouraged to
communicate information
regarding district
initiatives with key
personnel

Community is unaware
of district initiatives

Schools are given
information concerning
district initiatives to send
home in newsletters
Two Way
Communications
with Community

District and community
feel involved and
engaged in their public
schools

Focus groups and town
hall meetings inform
community of district
interests and activities

Staff members are
involved in community
groups and organizations

Information concerning
proposed legislation that
affects schools and
communities are tracked
and disseminated by
district

District publishes
calendar and
transportation schedules
in local newspapers

Community
organizations are
routinely notified of
district events

Key community leaders
are routinely notified of
district events

School leaders are
encouraged to
communicate school
activities via newsletters
and letters home

Community events and
activities are
disseminated through
schools

Community is unaware
of district events

District communicates to
community primarily
through schools

Community does not
communicate activities
with district

Parents receive letters
and newsletters from
their school announcing
special district events

259
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Governance/Board Relations

Definition: Most districts are governed by boards elected from the local population; others answer to
appointed boards. In either case, school boards are responsible for setting the policy direction for the
district; superintendents can take a supporting role in developing policy but are mainly charged with
executing it. Winning the support of board members, especially elected ones, is a time-consuming but
critical task for most superintendents.

Component High (5) Moderate (3) Low (1)
Setting the
Direction for
the
Community’s
Schools

The District’s vision,
mission, value, and
priorities are focused on
achievement and the needs
of all students are clearly
known in the school
community.

The vision, mission,
values, and priorities are
described in the LEA plan
and visible at all district
sites and described as
measurable goals.

The District’s goals are
measurable and achievable
being evaluated annually
to improve instruction and
close the gap between high
and low achieving
students.

The District’s vision,
mission, value and
priorities may lack clear
focus and not necessarily
focused on student
achievement and the needs
of all students are not well
known at all district sites.

The District’s goals are
measurable and possibly
achievable but not
evaluated annually nor
may be part of the LEA
plan.

The instruction is not
necessarily closing the gap
between high and low
achieving students.

The District’s vision,
mission, value, and
priorities lack focus or are
non-existent.

There is very little to no
information available at
any district site or in the
LEA plan.

The goals are not
measurable or non-existent
and are not reviewed.
Establishing an
Effective and
Efficient
Structure for
the District

The Board has established
an organizational structure
that fully supports the
district’s vision while
empowering the
superintendent and staff.

The Board approves
policies and sets the
direction for adopting the
curriculum.

The Board establishes
budgeting priorities on-
time and consistent with
the vision and goals.

The Board has established
an organizational structure
that partially supports the
District’s vision and may
not fully empower the
superintendent.

Board policies are not
adopted or approved in a
timely manner and there is
little input in the
curriculum adoption.

The budget may not fully
reflect the priorities and is
not consistent with the
vision and goals.

The board has established
an organizational structure
that may not support the
district vision and may not
empower the
superintendent and staff.

Board policies are not
adopted or approved and
there is little to no input in
the curriculum adoption.

The budget does not reflect
the priorities and is not
consistent with the vision
and goals.

260
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Governance/Board Relations (continued)

Components High (5) Moderate (3) Low (1)
Providing
Support and
Resources

The Board supports the
superintendent and staff
and acts in a professional
demeanor modeling the
District’s belief and vision.

The budget allocation
aligns resources based on
instructional priorities and
student needs and there is
concentrated evidence of
providing additional
support to reform efforts
that directly impact student
achievement.

The Board may support the
superintendent and staff
and sometimes acts with
professional demeanor
modeling the District’s
beliefs and vision.

The budget partially aligns
resources to instructional
priorities and student
needs and there is some
evidence of additional
support to reform efforts
that directly impact student
achievement.

The Board rarely supports
the superintendent and
staff and seldom models
the District’s belief and
vision.

The budget allocation does
not align resources based
on instructional priorities
or student need and there
is no evidence of providing
additional support to
reform efforts that directly
impact student
achievement.
Ensuring
Accountability
to the Public

The Board establishes
systems and processes to
monitor student achieve-
ment and communicates
the information to the
school community.

The Board evaluates the
superintendent and sets the
policy for the evaluation of
all personnel.

The Board monitors
program effectiveness
through assessments and
requires changes to protect
scarce resources and
monitors effectiveness
through self-evaluation.

The Board may have
established systems to
monitor student achieve-
ment while communication
lacks consistency to the
community.

The Board evaluates the
superintendent but may not
set policy for the
evaluation of all personnel.

The Board may monitor
program effectiveness
through assessments and
seldom requires changes to
protect resources and there
may be evidence of
monitoring through self-
assessment.

The Board has not
established systems to
monitor student
achievement and rarely
communicates any
information to the
community.

The Board marginally
evaluates the
superintendent and does
not set policy for personnel
evaluations.

The Board rarely monitors
program effectiveness to
protect resources and there
is no evidence of its’
effectiveness through self-
evaluation.
Actions as
Community
Leaders

The Board has involved
the community in
appropriate, meaningful
ways to allow for feedback
from stakeholders.

There is clear
communication to
community members
regarding district policies,
district educational
programs, and the financial
condition of the district
and progress of local goals
or bond information.

The Board allows the
superintendent to share, as
appropriate, information
with local constituency
groups.

The Board infrequently
involves the community in
meaningful ways allowing
for feedback from
stakeholders.

There may be clear
communication to the
community regarding
policies, programs and the
financial condition of the
district but it is not
consistent.

The Board sometimes
allows the superintendent
to share, as appropriate,
information with local
constituency groups.

The Board has generally
not involved the
community in any
meaningful way and does
not readily accept
feedback from the
community.

There is no clear
communication to the
community and generally,
district information can be
obtained only at district
sites.

There is generally no
sharing of information
with local constituency
groups.
261
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Labor Relations/Negotiations

Definition: In addition to teachers unions, superintendents often need to build relationships and
negotiate with several other unions to which various district staff belong. Success in working with
unions requires an upfront investment in building relationships and understanding the priorities of
union leaders. The content of contracts also requires close attention. Contract language can restrict or
expand the superintendent’s options for replacing and reassigning staff. This is particularly crucial
with teacher contracts, as teacher quality is one of the most significant influences on student
achievement.

Component High (5) Moderate (3) Low (1)
Relationships,
Communications
and Trust

Both teams have solid
trusting relationships,
credibility, political
savvy, and model ethical
behavior by establishing
core values

All bargaining members
are provided with a
continuous meaningful
training on traditional,
interest-based and core
values bargaining

All key stakeholders
informed of planning,
updates, modifications to
proposals and strategies,
and tentative and final
agreements

Both teams have
moderate relationships,
credibility, political
savvy, and model ethical
behavior by establishing
core values

All bargaining members
are provided with some
training on interest-based
and traditional bargaining

Some information is
disseminated regarding
planning, updates,
modifications to
proposals and strategies,
and tentative and final
agreements to some
stakeholders

Teams have limited
skeptical relationships,
lacking credibility,
political savvy, and
ethical behavior need for
core values

There is a need for
meaningful training on
traditional, interest-based
and core values
bargaining

Only a few stakeholders
are informed of
negotiation process and
limited information is
distributed about
tentative and final
agreements
Negotiation
Principles
and Objectives

Both teams have secure,
established roles and
responsibilities

All teams use strategic
plans, mission
statements, major goals
and core values to
develop objectives

Teams work together
collaboratively to review
existing contract
language, to identify
problem areas, articulate
community concerns, and
discuss the impact of
current language on
student achievement and
district operations

Only one team has
secure, established roles
and responsibilities

The district and other
teams have limited access
to strategic plans, mission
statements, major goals
and core values to
develop objectives

Each team works in
isolation to review
existing contract
language, and identify
problem areas, that
impact of current
language on student
achievement and district
operations

Both teams have secure,
established roles and
responsibilities

All teams use strategic
plans, mission
statements, major goals
and core values to
develop objectives

Existing contract
language is not
considered or discussed
in reference to the impact
of current language on
student achievement and
district operations

262
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Labor Relations/Negotiations (continued)

Components High (5) Moderate (3) Low (1)
Strategies for
Negotiations

Bargaining goals and
objectives are developed
in relation to the
importance of the district
mission and bargaining
success, district verifies
the proposal against
district philosophy, core
values, financial
resources, community
support and impact of
student achievement

District and union work
together to determine an
overarching approach to
negotiations with
considerations for
distributive or integrative
bargaining or a
combination of the two

There is a solid plan for
impasse: meditation, fact
finding and post fact
finding negotiations

Bargaining goals and
objectives are somewhat
developed in relation to
the importance of the
district mission and
possible bargaining
success

District determines an
overarching approach to
negotiations with
considerations for
distributive or integrative
bargaining or a
combination of the two

Impasse results in
breakdown in
communication, the
district does not have a
plan for this process

Bargaining goals and
objectives are developed
in relation to the
importance of each parties
individual interest; the
district philosophy, core
values, financial
resources, community
support and impact of
student achievement are
not the main consideration

Each group determines an
overarching approach that
benefits self-interest in
negotiations

There is a solid plan for
impasse: meditation, fact
finding and post fact
finding negotiations
Fair and
Equitable
Outcomes

Equitable distribution of
rights in evaluations,
assignments, health plan,
calendars, staff
development, schedules,
retirement etc.

A high value placed on all
employees and fully
recognizes their impact on
the successes of district
students

Within the context of core
values and fiscal ability,
settlement provides a fair
and equitable
compensation package

In many cases, manage-
ment rights override the
distribution of rights in
evaluations, assignments,
health plan, calendars,
staff development,
schedules, retirement etc.

Some value placed on
employees and there are
small attempts to
recognize their impact on
the success of district

At times, different groups
consider core values and
fiscal impacts when
negotiating settlements
and compensation
packages

Power struggles exist
when deciding the rights
in evaluations,
assignments, health plan,
calendars, staff
development, schedules,
retirement etc.

Employees perceive that
they are not recognized
for their impact on the
successes of district

Regardless of core values
and fiscal impact, groups
demand unreasonable,
unaffordable
compensation packages

263
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Family and Community Engagement

Definition: All residents of a school district’s jurisdiction can be considered its stakeholders, so
ensuring everyone’s satisfaction can be difficult. Districts should offer several ways for the
community and families to interact with the district, from coordinating volunteer opportunities for
parents to partnering with local organizations in support of student success. It is also important to
gather feedback from the public on the district’s performance. Several districts take surveys of parents
of children and of the community in general to determine how they view the district and what their
priorities for improvement are. These surveys should be closely linked to the district’s performance
management system and data dashboard. Increasing stakeholder satisfaction can lead to greater
support for bond measures for the district, significantly increasing its financial resources.

Component High (5) Moderate (3) Low (1)
Parenting

The district provides
coordinated trainings, at
all levels, based on parent
needs and local context.

The district has a system
or process in place for
appropriate and quality
referrals.

The district ensures and
supports schools in
educating all staff in
working with parents as
equal partners,
coordinates parent
programs, and builds ties
between parents/
community and the
schools.

Schools organize
trainings for parents on a
scheduled basis.

Schools provide
appropriate referrals.

The district or school
offers staff trainings in
how to work with the
parents/community.

Schools plan trainings
upon request by parents.

Schools provide referrals.

Schools receive little
support from the district
in planning trainings for
staff with a focus on
working with
parents/community.
Communication

Information is provided
in a language and format
that ensures participation
for those parents who
lack literacy skills or
whose native language is
not English.

A district-wide
expectation of consistent
and effective two-way
communication between
the home and school
exists.

Schools provide key
information concerning
the school program and
its activities, as feasible,
in a language that ensures
participation for those
parents whose native
language is not English.

Schools encourage
consistent and effective
two-way communication
between the home and
school.

Schools are inconsistent
in providing translated
notifications. Few
resources or options are
available for schools that
need translation
assistance.

Schools do not regularly
emphasize the importance
of communication
between the home and
school.

264
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Family and Community Engagement (continued)

Component High (5) Moderate (3) Low (1)
Volunteerism

The district and school
parent involvement policy
informs parents about
opportunities for
volunteers and the rights
for parents to be involved
in school and classroom
activities/events.

The district delineates
specific measures that are
taken to increase parental
involvement and
addresses various
barriers.

The district and school
parent involvement policy
informs parents about
opportunities for
volunteers and the rights
for parents to be involved
in school and classroom
activities/events.

The district and schools
address major barriers,
such as language,
transportation, and need
for childcare.

The district and school
parent involvement policy
informs parents about
opportunities for
volunteers and the rights
for parents to be involved
in school and classroom
activities/events.

The district and schools do
little to address barriers to
parent/community
participation.
Learning at
Home

The district supports
schools in providing
techniques and strategies
that parents may use to
improve their children’s
academic success and
help their children in
learning at home.

Schools provide
techniques and strategies
that parents may use to
improve their children’s
academic success and help
their children in learning
at home.

Schools rely on teachers to
work with individual
families on a as needed
basis.
Decision
Making

Parents are encouraged
and actively recruited to
participate in undertaking
governance and advisory
roles..

The district organizes
opportunities for parents/
community to be involved
in the joint development
of the LEA plan, parent
involvement policies,
parent needs assessments,
and school-parent
compacts.

Parents are encouraged to
participate in governance
and advisory roles.

Parents/community are
involved in some
components of the
development of LEA plan,
parent involvement
policies, parent needs
assessments, and school-
parent compacts.

Schools do not have active
parent committees, and are
provided little support for
taking corrective
measures.

Parents/community are not
consulted in the
development of the LEA
plan, parent involvement
policies, parent needs
assessments, or school-
parent compacts.
Collaboration
with the
Community

Community organizations
and/or institutions are
highly involved in district
and/or school activities,
working in collaboration
with the district.

Community organizations
and/or institutions are
minimally involved in
district and/or school
activities.

Community organizations
and/or institutions are not
involved in district and/or
school activities.

265
APPENDIX E
Implementation Rubric (All Strategies)
Dimension High (5) Moderate (3) Low (1)
Challenges &
Concerns
The external
challenges to full
implementation and
the concerns/
thoughts of key
players
□ No serious obstacle
or challenge.
□ Staff focused on
improving full use of
strategy and its
impact on student
performance
□ Common
commitment to
approach
□ Some obstacles
and/or challenges to
implementation.
□ Staff focused on
thought and actions
needed to improving
strategy
□ Majority of staff
showing commitment
to approach
□ Serious external
obstacles to
implementation
□ Staff focused on
whether approach to
strategy is best
design or is feasible
□ Possible strong
disagreement about
best direction
Fully Implemented
in Practice
The extent that each
component of the
change strategy is
fully implemented in
practice.
□ Full implementation
of all components of
the strategy across
the district
□ Best practices have
been established and
are communicated in
coordinated manner
□ Practice is reflected
in policy and
procedures
□ Uneven and/or
inconsistent
implementation of
the strategy across
the district
□ Best practices are
being collected- with
plans for
communicating these
across the district
□ Possibly some good
ideas about
implementation of
the change strategy
□ Little actual
implementation of
the strategy beyond
minimal bureaucratic
requirements
Common Culture:
Data, Reflection, &
Continuous
Improvement
Shared
understanding,
values, and desired
expectations,
including active use
of data, reflection
and continuous
improvement of the
change strategy
itself.
□ Extensive use of data
and reflection about
the change strategy--
its design,
implementation and
effectiveness in
supporting student
achievement.
□ Common and clear
expectations across
district
□ Extensive work on
continuous
improvement
□ Use of data and
reflection guides
decisions about the
change strategy
□ Expectations
communicated across
the district
□ Moderately effective
continuous
improvement efforts
□ Little common
understanding of the
change strategy
□ No/little data
collection regarding
strategy
□ No/little reflection
about how to
improve
implementation of
change strategy
Sustainable Use:
Resources, Staff,
Regularization
Ad hoc vs. stability
of staff and fiscal
resources and a fit
with the ongoing
organization.
□ Strong possibility of
sustainability
□ Strong and ongoing
staff and fiscal re-
source commitment
□ Shared expertise and
capacity building
□ Inclusion in regular
way the district
operates
□ Moderate possibility
of sustainability
□ Moderate staff and
fiscal resource
commitment
□ District support and
expertise

□ Very tenuous
approach to
implementation of
change strategy
□ Little chance of
sustainability in
terms of staffing,
resources, or
regularized patterns

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the change strategies and actions taken by an urban district superintendent to improve student achievement. In a qualitative case study of a large urban school district, one research question and three subquestions focused on: 10 specific reform strategies to improve student achievement, how the quality and implementation of strategies corresponded to the strengths and challenges of the district when the superintendent took office, what additional reform strategies (if any) were used, and whether the choice and implementation of the reform strategies related to the superintendent’s previous background and experiences. Results indicated the superintendent’s clearly articulated strategic plan, in tune with district characteristics and focused on increased student achievement, guided district action by providing the impetus to undertake system-wide improvement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Systemic change and the system leader: a case study of superintendent action to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

PDF

Superintendent's leverage: a case study of strategies utilized by an urban school district superintendent to improve student achievement

PDF

The superintendent and reform: a case study of action by the system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

PDF

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

PDF

The role of the superintendent in raising student achievement: a superintendent effecting change through the implementation of selected strategies

PDF

How successful urban superintendents in California improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

A case study in reform: implementation strategies of one urban superintendent

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Reform strategies used by system leaders in education to impact student achievement: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

What strategies do urban superintendents utilize to address global challenges in the implementation of 21st century skills

PDF

How urban school superintendents effectively use data-driven decision making to improve student achievement

PDF

Factors including student engagement impacting student achievement in a high performing urban high school district: a case study

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Bealer, David E. (author)

Core Title Promoting student achievement: a case study of change actions employed by an urban school superintendent

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 09/22/2010

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

Tag achievement,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,preparation,reform,strategies,student,superintendent

Place Name USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy M. (committee chair), Marsh, David D. (committee chair), Robles, Darline P. (committee member)

Creator Email bealer@usc.edu,debealer@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3465

Unique identifier UC1116662

Identifier etd-Bealer-4143 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-413801 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3465 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Bealer-4143.pdf

Dmrecord 413801

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Bealer, David E.

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu