Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Preparing leaders for the challenges of the urban school
(USC Thesis Other)
Preparing leaders for the challenges of the urban school
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
PREPARING LEADERS FOR THE CHALLENGES
OF THE URBAN SCHOOL
by
Charles Flores
____________________________________________________
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
August 2010
Copyright 2010 Charles Flores
ii
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Susana, for the support and
encouragement she gave me over the course of this program, and especially in the last
year. Countless hours spent reading articles, poring over research, and writing this paper
impacted my ability to spend time with you. I want you to know, though, that you were
always in my heart and on my mind throughout this endeavor.
I also want to dedicate this dissertation to my son and daughter, Buddy and
Kristi. Thank you for your understanding and support throughout this process. I know
that it meant not seeing you for long spells of time, but your patience and love sustained
me. And I have to give my love to my grandson, Sebastian Amadeus. I look forward to
spending time with you and watching you grow up.
This dissertation is also dedicated to my family, especially my grandfather,
Carlos, my grandmother, Rosa, and my brother, Richard. This project is a wonderful gift
for my grandfather, in this, his 100
th
year of life. Thanks, Gramps, for the love and
support you’ve given me my entire life. Granny, thank you for the time you dedicated to
all of us as we were growing up. And Dick, thank you for your encouragement during
this effort, and for being my best friend.
My final dedication is for my mother, Sally, whose love of education and reading
informed our lives and allowed us to reach goals that are considered unattainable by
many. Her dream of a better life for my brother and me became a reality through our
pursuit of education. Thank you, Mom, for all that you sacrificed to assure us a better
life. You have always been an inspiration to us all. I miss you and love you.
iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge all of those whose encouragement and support made
all of this possible. To Dr. Margaret Reed, my dissertation chair, thank you for the many
hours spent with us as we attempted to put all of this together. You have truly been an
inspiration to all of us. To my committee members, Dr. Michael Escalante and Dr.
David Marsh, thank you for being a part of this important chapter in my life.
A very special acknowledgement is made to my dissertation group, Sunday Abbott,
Paula Chamberlin, Chris Hert, Diane Kammeyer, Omaira Lee, and Paula Libby. Our
collaborative effort, our perseverance, and our commitment to the study allowed us to
reach this very lofty goal.
A special thank you goes out to my Superintendent, Byron Maltez, for his support
and encouragement; to Richard Alonzo, my mentor, whose passion for education has
informed my practice; and to Jackie Olvera, for the time spent assisting in this endeavor.
I would also like to acknowledge the participants of our study who gave of their
time to provide us with a valuable snapshot of their schools. To Principal Waters and
Principal Coltrane, thank you for the opportunity to sit with you and your teachers, and
for allowing me to be a “member” of your schools during my visits. Thanks also goes to
district personnel who took the time from their impacted schedules to serve as hosts to all
of us. Your warm personalities and friendliness created an atmosphere of comfort.
iv
My final acknowledgement is to my Thursday Night Family and the 2007 Cohort.
Many friendships were created over the last three years, and we became a family in every
sense of the word. In facing similar challenges, we became unified and thrived, reaching
our goal as one.
v
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables x
List of Figures xi
Abstract xii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Chapter One Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 6
Purpose of the Study 9
Research Questions 10
Significance of the Study 11
Conceptual Framework 12
Assumptions 14
Delimitations of the Study 16
Limitations of the Study 16
Abbreviations 18
Organization of the Study 19
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 21
Chapter Two Introduction 21
Standards-Based Accountability and Reform 22
New Directions for School Leadership 23
Definition of Leadership 24
Leadership Effects 27
Theories of Leadership 39
Instructional Leadership 30
Transformational Leadership 32
Learning-Centered Leadership 34
Social Justice Leadership 35
Critical Theory 36
Urban Context 37
Leadership Preparation Programs 40
Effective Program Components 41
Capacity Building 43
Leadership Support Structures 44
Mentoring and Coaching 45
vi
Professional Standards 47
Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative 48
Chapter Two Conclusion 50
Organization of Chapter Three 50
Chapter Three: Methodology 51
Chapter Three Introduction 51
Intervention 52
Study Design 52
Sample and Population 54
Selection Criteria 54
Gaining Access to Participants 58
Data Collection Procedures 59
Instrumentation: Overview 61
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education 62
(VAL-Ed)
Interviews 65
Observations and Documents 68
Data Analysis Procedures 70
Formative Data Analysis Procedures 70
Summative Data Analysis Procedures 71
Validity 72
Ethical Considerations 74
Chapter Three Summary 75
Organization of Chapter Four 76
Chapter Four: Findings 77
Chapter Four Introduction 77
The Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative 78
Case Study One 80
Ledbetter Elementary School: Location and Demographics 80
Ledbetter Elementary School: Culture and Climate 81
Introduction to Principal Waters 83
Research Question #1 83
Key Finding: District Initiatives Support Effective 84
Leadership Practices
Key Finding: Leadership Coaching Prepares Principal 86
Key Finding: District Professional Development Prepares 88
Principal
Analysis of Findings/Conclusion 90
Research Question #2 93
Key Finding: Influences School-Site Professional 93
Development and Teacher Practice
vii
Key Finding: Monitoring Classroom Instruction Through 95
Observation
Key Finding: Focus on Strategies to Improve Student 98
Outcomes
Key Finding: Leadership Builds Teacher Capacity 100
Key Finding: Leadership Fosters Student Learning 101
Analysis of Findings/Conclusion 104
Research Question #3 108
Key Finding: Professional Learning Communities 109
Enhance Collaboration
Key Finding: Tutoring/Intervention Targets 110
Low-Performing Students
Analysis of Findings/Conclusion 112
Research Question #4 114
Key Finding: Campus Instructional Leadership Team 115
Informs Practices Teachers
Key Finding: Academic Coordinators/Coaches Support 115
Instruction
Key Finding: Counselor Provides Behavior Support 118
Analysis of Findings/Conclusion 119
Research Question #5 122
Purpose of the Assessment 122
Key Finding: Respondents, Sources of Evidence, 123
and Overall Score
Key Finding: Results of the Assessment 124
Key Finding: Assessment Profile and Respondent 125
Comparison
Key Finding: Using Results for Professional Growth 127
Key Finding: Leadership Behaviors for Possible 127
Improvement
Analysis of Findings/Conclusion 128
Case Study Two 129
Hampton Elementary School: Location and Demographics 129
Hampton Elementary School: Culture and Climate 131
Introduction to Principal Coltrane 132
Research Question #1 132
Key Finding: District Initiatives Support Effective 133
Leader Practice
Key Finding: Leadership Coaching Informs Principal Practice 136
Key Finding: District Professional Development Prepares 138
Principal
Analysis of Findings/Conclusion 141
Research Question #2 145
viii
Key Finding: Improving Instructional Practice 146
Through Observation
Key Finding: Leadership Fosters Student Learning 147
Analysis of Findings/Conclusion 149
Research Question #3 150
Key Finding: Common Assessments Inform 150
Instructional Practices
Key Findings: Intervention Program Supports Student 152
Success
Analysis of Findings/Conclusion 153
Research Question #4 155
Key Finding: Campus Instructional Leadership Team 155
Informs Practice
Key Finding: Counselor/Student Support Team Promotes 156
Positive Behavior
Analysis of Findings/Conclusion 158
Research Question #5 160
Purpose of the Assessment 160
Key Finding: Respondents, Sources of Evidence, 161
and Overall Score
Key Finding: Results of the Assessment 162
Key Finding: Assessment Profile and Respondent 163
Comparison
Key Finding: Using Results for Professional Growth 165
Key Finding: Leadership Behaviors for Possible 165
Improvement
Analysis of Findings/Conclusion 166
Chapter Five: Summary, Discussion, and Recommendations 168
Chapter Five Introduction 168
Statement of the Problem 168
Purpose of the Study 170
Research Questions 171
Methodology 171
Data Collection and Analysis 172
Summary of Findings and Theoretical Implications 175
Research Question #1 175
Research Question #2 179
Research Question #3 180
Research Question #4 181
Research Question #5 182
Implications for Practice 183
Implications for Future Research 185
Implications for Policy 186
ix
Limitations 187
Chapter Five Conclusion 188
References 190
Appendices:
Appendix A: Informed Consent Letter 197
Appendix B: Principal Invitation Letter 201
Appendix C: Letter of Support 202
Appendix D: Outcomes Chart 203
Appendix E: Pre-intervention Principal Interview 204
Appendix F: Post-intervention Principal Interview 207
Appendix G: Pre-intervention Teacher Interview 209
Appendix H: Post-intervention Teacher Interview 211
Appendix I: Pre/Post Intervention Observation Protocols 213
Appendix J: Document Analysis Protocols 215
Appendix K: Document Analysis Protocols (Continued) 216
Appendix L: Document Analysis Protocols (Continued) 217
Appendix M: Document Analysis Protocols (Continued) 218
Appendix N: Classroom Observation Protocol 219
Appendix O: Fall VAL-ED Results: Ledbetter ES 221
Appendix P: Spring VAL-ED Results: Ledbetter ES 226
Appendix Q: Fall VAL-ED Results: Hampton ES 231
Appendix R: Spring VAL-ED Results: Hampton ES 236
Appendix S: Ledbetter ES: Staff Development Agenda 241
Appendix T: Ledbetter ES Organizational Chart 242
Appendix U: Ledbetter ES Mission and Vision Statement 243
Appendix V: Ledbetter ES Intervention Program 244
Appendix W: Ledbetter ES Student Achievement 245
Appendix X: Ledbetter ES Collaborative Instructional Focus 246
Appendix Y: Ledbetter ES Professional Learning Communities 247
Appendix Z: Institute for Learning Toolbox 248
Appendix AA: Principles of Learning 249
Appendix BB: Learning Walks 250
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Southwest Independent School District Enrollment 2008 56
Table 2: Southwest Independent School District Demographics 2008 57
Table 3: Southwest Independent School District Achievement Results 2008 58
Table 4: Alignment Matrix 67
Table 5: Triangulation Table 69
Table 6: Timeline for the Research Report 72
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 14
Figure 2: Sample VAL-ED Survey 63
xii
Abstract
The purpose of this research study was to investigate the impact of participation
in the Southwest Independent School District’s Principal Coaching Initiative on urban
school principals’ leadership practice. The following research questions were the focus
for this mixed methods research study: 1) How does participation in the Southwest ISD
Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI) prepare principals to become effective leaders?; 2)
How does the SPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs, and leadership practices of urban
school principals?; 3) How does an urban school principal create and sustain
organizational structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?; 4) What leadership support structures enable leader
practice?; 5) How can the Val Ed instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist principals
to become effective instructional leaders?
Multiple sources of data were collected for analysis in this study: pre and post-
intervention interviews with each principal and a subset of their teachers; pre and post-
intervention observations of the principal interacting with teachers; classroom
observations of teachers interacting with their students; and observations of classroom
teachers interacting with other teachers. Additionally, a collection of documents and
artifacts relevant to the study were collected for analysis. Pre and post-intervention data
were also collected from the administration of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership
in Education (VAL-ED) survey to each principal, his/her supervisor, and their teachers.
The results of the study indicated that principals’ overall level of effectiveness
increased as a result of participation in the program. There is some evidence that the
xiii
leadership practices of the two case study school principals were positively impacted over
the course of their participation in the SPCI. The findings of this study carry significant
implications for the future of leadership preparation programs and the ongoing support of
educational leaders throughout their tenure as school-based administrators.
1
Chapter One
An Overview of the Study
Chapter One Introduction
As we move forward in the 21
st
century, we continue to experience problems that
have remained unchanged since the latter part of the 20
th
century. Even with the advent
of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001) legislation, our nation’s schools have shown
no real capacity to sustain programs that address the problem of low-performing students.
Contributing to this problem is a lack of effective leadership at the school level,
specifically leadership that would speak directly to the conditions that exist in a
preponderance of our nation’s urban schools, which suffer from a myriad of problems
(Cooke, 2007)
The environment that awaits the administrator who assumes the role of
educational leader in one of our many-troubled urban schools is fraught with high
administrator and teacher turnover, a lack of quality teachers, low-performing students,
poor student attendance, high drop-out rates, non-English learners, and a large number of
identified special education students; of course, these various conditions reflect the
communities in which these schools are located (Cooke, 2007) The neighborhoods that
serve as home to our urban schools are more often than not violence-ridden, crime-
infested, with aging infrastructures; they are racially and ethnically diverse, and suffer
from high rates of unemployment and poverty (Cooke, 2007). Not surprisingly, all of
these issues contribute to a school culture that is low in self-efficacy and suffers from a
2
poor sense of direction. Teachers, students, staff, and parents are impacted by these
conditions and oftentimes feel a sense of apathy and lack of empowerment to change
what has been sustained for so very long (Cooke, 2007). In order to right the inequities
that exist in urban schools, preparation programs for future educational leaders must
address the many issues and conditions confronting those who choose to bring about
change to these troubled institutions.
With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001, the legislature
saw fit to address the disparity in achievement between students from poor and minority
backgrounds and their White and Asian peers. Schools would now be held accountable
for ensuring that all students, regardless of race or ethnicity, would achieve at high levels
(Firestone & Riehl, 2005). Unfortunately, educational achievement and attainment
continue to differ dramatically for students, depending on their racial/ethnic background
and socioeconomic status (Firestone & Riehl, 2005). And, with the country’s student
population becoming increasingly diverse, especially with rising numbers of Hispanics
and Asians (Firestone & Riehl, 2005), the responsibility to provide equal educational
opportunities and achieve equal educational results is even more urgent.
NCLB (2001), then, has resulted in states searching for ways to increase student
achievement. Standards have been raised, student assessments are now mandated, and
schools are being held accountable to assure that achievement for all students will be the
norm. Regardless of its well-meaning intentions, though, NCLB (2001) has failed to
address the disparity that exists between schools located in suburban neighborhoods and
those in an urban environment. The challenges present in the urban context, as detailed
3
above, are far different than those facing schools located in the suburbs. As such, a
different set of resources is required to address the problem (Noguera, 1996).
In order to address these inequities properly, new demands must be placed on
teachers, the educational system, and educational leaders. Teachers need a deeper
understanding of their subject area content and greater expertise in instructional
methodology; the organizational structure of schools must reflect new teaching and
learning standards, and incorporate new technologies and assessments into routine
pedagogical practice; and, most importantly, leaders must have new knowledge about
teaching, learning, and school organization, especially the leadership competencies and
practices that lead to increased performance and effectiveness (Firestone & Riehl, 2005).
As it pertains to the urban context, leadership is especially important in schools serving a
diverse student population, and is also practiced differently (Firestone & Riehl, 2005).
Research indicates that leadership effects on student achievement are stronger in low-
SES schools, as compared to high-SES schools (Hallinger & Heck, 1996).
Though our nation continues to be in the throes of NCLB (2001), a shortage of
highly qualified principals still exists (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr, &
Cohen, 2007). Additionally, as the void becomes even larger, the knowledge and skills
required to successfully lead these schools becomes even more complex. The traditional
leadership model is inefficient when applied to leadership in an urban environment
(Gooden, 2002). What is required is a form of leadership that questions existing practices
and sets new precedents, so as to advance organizational knowledge and make students
critically reflective citizens (Gooden, 2002).
4
This deficiency in our urban schools necessitates a new type of leadership—
specifically one that will address the problems inherent to schools in an urban context
(Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996). Over the last few years, two leadership models
have been found to provide a framework for effective leadership practice: instructional
and transformational models of leadership. Leaders working under the instructional
leadership model implement behaviors such as framing school goals, coordinating
curriculum, enforcing academic standards, and monitoring student progress (Hallinger &
Murphy, 1985). Within the transformational leadership model, effective principals
promote school-wide participation in decision-making, building a collaborative culture,
providing intellectual stimulation, and offering individualized support (Hallinger, 1992).
Also gaining favor among many practitioners is the learning-centered leadership model
proposed by Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, and Porter (2006). The behaviors associated with
this style of leadership are comprised of competencies included in the instructional
leadership and transformational models, but also include a focus on social justice
advocacy as it relates to effective leadership within an urban context. Social justice
leadership, which speaks directly to the issues of marginalization in our urban schools
and instructional practices that should be inclusive of all students, is a framework that,
according to researchers, offers a lens through which race and ethnicity become central to
advocacy, leadership, and vision (Theoharis, 2007).
As they relate to effective school leadership practices within an urban context, the
four styles of leadership, which will be discussed further in Chapter Two, suggest
behaviors that allow leaders to effectively address the issues associated with poor
5
achievement among demographically diverse urban student populations. Behaviors such
as building powerful forms of teaching and learning, creating strong communities in
schools, nurturing the development of families’ educational cultures, and expanding the
amount of students’ social capital will allow principals to improve their ability to serve
this diverse student population more effectively (Leithwood & Riehl, 2005).
Of course, the impact that effective school leadership has on academic
achievement cannot be ignored. Schools facing greater difficulties, such as those in an
urban environment, are impacted more profoundly by effective school leadership
(Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). In terms of its impact on student
academic achievement, effective leadership is second only to teaching (Leithwood et al.,
2004). The positive influence of effective school leaders is due to their ability to
establish effective organizational structures in their schools and to their interactions with
teachers (Hallinger & Heck, 1996). This capacity and set of skills that effective leaders
possess can be developed through participation in effective leadership programs.
Leadership preparation and development programs should include certain
elements that are essential for developing effective school leaders (Davis, Darling-
Hammond, Lapointe, & Meyerson, 2005). These programs should be research-based,
have curricular coherence, provide experience in authentic contexts, use cohort groupings
and mentors, and should be structured to enable collaboration between the program and
area schools (Davis et al., 2005). The strength of the program, though, derives from the
support and assistance provided through mentoring and coaching.
6
The support structure afforded by coaching and mentoring is an essential
component of effective leadership preparation programs (Davis et al., 2005). In well-
structured programs, the mentor makes a mutual commitment to work collaboratively
with the mentee. Additionally, the mentor provides guidance to the learner by providing
strategies to resolve problems and to construct a broad repertoire of leadership skills
(Davis et al., 2005).
Leadership effects, the components of effective leadership programs, and the
support structures that exist to provide guidance and assistance to urban school leaders
will be further discussed in Chapter Two.
Statement of the Problem
Effective school leadership is sorely lacking in many of our most impacted
schools nationwide (Davis et al., 2005). As discussed above, the problems awaiting our
new school leaders are vast and have become ingrained in the very culture of the school
community. What is needed is a new leadership model that seeks to address the many
problems and conditions that foster poor academic achievement and failure in our
students in these urban environments. Principals and other educational leaders who make
a significant impact on these low-performing schools must be prepared to face the many
challenges they will inevitably confront. Unfortunately, very few preparation programs
offer the skills and knowledge necessary to bring about sustained change to these
particular schools (Grogan & Andrews, 2002).
7
Traditional preparation programs for new school leaders have focused on training
for evaluation, supervision, and management practices; the principal’s role is seen as that
of the manager of the environment in which learning and teaching take place (Houle,
2006). As discussed by Grogan and Andrews (2002), most university-based programs
that provide training for aspiring school leaders might best be characterized as preparing
them for the role of top-down manager. Rather than developing skills and knowledge
that would serve leaders in a nurturing, caring, supportive learning environment, and
promote student academic achievement, these programs have been created around the
traditional concepts associated with management: planning, organizing, financing,
supervising, budgeting, and scheduling (Grogan & Andrews, 2002). Because many of
our urban schools require a model that seeks to address the ever-changing conditions in
which they are situated, this traditional approach to leadership has proven to be mostly
ineffective (Grogan & Andrews, 2002).
Nonetheless, there is no lack of preparation programs; educational administration
programs are prevalent, and continue to graduate a large number of students.
Unfortunately, the processes and standards by which many of these preparation programs
screen, select, and graduate candidates are often ill-defined, irregularly applied, and
lacking in rigor (Davis et al., 2005). Students who are too easily admitted into these
programs, and passed on the basis of performance on academic coursework rather than
through a comprehensive assessment of the knowledge and skills needed to successfully
lead our impacted urban schools (National Policy Board for Educational Administration,
2001, as cited by Davis et al., 2005).
8
As discussed by Leithwood et al. (2004), effective school leadership, especially in
urban schools, requires that school leaders be armed with specific leadership practices
and behaviors that would allow for lasting improvement in student learning. Such
preparation would include instructional leadership practices that have been shown to
effect change (a) fostering a clear vision, (b) providing professional development and (c)
instructional expertise (Hallinger, 2003). Additionally, in order to transform and reshape
the school culture, urban school leaders must also adopt styles of transformational
leadership (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007), which requires that they cultivate a collegial
work environment where teachers share in the functions associated with leadership
(Hallinger, 2003). Given all of these imperatives, still no well-defined set of leadership
practices exist for raising student performance (Leithwood et al., 2004). And, as shown
by research that will be examined in Chapter Two, many of educational leadership
programs lack sufficient development of a vital component necessary to successful
leadership in urban settings: that is, a strong emphasis on social justice leadership
(Capper, Theoharis, & Sebastian, 2006).
What is required, then, are preparation programs that provide leaders with the
skills to meet the challenges engendered by the urban environment, and that will be
sufficient to accommodating the needs of diverse students who make up this urban
landscape. As discussed by Capper et al. (2006), these programs must include
components that address critical consciousness, knowledge, and practical skills, with a
focus on social justice. Leaders who successfully complete these programs must also
possess the skills to transition from the traditional role of principal as manager to that of
9
effective instructional leader. Such an evolution requires that successful graduates are
prepared to build schools that promote powerful teaching and learning for all students.
(Davis et al., 2005); however, the ability of principals to successfully implement these
various strategies has not been fully researched.
These programs must also provide aspiring principals with the skills to lead
within a context-specific model. This type of leadership requires that the principal be
deeply knowledgeable about the school, the community in which it is located, certificated
and classified staff, the student population, and the relationship between the school and
the central office (Reyes & Wagstaff, 2005). Only with this arsenal of knowledge and a
framework provided by the various leadership models described will the urban leader be
prepared to challenge and change the status quo.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to contribute to the knowledge base about the
conditions in which effective leadership can be realized and sustained in an urban school
context. Specifically, the study identified features and attributes of the Southwest
Independent School District’s Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI) program, and
examined the ways in which these components influenced leaders’ knowledge, beliefs,
and behaviors through their participation in the program. Also, the study examined the
impact leader practice had on teacher professional practice.
This study utilized a qualitative comparative case study design. In general, case
studies focus on discovery and exploration rather than hypothesis testing and the
10
development of deductive inferences (Merriam, 1998). Case studies are most appropriate
in situations where the researcher has little control over the events in the context
surrounding the phenomenon (Yin, 2003). Therefore, this study focused on descriptive
questions that reveal the “hows” and “whys” of changes in principal leadership behavior
through participation in the SPCI program as well as the impact of the leader’s practice
on teacher practice and organizational structures.
Research Questions
As this study sought to explore how an educational leader’s participation in SPCI
informs his/her ability to effectively provide viable leadership to urban schools, the
following research questions served as the focus of the study:
1. How does participation in the Southwest ISD Principal Coaching Initiative
(SPCI) prepare principals to become effective leaders?
2. How does the SPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs, and leadership
practices of urban school principals?
3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
5. How can the Val Ed instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist
principals to become effective instructional leaders?
11
Significance of the Study
As schools and communities continue to struggle with high student drop-out rates,
which in turn contribute to delinquency, violence, and the decline of neighborhoods,
administrative leadership development programs must properly prepare principals to
address the local school environment. Also crucial to the educational community, both
higher education institutions and local elementary and secondary schools, is that
preparation programs include in their curriculum not only components that speak to the
various issues existing in the urban context, but also the knowledge, skills, and behaviors
that would allow these issues to be dealt with by principals and other school leaders. The
research-based theories of effective leader practice are discussed in the various leadership
preparation programs, but the ability of principals to successfully implement these new-
found strategies has not been fully examined. The success or failure of new
administrators to put into practice strategies that would assist them in leading urban
schools will help preparation programs to either continue with their programs as they
now exist, or seek alternative methods by which to instill in new leaders the capacity to
lead in the urban environment. This accommodation would require that support
structures be put into place to provide new leaders opportunities for growth and
continued support once they assume a new leadership role. From this study, practitioners,
policymakers, and developers of leadership preparation and support programs will gain
new knowledge of specific program features that are effective in building and sustaining
leaders’ capacity to reshape the teaching and learning environment in our urban schools
in ways that promote expert teacher practice and improved outcomes for students.
12
Conceptual Framework
In defining the conceptual framework that impacts effective school leadership in
the urban environment, consideration of the various areas that shape and inform the
school leader is necessary. According to Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, and Porter, leadership
behavior is “shaped by four major conditions:
1) the previous experiences of a leader (e.g., experience as a curriculum
coordinator in a district office will likely lead to the use of behaviors different
than those featured by a leader who has had considerable experience as an
assistant principal); 2) the knowledge base the leader amasses over time; 3) the
types of personal characteristics a leader brings to the job (e.g., achievement need,
energy level); and 4) the set of values and beliefs that help define a leader (e.g.,
beliefs about the appropriate role for subordinates in decision processes). (2007a,
p. 2)
The impact of these leadership behaviors, as discussed by Hallinger and Heck (1996), is
indirect; that is, the outcomes are further mediated by school operations and classroom
activities (Murphy et al., 2007a). These antecedents, especially in low-performing urban
schools, are impacted by the school context: (a) high administrator and teacher turnover,
(b) lack of quality instructors, (c) low-achieving students, (d) poor student attendance, (e)
a large population of English language learners, and (f) a large identified special
education population (Cooke, 2007). Added to these factors is community context,
which includes racial/ethnic diversity, poverty, high unemployment rates, crime and
violence, an aging infrastructure, lack of community resources, and a perceived
indifference on the part of local politicians (Cooke, 2007).
Principal preparedness, or the impact that leadership preparation programs have
on leaders, is the next area identified in the conceptual model. By providing leaders with
the skills and knowledge necessary to lead urban schools effectively, preparation program
13
curriculum must include content informed by learning-centered and social justice
leadership frameworks. In this case, the impact of principal participation in the SPCI
would be a factor that would influence or impact leadership behaviors.
The next section of the conceptual framework illustrates how the leader
influences teacher practice and school organizational structure, which in turn impacts
student outcomes. Leaders indirectly influence student outcomes by the organizational
structures they create, and by their impact on teacher practice; teacher practice and
organizational structures then directly impact student outcomes (Hallinger & Heck,
1996). It is thus incumbent upon the leader to create effective organizational structures
that provide support for improved teacher practice, and ultimately, improved student
outcomes.
Principal antecedents, community context, and school context, which are in turn
influenced by participation in a leadership program, would—it is hoped— lead to
improved student outcomes, effective teacher practice, and enhanced organizational
performance.
14
School
Organization
Climate &
Culture
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
Assumptions
Five key assumptions frame this research study. First is the belief
that leadership is a key variable in the process of improving outcomes for students.
Second, is the belief that the context in which leadership is practiced is of importance and
determines the actions leaders take. Third, leadership is defined as “the process of
influencing others to achieve mutually agreed upon purposes for the organization”
(Patterson, 1993, p. 3). Embedded in this definition is the notion that leadership is not a
District
Achieves!
IFL & SPCI
Context
Urban Setting,
NCLB,
Standards
Leader
Teacher
Practice
Student
Outcomes
Antecedent
Factors
Knowledge,
Experience,
Values &
Beliefs
15
personal trait or characteristic of an effective school leader. As a process, effective
leadership practice can, in fact, be taught (Northouse, 2007). The exercise of leadership
involves influence; as such, it requires interactions and relationships among constituents.
Leadership involves purpose and focus upon helping organizations and constituents reach
identified goals. Fourth, this study conceptualizes the effects of principal leadership in
promoting and sustaining valued outcomes in terms of the antecedent with indirect-
effects model (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Heck, Larsen, & Marcoulides, 1990;
Leithwood, Begley, & Cousins, 1990; Silins, 1994). Leadership effects occur indirectly
through the principal's behaviors, which influence teacher practice and organizational
structures and processes (Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996; Murphy, Goldring,
Cravens, Elliott, & Porter, 2007b). A principal’s practice of effective leadership
behaviors is situated within the learner-centered leadership framework (Murphy et al.,
2007a). Fifth, the Southwest ISD Principal Coaching Initiative program is an effective
leadership capacity-building program. The major components of this leadership
development program align with those found in the literature (Darling-Hammond et al.,
2007) to develop skilled leaders. These programs (a) have well-articulated goals rooted in
theory of leadership, (b) use preparation strategies that maximize learning, transfer of
learning, and leadership identification, and (c) provide strong content and field
experience during leadership preparation.
16
Delimitations of the Study
The focus of this study was limited to an investigation of the impact of leadership
capacity-building programs on leader practice. Participants in this study were limited to
elementary school principals in a Southwest city who are either in their first year
(September 2009) of participation in the Southwest ISD Principal Coaching Initiative
(SPCI) or who began the program in the preceding academic year (January 2009).
Although the focus was on principals participating in the SPCI, this study was not an
evaluation of the program itself. Additionally, because the urban context was the setting
for this study, participants were limited to principals and teachers who work in urban
public schools. In addition to sample and population, the amount of time used to collect
data was also a limitation. That the study took place over a six-month period of time
limited the researcher’s ability to observe substantial changes in leader practice. One
final consideration was the researcher’s limited access to the participants; though the
study took place in the Southwest, the researcher resides in California.
Limitations of the Study
One of the most restrictive limitations of this study, as discussed above, was time
constraints. Unlike an exhaustive study that would take into consideration various factors
that may impact the role of the principal, the narrow window provided a limited ability to
consider a more comprehensive and thorough picture. This condition meant that
observations and interviews of participants in the study as well as surveys and
17
questionnaires needed to be completed within these narrow confines. Also impacted was
the opportunity to visit the community in which the schools under review were located.
In order to properly ascertain the scope of the problem facing urban school
principals, all aspects of the problem must be examined; this undertaking would include
an in-depth examination of the neighborhood in which the school is located, with an
emphasis on the immediate vicinity in which most students attending the school reside. It
was also important that we made an effort to take as comprehensive a look as possible
into the actual program being examined, in this case the Southwest ISD Principal
Coaching Initiative (SPCI). Participation in training provided by the SPCI would have
provided the research group with insight into the program that is also undertaken by
school leaders. The inability to do so was one of the limitations faced by the group given
that scheduling hindered our participation.
The following areas were also considered when looking at the limitations of the
study:
1. Length of the Study: The principals in the study had just begun
participation in the SPCI program. The fact that the postassessment of the
VAL-Ed survey came relatively soon after the preassessment
(approximately five months) limited the degree to which it could fully
measure the principal’s growth in the areas assessed. In addition, time for
the fieldwork in this study was limited to five months
2. Pretest Treatment Interaction: The pre-post design of the administration of
the VAL-Ed has inherent issues of validity in that changes reflected in the
18
second administration of the VAL-Ed could reflect results of factors other
than the participants’ participation in SPCI.
3. The “halo effect:” Due to the nature of the measures used in the VAL-Ed
(ratings of self and colleagues), raters may have had a tendency to assume
specific traits or behaviors based on a general impression. However, to
mitigate this phenomenon, by design, the VAL Ed survey requires that
raters identify the primary source of evidence for their rating on each item
(i.e., personal observation, documents, etc.).
The extant literature on educational leadership has demonstrated great progress
over the past 25 years. Thanks to the efforts of several great researchers and practitioners,
we now have a more defined picture of effective leadership in particular settings and its
impact on student achievement. Though it has yielded greater descriptions of effective
leadership practices and behavior, the research still lacks understanding of how these
leadership practices and behaviors are developed and mediated, especially in urban
settings.
Abbreviations
SPCI: Southwest Independent School District Principal Coaching Initiative
SISD: Southwest Independent School District
IFL: Institute for Learning
ISLLC: Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium
NCLB: No Child Left Behind
19
NPBEA: National Policy Board for Educational Administration
SAKS: Southwest Assessment of Knowledge and Skills
SEKS: Southwest Essential Knowledge and Skills
VAL-ED: Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education; data-collection instrument
based on the ISLLC standards, used to quantify leadership practice
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One serves as an introduction
to the study and includes the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the
research questions to be examined, the significance to the field of this particular study,
assumptions, delimitations and limitations of the study, definition of terms, the
conceptual framework, and the organization of the study. Chapter Two will provide a
review of the literature as it pertains to the concept of leadership; a discussion of
leadership theories including instructional leadership, transformational leadership,
learning-centered leadership, and leadership for social justice; the urban context and its
impact on schools; the current literature on leadership preparation programs; professional
standards that serve as a framework by which preparation programs are developed and
provide a template for effective leaders; and an overview of the concepts of social justice
and critical theory as they relate to leadership and student achievement in urban schools.
Chapter Three will outline the study’s methodology, including a discussion of the
research questions; the design of the study; the sample selection of participants; the
instruments, protocols, and procedures used for data collection; the procedures used for
20
data analysis; and the ethical considerations that informed the study. Chapter Four will
present the findings of the research conducted, and an analysis of the findings viewed
through the perspective of theoretical frameworks. Finally, Chapter Five will present a
summary of the findings, conclusions based on the findings, and recommendations.
21
Chapter Two
Review of the Literature
Chapter Two Introduction
This chapter presents a review of the literature related to educational leadership
theory, leadership capacity-building program components, and leadership support
structures. The review will also focus on the various aspects of schools within an urban
setting and the principal’s ability to effectively implement instructional/curricular
practices and to manage the operational and organizational components of the school.
The purpose of this chapter is to review and synthesize the extant literature on
effective leadership development and the enactment of support structures to enable and
sustain that practice, most particularly in urban schools and systems. This review will
help to uncover what is known regarding this subject and to support my argument for
conducting a research study that will contribute to the knowledge base with regard to the
salient features and components of effective leadership development programs that build
the capacity of urban school leaders to significantly change their practice in ways that
positively impact teacher instructional practices, the culture of the organization, and
outcomes for students who have traditionally been denied access to academic, social,
economic, and political opportunities in our society.
In this chapter, the challenges that increased accountability have presented to
urban schools and their leaders will be identified, as well as the unintended consequences
inherent in the design of standards-based accountability reform. A discussion of how
22
these reform measures have provided a new direction for school leadership will also be
included. In addition to defining leadership, this review will discuss leadership effects as
they impact student achievement. What follows is a review of key theories of school
leadership including instructional, transformational, learning-centered, and social justice
leadership. The literature on the characteristics of the urban school context and the major
challenges presented to leaders who are determined to change the status quo therein will
be discussed. Particular focus will be on how context impacts the principal’s ability to
implement instructional/curricular practices effectively and to manage the operational
and organizational components of the school. Further, research on the components of
effective leadership capacity-building programs and support structures that enable and
sustain that practice will be reviewed. Finally, I will review professional standards for
leadership practice, followed by a thorough description of the Southwest Independent
School District Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI), an executive leadership
development program designed to align with many of the components outlined in the
literature on effective leadership development programs. The SPCI program will be the
focus of the leadership preparation and development of participants identified for this
study.
Standards-Based Accountability and Reform
Passage of the No Child Left Behind (2001) legislation put accountability at the
forefront. Urban school leaders welcomed the legislation, especially its provisions for
disaggregating data by subgroups, because of the importance it places on closing the
23
achievement gap (Cooke, 2007). Under NCLB (2001), states are required to develop
content standards that will lead to higher achievement by students. Mastery of those
standards would be shown through assessments, which are translated into performance
standards. These performance standards are then used to determine the school’s adequate
yearly progress (AYP) towards goals established by the legislation.
Principals, as instructional leaders of their schools, are responsible for making
sure that these reforms are adequately addressed at their school sites. This accountability
has resulted in positive changes, including staff development plans for instructing
teachers on how to better assist populations of students; schedules that focus more time
on core subject areas and allow flexible grouping; practices to provide instruction at
individualized levels; and changes in assessment practices that enable educators to use
data to inform their decisions (Standerfer, 2005).
New Directions for School Leadership
This new paradigm for school leadership, where principals are not only expected
to be instructional leaders, but also to be educational visionaries, change agents,
curriculum and assessment experts, budget analysts, facility builders, and community
builders is a far cry from the days when principals just “managed’ their schools (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2007). In today’s No Child Left Behind climate, the job of the principal
has become more complex and constrained (Fullan, 1998). Rather than the foreman
overseeing productivity at his factory, the new-age school leader must possess the
following qualities: (a) the ability to keep and dispense information, (b) trustworthiness,
24
(c) flexibility, (d) comfort with risk-taking, (e) the ability to listen well and hold
confidences, and (f) the ability to lead, negotiate, support, and evaluate (Cooke, 2007).
Definition of Leadership
Definitions of leadership are as plentiful as books on the topic. Donaldson
(2006) has defined leadership as a leader’s ability to mobilize people to adopt a school’s
practices and beliefs so that every student’s learning and growth are optimized. Burns
(1978) described leadership as a process whereby leaders induce followers to act for
certain goals that represent the values and the motivation – the wants and the needs, the
aspirations and expectations – of both leaders and followers. Spillane (2006) regarded
leadership as
activities tied to the core of work of the organization that are designed by the
organizational members to influence the motivation, knowledge, affect, or
practices of other organizational members or that are understood by
organizational members as intended to influence their motivation, knowledge,
affect, or practice. (p. 11-12)
Sergiovanni (2007) talked about school leadership as being “about connecting people
morally to each other and their work; [it] involves developing shared purposes, beliefs,
values, and conceptions themed to teaching and learning, community building,
collegiality, character development, and other school issues and concerns” (p. 83).
Though a multitude of definitions attempts to define the concept of leadership,
Northouse (2007) has identified four components that form its foundation: (a) leadership
is a process, (b) leadership involves influence, (c) leadership occurs in a group context,
and (d) leadership involves goal attainment. Based on these four components, Northouse
25
(2007) saw leadership as a process whereby a leader influences a group of individuals to
achieve a common purpose. He goes on to say that leadership is an interactive event; that
is, a process that is available to everyone, not just the formally designated leader or
particular individual. Leadership involves influence, occurs in groups, and includes
attention to goals (Northouse, 2007). All these qualities involve the manner in which the
leader affects followers and exerts his/her influence on them: “without influence,
leadership does not exist” (Northouse, 2007, p. 3). The context in which this leadership
takes place is the group. Further, the leader exerts influence on followers by directing
them to accomplish some task or end. Leadership, then, requires that the leader establish
direction by creating a vision, aligning people through the communication of goals, and
motivating and inspiring the organization.
Bolman and Deal (2003) have defined the practice of leadership as being
composed of four frames: (a) the structural frame, (b) the human resource frame, (c) the
political frame, and (d) the symbolic frame. To build effective organizations and to
develop the capacity of their followers, leaders must work within these four frames. Each
frame identified by Bolman and Deal (2003) emphasizess an area within an organization
in which leaders must become proficient so as to fulfill their mission or vision
successfully.
The structural frame, with its emphasis on goals, specialized roles, and formal
relationships, allows the leader to work with the architecture of an organization to shape
and channel decisions and activities that impact the effectiveness and capacity of the
organization or school. The structural frame also allocates responsibilities to participants
26
and allows for the creation of rules, policies, procedures, and hierarchies to coordinate
diverse activities into a unified strategy.
The human resource frame emphasizes understanding people and building
positive interpersonal and group dynamics that, in turn, foster a school environment
conducive to academic success. Building community is essential in that the organization
must also reflect a humanistic side. As discussed by Bolman and Deal (2007), the
organization is like an extended family, consisting of individuals with needs, feelings,
prejudices, skills, and limitations.
The political frame sees organizations as arenas characterized by scarce resources.
The successful leader is able to work within this frame by coping with power and
conflict, building coalitions, honing political skills, and dealing with internal and external
politics. Politics in this framework is the process of making decisions and allocating
resources in a context of scarcity and divergent interests (Bolman & Deal, 2007).
Especially in these times of budgetary constraints, effective school leaders must exercise
four skills that define the principal as politician: (a) agenda setting, (b) mapping the
political terrain, (c) networking and forming coalitions, and (d) bargaining and
negotiating (Bolman & Deal, 2007).
The fourth frame identified by Bolman and Deal is the symbolic frame, which
focuses on issues of meaning, faith, and the culture at the heart of an organization. This
frame also emphasizes rituals, ceremonies, and stories that give life to an organization
and convey the beliefs and faith that form its foundation.
27
Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2004) have defined school leadership as “the
identification, acquisition, allocation, coordination, and use of the social material, and
cultural resources necessary to establish the conditions for the possibility of teaching and
learning” (p. 11). Elmore’s (2005) definition of leadership, especially as it pertains to
school principals, focused on a shared style of leadership: the principal provides
guidance and direction to teachers in order to improve instruction. This style of
leadership defined by Elmore (2005) is referred to as “distributed leadership.”
Leadership Effects
Especially in this era of accountability, effective school leadership is the variable
that can lead many low-performing urban schools toward academic success. But, of
course, there exists a shortage of highly qualified principals who would provide this
leadership to our many struggling urban schools (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). As has
been shown, not only do many low-performing urban schools have trouble keeping
highly qualified administrators and teachers, but they also have to contend with a number
of other problems: a large, bureaucratic system that proves to be frustrating for both
employees and parents; a lack of sufficient resources; a high number of English language
learners and identified Special Education students; and a need to provide additional
services to students to address their socioemotional needs (Orr, Byrne-Jimenez,
McFarlane, & Brown, 2005).
The impact that effective school leaders have on their schools cannot be
underscored enough. Leithwood et al. (2004) have found that in terms of its impact on
student learning and outcomes, effective school leadership is second only to teaching.
28
Additionally, effective school leadership has been shown to have a more significant
impact on schools faced with greater difficulties (Leithwood et al., 2004). The ability of
effective principals to impact student achievement positively is tied to the organizational
structures they establish at their schools, and to the interactions they have with their
teachers and staff (Hallinger & Heck, 1996).
As identified by Marzano (2003), three indirect factors can influence student
achievement: (a) school-level factors, (b) teacher-level factors, and (c) student-level
factors. School-level factors are defined as the organizational practices and policies that
principals have established; teacher-level factors include classroom management and
instructional strategies, variables controlled by teachers and supported by the principal as
instructional leader; and student-level factors, which are representative of students’
backgrounds, their home and community environments, and motivation. Of course, these
factors are all themselves influenced by effective principals and the organizational
structures they establish at their schools.
Murphy et al. (2006) have asserted that leadership behaviors do not have a direct
effect on student success; rather, leadership behaviors lead to changes in school
performance, which then lead to student success. Antecedents such as knowledge and
skills, personal characteristics, and values and beliefs impact school performance in core
components, such as rigorous curriculum and high quality instruction, which then lead to
student success (Murphy et al., 2006). Notably, the effects of leadership may not be seen
immediately in school performance or student success. Good leadership should lead to
increased quality of school performance over a period of time; only after improved
29
school performance has been in place can one see improved student success (Murphy et
al., 2006).
In looking at leadership effects and their overall impact on effective schools, close
examination must also be given to professional learning communities. Unlike the
traditional public school model, in which leaders were aggressive, professionally alert,
dynamic, and more than willing to impose their ideas on their schools (DuFour & Eaker,
1998), principals today:
must define their job as helping to create a professional learning community in
which teachers can continually collaborate and learn how to be more effective;
(additionally), principals must recognize that this task demands less command and
control and more learning and leading, less dictating and more orchestrating. (p.
184)
Principals of professional learning communities lead through shared vision and values,
rather than through rules and procedures; involve faculty members in the school’s
decision-making processes, empowering individuals to act; and provide staff with the
information, training, and parameters they need to make decisions (DuFour & Eaker,
1998).
Theories of Leadership
Leadership practice and theory, especially as it pertains to educational leadership,
has been described in a number of ways. Leaders may engage in transactional leadership
practices. They may subscribe to a model of shared leadership, or their influence may lie
in distributed leadership. In attempting to define a style of leadership that lends itself
best to the urban school experience, the focus in this section will be on instructional
30
leadership, transformational leadership, learning-centered leadership, and social justice
leadership framework.
Instructional Leadership
As discussed by Leithwood et al. (2004), successful leadership plays a significant
role in improving student achievement. In examining leadership practices that address
effective teaching and learning, considering principals whose role as leaders are primarily
focused on these areas is important. Heck et al. (1990) identified three domains of
principal instructional leadership that had a direct influence on student achievement: (a)
school governance, (b) instructional organization, and (c) school climate. In further
attempting to define instructional leadership, Heck et al. (1990) found that principals, in
their words:
impact teaching and classroom practices through such school decisions as
formulating school goals, setting…high achievement expectations, organizing
classrooms for instruction, allocating necessary resources, supervising teachers’
performance, monitoring student progress, and promoting a positive, orderly
environment for learning. (p. 95)
Murphy et al. (2007a) found that principals demonstrating successful instructional
leadership behaviors focused on four sets of activities that emphasized instruction: (a)
developing the school mission and goals, (b) coordinating, monitoring, and evaluating
curriculum, instruction, and assessment, (c) promoting a climate for learning, and (d)
creating a supportive work environment.
Instructional leaders are also described as being “strong, directive leaders,”
“culture builders,” and “goal-oriented” (p. 223), with a focus on leading as well as
managing (Hallinger, 2005). Hallinger’s (2005) conceptual model of instructional
31
leadership includes three dimensions: (a) Defining the School’s Mission, (b) Managing
the Instructional Program, and (c) Promoting a Positive Learning Climate. These
dimensions are further articulated to reveal 10 specific leadership practices. The first
dimension, Defining the School’s Mission, includes “Framing the School’s Goals” and
“Communicating the School’s Goals”; the second dimension, Managing the Instructional
Program, includes “Supervising and Evaluating Instruction,” “Coordinating the
Curriculum,” and Monitoring Student Progress”; the third dimension, Promoting a
Positive School Learning Climate, is comprised of the following characteristics:
“Protecting Instructional Time,” “Promoting Professional Development,” Maintaining
High Visibility,” Providing Incentives for Teachers,” and “Providing Incentives for
Learning.” As further discussed by Hallinger (2005, p. 233), a principal modeling strong
behaviors as an instructional leader would:
• Create a shared sense of purpose in the school, including clear goals
focused on student learning;
• Foster the continuous improvement of the school through cyclical school
development planning that involves a wide range of stakeholders;
• Develop a climate of high expectations and a school culture aimed at
innovation and improvement of teaching and learning;
• Coordinate the curriculum and monitor student learning outcomes;
• Shape the reward structure of the school to reflect the school’s mission;
• Organize and monitor a wide range of activities aimed at the continuous
development of staff; and
32
• Be a visible presence in the school, and model the desired values of the
school’s culture.
Even though the instructional leadership model has sometimes been viewed as “top-down
and directive” (Hallinger, 2005), the above-listed behaviors show that this model actually
involves the participation of a number of stakeholders to successfully implement and
carry forth the mission, vision, and goals of the principal.
Transformational Leadership
In his classic treatise on leadership, Burns (1978) discussed the concept of
transforming leadership whereby a leader identifies and uses an existing need or demand
of a potential follower, thereby looking for potential motives in followers, while seeking
to satisfy higher needs and engaging the full person of the follower. This dynamic results
in a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders
themselves (Burns, 1978). As it pertains to school leaders, this approach to leadership
aims to support capacity development and higher levels of personal commitment to
organizational goals on the part of leaders’ colleagues (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000).
Hallinger (1992) has discussed transformational leadership as focusing on
problem-finding, problem-solving, and collaborating with stakeholders with the goal of
improving organizational performance. Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) characterized
transformational school leaders as having three fundamental goals: (a) helping staff
develop and maintain a collaborative, professional school culture, (b) promoting teacher
development, and (c) helping the school community solve problems together more
effectively. However, Hallinger and Leithwood (1998) saw transformational leadership
33
as lacking an explicit focus on curriculum and instruction, with a stronger emphasis on
renewing the organization and its personnel.
Marks and Printy (2003), likewise, have seen transformational leaders as having
the ability to inspire and motivate followers by raising their consciousness about the
importance of organizational goals and encouraging them to transcend their own self-
interest for the sake of the organization. They also identify the following leadership
factors exhibited by transformational leaders: (a) idealized influence, (b) inspirational
motivation, (c) intellectual stimulation, and (d) individualized consideration.
Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999) described transformational leadership
along seven dimensions: (a) building school vision, (b) establishing goals, (c) providing
intellectual stimulation, (d) offering individualized support, (e) symbolizing professional
practices and values, (e) demonstrating high performance expectations, and (f)
developing structures to foster participation in school decisions. Based upon findings
from their empirical studies, Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) and Marks and Printy (2003)
agree that transformational leadership, with its emphasis on improving organizational
capacities, does indeed impact teachers’ instructional practices and student participation
and engagement in school.
Ultimately, though, “[transformational] leadership…becomes moral in that it raises
the level of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both leaders and led, and thus has a
transforming effect on both” (Burns, 1978, p. 20). In this regard, its purpose would be to
enhance the resources of both the instructional leader and his staff by raising their levels
of commitment to mutual purposes and by further developing their capacities for
34
achieving those purposes (Leithwood et al., 1999). Transformational leadership
empowers those who participate in its collaborative relationship (Pepper & Thomas,
2002). The organization also gains hope, optimism, and energy due to leadership that
facilitates the process of change, refocusing the school on higher collaborative goals, and
renewing commitments to success for students, teachers, staff, and parents (Pepper &
Thomas, 2002).
Learning-Centered Leadership
Although known by a variety of names, including “leadership for learning,”
“instructionally focused leadership,” or “leadership for school improvement,” learning-
centered leadership,
include(s) the ability of leaders to (a) to stay consistently focused on the right
stuff – the core technology of schooling, or learning, teaching, curriculum and
assessment and (b) to make all the other dimensions of schooling (e.g.,
administration, organization, finance) work in the service of a more robust core
technology and improved student learning. (Murphy et al., 2006, p. 3)
Murphy et al. (2006) further defined learning-centered leadership as composed of eight
major dimensions: (a) Vision for Learning, (b) Instructional Program, (c) Curricular
Program, (d) Assessment Program, (e) Communities of Learning, (f) Resource
Acquisition and Use, (g) Organizational Culture, and (h) Social Advocacy.
The eight dimensions of the “learning-centered leader” discussed by Murphy et al.
(2006) include a number of functions that would be successfully implemented to further
the effectiveness of the principal. Vision for learning would involve developing,
articulating, implementing, and pushing forward the vision of the school. Knowledge of,
and involvement in the instructional program would also require hiring, allocating, and
35
supporting staff, and ensuring the maximization of instructional time. A deep
involvement, as well as knowledge in the curricular program, would be demonstrated by
establishing high expectations and standards for teachers, assuring an opportunity to learn
for all students, and aligning the curriculum throughout the school. Understanding of and
involvement in assessment programs is necessary, as is the use of a variety of assessment
tools to measure student learning adequately, to monitor instruction and curriculum
practices through classroom observations, and to inform staff of assessment data that can
be used to inform instruction. Creating “Communities of Learning” would foster school
improvement through professional development that would strengthen teachers’
instructional skills, and provide them with resources and support, as well as materials
required for the successful implementation of instructional and curricular programs.
Resource acquisition and use involves acquiring, allocating, and using resources
effectively. The organizational structure would be marked by a strong emphasis on
productivity, including the creation of high performance expectations and the
development of an environment conducive to learning that is strong on personalization
and continuous improvement. Lastly, social advocacy is comprised of four domains: (a)
environmental context, (b) diversity, (c) ethics, and (d) stakeholder engagement. This
last area will be further explored in the discussion of Social Justice and Critical Theory,
especially as it applies to the role of the urban school educator.
Social Justice Leadership
Social justice as defined by McKenzie, Christman, Hernandez, Fierro, Capper,
Dantley, Gonzalez, et al. (2008) includes three goals: (a) academic achievement, (b)
36
critical consciousness, and (c) inclusive practices. Additionally, social justice, as applied
to educational leadership, means that school leaders must become activist leaders whose
focus is equity for all students (McKenzie et al. 2008). In defining social justice
leadership, Theoharis (2007) referred to the manner in which “principals make issues of
race, class, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and other historically and currently
marginalizing conditions …central to their advocacy, leadership practice, and vision” (p.
223). Theoharis (2007) also saw social justice leadership as centered on addressing and
eliminating the marginalization in many urban schools. His definition takes into account
inclusive schooling practices for students with disabilities, which include English
language learners and other students traditionally segregated in schools (Theoharis,
2007). Leaders who espouse a belief in social justice leadership also examine the power
relationships that exist within schools and society, carefully examine differential
schooling, and are critical of social stratification (Brown, 2006).
Brown (2004) also contended that in spite of conflicting views of social justice,
ethnically diverse students in our public schools experience negative and inequitable
treatment regularly. Murphy (2002), in his discussion of educational leadership, has
suggested that a new scaffolding must be built by which the profession can flourish
anew—specifically, addressing school improvement, democratic community, and social
justice.
Critical Theory
According to Brown (2004), educational institutions must incorporate a social
justice framework into their leadership curriculum, pedagogy, programs, and policies. In
37
this way, they can begin to address the issues of power and privilege, or critical theory.
As discussed by Brown (2004), critical theory informs the day-to-day lives of people,
structures, and culture. Furthermore, it focuses on the educational ideas, policies, and
practices that serve the interests of the dominant White class, simultaneously silencing
and dehumanizing all other groups (Brown, 2004).
In order to prepare educational leaders to address the needs of the marginalized,
programs must be developed that will encourage participants to view the myriad
problems found on their campuses and communities through a different lens. They must
also strive to enact various contexts and identities that define and act upon the issues
unique to their individual schools (Evans, 2007).
As it relates to education, critical theory posits a framework to theorize and
examine the ways that race and racism impact the organizational structures, processes,
and discussions that take place in an education context (Solorzano & Yosso, 2001). The
commitment to social justice by newly assigned administrators, following their
participation in a preparatory program, would promote transformative responses to race,
gender, and class oppression (Matsuda, 1991). This effort would ultimately lead to the
elimination of racism, sexism, and poverty, and would empower underrepresented
minority groups (Solarzano & Yosso, 2001).
Urban Context
In terms of leadership programs that propose to prepare educational leaders for
service in our nation’s schools, notice has to be given to schools located in urban areas;
38
cultural and ethnic diversity, as well as the poverty faced by many students in this urban
environment, prove to be obstacles to implementing programs for instructional and
curricular success. This trouble is due in large part to principal leadership programs that
promote a “once size fits all” approach to schools, urban, suburban, or rural alike.
However, leaders of urban schools encounter different expectations, obligations, and
dynamics, thus requiring a different set of skills and political know-how (Cuban, 2001).
The task of leading urban schools, though, is intimately tied to a unique and complex
mission; that is, to reduce the consequences of racial and ethnic isolation and the impact
of poverty on academic achievement and to increase opportunities for families and their
children to succeed economically and contribute to their communities (Cuban, 2001).
As shown by the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001), school districts
must have as their priority programs that address the historically poor showing of
students from low-income families and diverse backgrounds on academic assessments.
Of course, the majority of students falling into these two categories attends schools in
urban neighborhoods wracked by poverty, violence, failing infrastructures, and little or
no relief from the public sector (Cooke, 2007).
The impact of this environment on students attending urban schools cannot be
minimized. The daily occurrence of violence brought on by gang rivalries, poverty, and
population density surely affect a child’s ability to do well in school. Add to this picture
parents who struggle with low-paying jobs, a lack of sufficient public amenities such as
transportation, and undernourished children, and the problem becomes even more
complex (Cooke, 2007). This situation means that aspiring school leaders must
39
successfully navigate the waters of school reform while accommodating the rapidly
changing landscape of the traditional school setting. Principals in this challenging
environment must now contend with a variety of issues, the least of which is the
instructional program.
Urban schools are no longer just academic institutions; they are also social and
welfare institutions that must provide students with services to address their
socioemotional needs (Crosby, 1999). Principals in this setting must learn how to
coordinate the demands of an instructional program with the needs of their students. This
effort includes crisis intervention, threat assessment, referrals to Children’s Services or
social welfare programs, child abuse reporting, gang intervention strategies, and teen
pregnancy counseling, to list a few. Additionally, urban public schools do not have the
luxury of limiting their services; they are the only public agency charged with serving all
children regardless of whether they are homeless, undocumented, hungry, or even sick
(Noguera, 1996).
New educational leaders hoping to serve in these impacted communities must
advocate for, lead, and keep at the center of their practice issues of race, class, gender,
disability, sexual orientation, and other historically and currently marginalizing
conditions (Theoharis, 2008). Leaders responding to this call must have a strong
commitment to diversity and to acquiring the skills necessary to respond to the challenges
and opportunities brought by the quickly changing demographics in our urban
communities (Nevarez & Wood, 2007).
40
Leadership Preparation Programs
The focus on accountability brought on by No Child Left Behind (2001),
especially as it pertains to academic improvement for all children, requires that
leadership preparation programs address areas in which potential leaders must become
knowledgeable. Because many of these children attend schools situated in urban areas,
where underperformance is more the norm than at schools in affluent neighborhoods,
these programs must impart a different set of skills and knowledge to the new wave of
school leaders.
Traditionally, preparation programs for new administrators have focused on
training around evaluation and supervision, and management practices. These topics
relate to a system where the principal’s role has been to manage the environment in
which learning and teaching take place (Houle, 2006). As discussed by Murphy (2005), a
two-column foundation for educational leadership developed whereby one pillar fostered
the growth of ideas from management and the other pillar nurtured the development of
concepts from the social sciences; this dyad led to a traditional leadership curriculum that
included school business administration, personnel administration, school facilities,
supervision of employees, and pupil personnel administration. In the ever-evolving
urban landscape where many of the academically and financially strapped schools are
located, this traditional approach to leadership has proven to be mostly ineffective.
Programs in educational leadership must prepare leaders to work successfully in
urban schools, and provide these new leaders with tools to help them promote a sense of
social justice. As such, preparation programs must attend to critical consciousness,
41
knowledge, and practical skills with a focus on social justice framework for their students
(Capper et al., 2006). Brown (2006), in addressing the lack of preparation of future
leaders, especially as it pertains to leading in an urban context, has stated, “If…future
educational leaders are expected to foster successful, equitable, and socially responsible
learning and accountability practices for all students, then substantive changes in
educational leadership preparation and professional programs are required” (p. 705).
Effective Program Components
Effective leadership preparation programs are (a) research-based, (b) have
curricular coherence, (c) provide experience in authentic contexts, (d) use cohort
groupings and mentors, and (e) are structured to enable collaborative activity between the
program and area schools (Davis et al., 2005). Successful programs also include
activities that build on prior learning experiences and continue throughout the
developmental stages of a principal’s career (Davis et al. 2005). Elmore (2006)
contended that the system by which universities prepare leaders should focus on four
areas: (a) management of instruction, (b) systemic solutions to existing problems, (c)
professional practices, and (d) strategic implementation of professional standards. For
programs to be successful, these four components should be integrated into the structure
and framework of the existing curriculum.
Review of the literature reveals that lack of emphasis on social justice and the
urban experience. Nevarez and Wood (2007), in discussing the absence of these two
critical areas in preparation programs, have argued that preparation programs must train
individuals who have a strong commitment to valuing diversity, along with the skills
42
needed to respond to the challenges and opportunities brought by the ever-changing
demographics of our urban communities. In addressing components that are critical to
the preparation of future educational leaders, McKenzie et al. (2008) have suggested four
concerns that leadership programs steeped in a social justice framework should embed in
their curriculum: (a) critical consciousness, (b) teaching and learning, (c) proactive
systems of support and inclusive structure, and (d) induction/praxis.
Nevarez and Wood (2007) have also rallied for increasing the number of
educational leaders of color so as to address the various inequities that exist in urban
schools and their communities. Citing research provided by the National Collaborative
on Diversity in the Teaching Force (2004), Nevarez and Wood (2007) explained that
increasing the number of principals and superintendents of color would (a) produce more
mentors and role models for students, (b) increase the knowledge of students regarding
their own racial/ethnic identity, (c) establish better relationships with students of color
because of shared racial, ethnic, and cultural identities, and (d) indicate a willingness to
guide students through a system that was developed to be counterproductive to their
academic success.
Along these lines, Brown (2006) has also contended that the emphases
preparation programs place on social issues do, in fact, influence student variables,
including student interest and activism. Preparation programs must bridge theory and
practice to make connections between course material and the broader social context, and
to explain to future leaders how they must take an active part in bringing about social
change (Brown, 2006). For this change to come about, preparation programs must
43
examine the impact their strategies have on future leaders’ attitudes, perceptions, and
practices with regard to issues of social justice, equity, and diversity (Brown, 2006).
Capacity-Building
Even though well-thought out programs that address poor academic performance
have been implemented in many urban schools, the sustainability of their ideas and
lessons has been short-lived. Some schools, though, have proven particularly resilient in
the face of challenging socioeconomic circumstances found in poor urban neighborhoods
with traditionally marginalized and underachieving populations (Giles, 2007). As
discussed by Fullan (2002), schools can ensure sustainability by focusing on four key
components: (a) developing the social environment, (b) learning in context, (c)
cultivating leaders at many levels and thereby ensuring leadership succession, and (d)
enhancing the teaching profession.
For leadership preparation programs, people are the essential ingredient to
recovery when rebuilding organizational capacity (Murphy & Meyers, 2009). As the
goal of many of these preparation programs is capacity building, future leaders must be
exposed to the qualities and skills needed to mobilize, rally, and motivate teachers and
staff with the goal of not only improving academic performance, but also developing
schools as learning organizations and professional communities. A school’s educational
capacity depends directly upon how principals promote the development of teacher
knowledge and skills, foster professional community, support program coherence, and
use technical resources strategically (Fullan, 2002). Additionally, in keeping with the
theory of transformational leadership discussed earlier, principals who most effectively
44
implement change have strongly held visions, are motivators, fair and balanced problem
solvers, focused on student work, and guided by a strong belief in good schools and good
teaching (Orr et al., 2005).
As it relates to urban schools and the need for instructional programs that foster
academic success for all students, organizational capacity can be sustained even in these
environments; many urban schools have developed the capacity to survive much of the
predictable attrition (Fink, 2000). This achievement is due to continuity of leadership,
unity of purpose, committed teachers, and a supportive community engaged in the
democratic process (Fink, 2000). Of course, these traits are also likely to be found in a
leader who espouses a belief in social justice as a framework by which to lead effectively.
With the large number of urban schools identified as “failing” or “underperforming,”
how the success or failure of a school relates to its leadership and culture must be taken
into direct consideration (Borman, Rachuba, Datnow, Alberg, MacIver, Stringfield, &
Ross, 2000). As such, the sense of urgency in addressing this problem, especially in
preparation programs, is apparent.
Leadership Support Structures
School leaders not only require preparation programs that develop their capacities
and skills, but they also need to receive continued support so as to increase and sustain
their practice. Unfortunately, even though support structures are essential components of
leadership preparation programs, most developmental programs lack this essential
element.
45
Because higher student performance is a result of quality principals prepared to
lead quality schools, educational leaders must be provided with a leadership framework,
expectations for learning, and training and support that will impact their leadership
abilities from day one (Southern Regional Education Board [SREB], 2007). Though little
evidence exists about the impact that support structures such as mentoring and coaching
have on increased student achievement, leadership preparation programs see this element
as a key component in the development of effective leadership practices (Neufeld &
Roper, 2003).
Mentoring and Coaching
Effective principals do not emerge from traditional graduate programs in school
administration prepared to lead; more likely, “they have been rigorously prepared and
deliberately mentored” in a preparation program that immerses them in real-life
experiences that provides them with a challenge to excel (SREB, 2007). Components of
effective mentoring programs include (a) high standards and expectations for
performance, (b) collaborative planning by university preparation programs and school
districts, (c) problem-focused learning, (d) clearly defined responsibilities for mentors,
university supervisors, and district coordinators, (e) and meaningful performance
evaluations (SREB, 2007).
High standards and performance expectations lead to improved student
achievement and produce leaders with the ability and knowledge to support teachers,
manage curriculum, and transform schools into more effective organizations that foster
powerful teaching and learning (Davis et al., 2005). These standards should reflect key
46
areas of leadership and areas where mentoring is crucial to a new principal’s success
(Villani, 2006).
Effective mentoring begins with collaborative planning between preparation
program officials and school districts. Successful collaboration then leads to the
conditions necessary for high-quality internships (SREB, 2007). These conditions
include (a) a common vision, (b) a shared commitment and responsibility, (c) clearly
defined expectations, (d) a process by which to elicit feedback and report results, and (e)
recognized mutual benefits (SREB, 2007).
In order to be prepared to address problems that occur at school sites, mentoring
programs should provide problem-focused learning. Learning through observation and
participating in activities that improve teaching and learning ensure that future leaders
will have an experience with depth leadership practices and diverse school challenges
(SREB, 2007). Through the process of identifying problems in curriculum, instruction
and achievement, would-be leaders gain opportunities to master leadership competencies
by finding, testing, and evaluating solutions.
Responsibilities for mentors and others involved in preparation programs must be
clearly defined so that these important partners perform their roles with confidence. By
demonstrating leadership practices and observing, assessing, and coaching others’
practice, mentors provide a valuable learning experience for those under their tutelage.
This training ultimately leads to improved instruction and student achievement.
Rather than a completed checklist of activities, evaluations should probe and
evaluate the quality of participants’ experiences and their success in gaining the required
47
competencies and in meeting performance standards. Evaluations should provide
evidence of leadership performance and problem-solving skills that demonstrate the
newly minted administrator’s readiness and preparedness to assume a leadership role.
Additionally, key behaviors and duties for mentors should include (a) helping
principals recruit teachers that can help them build capacity, (b) assisting the principal in
building capacity for shared decision-making, (c) modeling leadership skills for
principals, (d) assisting with scheduling, and (e) assisting the principal in organizing and
managing time (Neufeld & Roper, 2003).
Professional Standards
To address the perceived nonexistence of standards by which educational leaders
practice their profession, the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC)
developed Standards for School Leaders (Cooke, 2007). Crafted to influence the
leadership skills of existing school leaders and to shape the knowledge, performances,
and skills of prospective leaders in preparation programs (Murphy, 2005), the standards,
which have been incorporated into a number of leadership programs nationwide, were
introduced in 1996. As a framework by which preparation programs might structure their
curriculum, the ISLLC standards also define and guide the practice of school leaders.
In addition to providing a template by which educational leaders develop their
practice, the ISLLC standards touch on the concepts of social justice and equity, and
address the following new paradigm by which educational leaders operate: (a) school
leaders promote the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a
48
school culture that is conducive to student learning; (b) school leaders promote the
success of all students by collaborating with families and community members,
responding to diverse community interests, and mobilizing community resources; (c)
school administrators are educational leaders who promote the success of all students by
acting with integrity and fairness; and (d) school administrators are educational leaders
who promote the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing
the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context. Overall, the “standards
present a common core of knowledge, dispositions, and performances that link leadership
to productive schools and enhanced educational outcomes” (Cooke, 2007, p. 5).
The program at the focus of this study, the Southwest Independent School District
Principal Coaching Initiative, seeks to address the knowledge required by its participants
in order to lead struggling urban schools effectively.
Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative
The Southwest Independent School District’s (SISD) established an initiative to
become the best urban school district in America by 2010; as such, it included a
leadership component whereby principals and other administrators were provided
ongoing information regarding best practices in teaching and learning, school and district
operations updates, and administrator leadership principles. The SISD Principal Coaching
Initiative (SPCI), which began in January 2009, provides leadership support to active
principals by partnering them with experienced, often retired, principals. Based on the
executive coaching model originally developed in the business community, this model
49
goes beyond the scope of a mentor/mentee relationship— with principal coaches
committing to offer support to active principals over a period of time.
In the SPCI, funded by a grant from the Meadows Foundation, a Southwest-area
private philanthropic foundation, principal coaches are assigned to one or two principals.
Once assigned, principals and their coaches attend professional development sessions
together, oftentimes the same sessions all other principals attend. In some cases,
professional development programs designed for the principals and coaches are offered;
the focus for these specially designed programs is data analysis, goal-setting related to
academic achievement, leadership practice, and establishing systems and structures to
support improved teacher practice and student learning. The principal coach also
provides at-elbow coaching and conferring to enhance instructional leadership
development and to build leadership capacity that ensures improved academic success for
all students.
The SISD has been in a reform support relationship with the University of
Pittsburgh’s Institute for Learning (IFL) since the 2006–2007 school year. The IFL is
involved in the design and implementation of much of the curriculum for these programs.
This involvement assures that the program is aligned with the Southwest ISD initiatives
across the district, and that the curriculum includes the development of greater capacity
as instructional leaders for its participants.
The professional development provided in the leadership institutes began with an
introduction to the IFL’s Principles of Learning. Those principles are Organizing for
Effort, Accountable Talk, Clear Expectations, Fair and Credible Evaluations, Socializing
50
Intelligence, Recognition of Accomplishment, Self-Management of Learning, Academic
Rigor in a Thinking Curriculum, and Learning as Apprenticeship. Components of the
program also include professional development evaluation using Learning Walks, Nested
Professional Learning Communities, and Disciplinary Literacy.
Chapter Two Conclusion
The impact that the urban environment has on the many low-performing schools
located in its confines cannot be underestimated; neither can the impact that a well-
prepared principal would have on such schools. Leaders embarking on the challenge of
turning around poor-performing urban schools must have the knowledge and skills
necessary for such an arduous task. As such, preparation programs must deliver a
curriculum that enables these new administrators to improve student achievement and to
build capacity within their schools organizational structures that will lead to quality
instruction and increased academic success.
Organization of Chapter Three
The chapter that follows will discuss the various processes used in conducting this
study. Specifically, it will outline the methodology, including a discussion of the
research questions; the design of the study; the sample selection of participants; the
instruments, protocols, and procedures used for data collection; the procedures used for
data analysis; and the ethical considerations that informed the study.
51
Chapter Three
Methodology
Chapter Three Introduction
This chapter will describe the design, sample, instrumentation, and data collection
and data analysis process employed in this study. The purpose of this case study was to
contribute to the knowledge base regarding effective components of leadership capacity-
building programs and support structures that enable and sustain urban school leader
practice. Specifically, the study proposed to investigate the impact of principal
participation in a fully developed, research and standards-based, executive leadership
development program on leader practice and professional practice of teachers.
This study was conducted by the University of Southern California in partnership
with the Southwest Independent School District (SISD). In the SISD, the superintendent
and his staff took a proactive approach to making sure that quality leaders are at the helm
in public schools. The Southwest Independent School District Principal Coaching
Initiative (SPCI) provides a standards-based capacity-building curriculum and a
supportive leadership coaching structure. The district is determined to build capacity in
school leaders by focusing on what they need to know and be able to do in order to
provide the guidance and direction of sustained instructional improvement leading to
higher student achievement. The dissertation chair for my committee was instrumental in
securing access to the district and schools located throughout the Southwest.
52
Intervention
The SPCI was designed to partner 14 principals with principal/coaches who
provide at-elbow coaching and conferring to enhance instructional leadership
development and to build leadership capacity that ensures improved academic success for
all students.. Principals and coaches participated in professional development focused on
data analysis, goal-setting related to academic achievement, leadership practice, and
establishing systems and structures to support improved teacher practice and student
learning. Research demonstrates that effective school leaders have an impact on student
achievement. A focused program of continuing professional education can help leaders
develop the knowledge and skills they need to more effectively improve the learning
environment for teachers and students alike. The Chief Administrative Officer for the
Southwest Independent School District drafted a letter of support for this project
(Appendix C).
Study Design
The study identified two principals who are currently participating in the SPCI.
Each case study focused on how the SPCI program prepared leaders to create
organizational structures and practices that promote effective leader practice and
professional teacher practices that improve student outcomes in the urban context. The
study took a comprehensive look at the enacted leadership practices that may lead to
attainment of the Southwest Essential Knowledge and Skills (SEKS) and Southwest ISD
outcomes in order to determine (a) the relationship between principal participation in the
SPCI program and their leadership practice, and (b) if the practice of the two principals
53
varies, what accounts for that variance. The study will also expand the knowledge base
regarding components of effective leadership support structures at the school and district
levels that enable the principal’s leadership practice to create and sustain conditions for
effective teacher practice and to promote a more equitable and effective student learning
environment in the urban school context. Qualitative as well as quantitative data were
collected in a preintervention and postintervention design to determine the leader’s
change in practice and how these factors have been shaped or reshaped by participation
and experiences in the SPCI program over time.
The case study design was appropriate for this study because it is particularly
suited to situations in which it is impossible to separate the phenomenon’s variables (e.g.,
leadership practice, leader knowledge, etc.) from context (Yin, 2003), as is the case in the
study of leadership practice in schools. In case study research, data collection usually
“involves all three strategies of interviewing, observing, and analyzing documents”
(Merriam, 1998, p.136). Patton (2002) has contended that multiple sources of
information are sought and used because no single source of information can be trusted to
provide a comprehensive perspective. By using a combination of observations,
interviews, and document analysis the researcher is able to use different data sources to
validate and crosscheck findings.
This study was designed to address the following research questions:
1. How does participation in the Southwest ISD Principal Coaching Initiative
(SPCI) prepare principals to become effective leaders?
54
2. How does the SPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs, and leadership
practices of urban school principals?
3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
5. How can the Val-Ed instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist
principals to become effective instructional leaders?
Sample and Population
The unit of analysis for this study was urban school leadership practice.
Nonprobability sampling, specifically, purposeful (Patton, 2002) sampling, was used to
identify participants for this study and was appropriate because the intent was to discover
and gain a better understanding as well as insight into the nature of leadership practice.
Therefore, it was important to identify a sample from which the most could be learned.
Patton (2002) has contended that
the logic and power of purposeful sampling lies in selecting information-rich
cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases are those from which one can
learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the
research, thus the term purposeful sampling. (p. 230)
Selection Criteria
For this multicase, comparative, qualitative study, the first level of sampling involved
selection of the actual “case.” Schools that met predetermined criteria were identified for
participation in the study. The intent was to explore variation among schools where
55
principals were in their first year of participation in the Southwest ISD Principal
Coaching Initiative (SPCI). Schools that were identified for participation in each case
were purposefully selected based on the following criteria:
1. Percent minority population was greater than or equal to 50%
2. Percent low-income student population was greater than or equal 50%
3. Percent English language learner was greater than or equal to 5%
4. Principal experience was fewer than or equal to five years
5. Percent of minority population proficient in math and reading was less
than or equal to 50%
6. Gap in math and reading proficiency among student groups was greater
than or equal to 20%
7. Principal participation in year one of the SPCI program beginning in either
spring 2009 or fall 2009.
The two case study schools selected for participation in this study, Ledbetter Elementary
School and Hampton Elementary School, met all the criteria listed above; additionally,
both schools were situated in urban communities that are culturally and ethnically
diverse. Many of the students in this community have also faced poverty; as such, this
urban environment has proven to be an obstacle in implementing programs for
instructional and curricular success.
To strengthen the validity of the study, teacher participants identified for within-
case sampling were randomly identified. Each participant, principals and their teachers,
was asked to participate in preintervention and postintervention interview and
56
observation data-collection activities. A minimum of six teachers who teach high stakes
accountability subjects, math and/or reading, were identified for this level of sampling.
Participants in this study were recruited from among K-12 urban public schools in
the Southwest Independent School District (SISD), which serves an ethnically diverse
student population and substantial numbers of low-income families. The SISD had a
2008 student enrollment of 195,411 (K-12) students who were served in 347 schools
(DISD). The 2008 student demographics in the Southwest ISD were as follows: 27.7%
African American, 1% Asian, 66.5% Latino/Hispanic, and 84.7% low income. Table 1,
below, provides a graphic illustration of student enrollment while Table 2, below,
illustrates disaggregated enrollment percentages.
Table 1
Southwest Independent School District Enrollment 2008*
Factor Number
Enrollment Total 157, 632
Schools 226
Elementary 156
Middle 32
High Schools 33
Alternative 5
* Data retrieved from the Southwest Independent
School District Education Website:
http://www.southwestisd.org
57
Table 2
Southwest Independent School District Demographics 2008*
Category %
African American 27.7
Latino 66.5
White 4.2
Asian/Pacific Islander 1
Other .2
Low income 84.7
ELL 9.9
Sp Ed. 8.1
*Data retrieved from the Southwest Independent
School District Education Website:
http://www.southwestisd.org
The Southwest Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (SAKS), implemented in
Spring 2003 by a mandate of the Southwest Legislature, is the state’s standardized test
given to students in grades 3-10 annually. Students are assessed in mathematics in grades
3-10; reading in grades 3-9; writing in grades 4 and 7; English language arts in grade 10;
science in grades 5, 8, and 10; and social studies in grades 8 and 10. The SAKS is a
standards-based assessment that measures the extent to which a student has learned and is
able to apply the defined knowledge and skills at each tested grade level; as such, the
SAKS is directly aligned to the Southwest Essential Knowledge and Skills (SEKS), the
state’s curriculum standards. Student results on the SAKS are reported as either “met
standard” or “commended performance.” Disaggregated student achievement on the
SAKS during the 2008 school year is illustrated in Tables 3, below. Though the
58
percentage of students meeting the English language arts standards is at least 70% in each
subgroup and grade level, the math data reveals significant gaps between the number of
students meeting the standard at the middle school level and high school levels, as well as
the Black and White subgroups.
Table 3
Southwest Independent School District Achievement Results, 2008*
Student 6
th
RDG % 7
th
RDG % 8
th
RDG % 9
th
RDG % 10
th
RDG % Exit Level
Group Met Standard Met Standard Met Standard Met Standard Met Standard Met Standard
All 87.8 77.3 90.7 76 80.0 86.6
Black 84.1 74.1 89.3 73.4 77.5 85.9
Hispanic 88.9 77.9 90.9 75.9 80 85.8
White 93.3 89.9 96.2 92.1 93 96.9
Low SES 86.8 76.3 90.2 74.3 78.1 85
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Student 6
th
Math % 7
th
Math % 8
th
Math % 9
th
Math % 10
th
Math % Exit Level
Group Met Standard Met Standard Met Standard Met Standard Met Standard Met Standard
All 73.8 64.5 77.2 44.7 50.8 75.1
Black 63.2 54 68.8 35.5 41 70.3
Hispanic 77.3 68.5 80.3 47.4 53 75.5
White 84.3 74.8 89.1 70.5 77.8 92.9
Low SES 72.6 63.7 76.6 42.5 48.2 73.3
*Data retrieved from the Southwest Independent School District Website:
http://www.southwestisd.org/inside_disd/depts/evalacct/evaluation/index.htm
Gaining Access to Participants
In August 2009, Dr. Margaret Reed, Associate Researcher and Faculty Adviser,
met with Southwest Independent School District administrators, potential case study
school principals, leadership coaches, and the Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative
(SPCI) Key Planners team to discuss the University of Southern California’s research
59
study proposal and to secure the district’s participation in the study. As a result of this
meeting, case study school principals were identified and participated in an overview of
the SPCI/USC research proposal, which outlined their role in the study, the methodology,
and benefits of participation; additionally, the identified case study school principals
completed the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-Ed) on-line
survey, the primary data-collection tool used in the study.
In September 2009, student researchers/primary investigators sent introductory
letters via e-mail to each of their assigned case study school principals to provide an
overview of the proposed research and to identify the data that would be collected upon
our visit to the Southwest ISD. Follow-up phone calls were then placed to confirm travel
plans and visitation schedules. Principals were also asked to identify a lead teacher to
coordinate the distribution of the VAL-Ed survey IDs to teacher participants so as to
maintain their anonymity and to protect the confidentiality of the information collected;
the lead teacher was also given the responsibility of assisting in securing a list of teachers
from which to randomly select case study participants. To further assist in maintaining
anonymity, case study participants were given pseudonyms.
Data Collection Procedures
This study utilized a qualitative comparative case study design. In general, case
studies focus on discovery and exploration rather than hypothesis testing and the
development of deductive inferences (Merriam, 1998). Case studies are most appropriate
in situations where the researcher has little control over the events in the context
60
surrounding the phenomenon (Yin, 2003). Therefore this study focused on descriptive
questions that revealed the “hows” and “whys” of changes in principal leadership
behavior through participation in the SPCI program as well as the impact of the leader’s
practice on teacher practice and organizational structures.
Yin (1984) defined a case study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between
phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of
evidence are used” (p. 23). For this study, analyzing the phenomenon of educational
leadership in a real-life context is important to gaining a better understanding of what
factors about the context seemed to influence principal behavior. As such, a multiple case
study design was the best methodological approach for this study. Not only would a
comparative case study design contribute to the robustness of the study, but it would also
contribute to the base of knowledge supporting the importance of context in change in
professional practice.
According to Patton (2002):
multiple sources of information are sought and used because no single source of
information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive perspective on the
program; by using a combination of observations, interviewing, and document
analysis, the fieldworker is able to use different data sources to validate and
crosscheck findings. (p. 306)
Patton (2002) has also pointed out that each type of data source has its strengths and
weaknesses; triangulation (the use of multiple data sources) increases validity because the
strengths of one approach can compensate for the weaknesses of another.
61
Instrumentation: Overview
Multiple sources of data were collected for analysis in this study. For both case
studies, the following sources were used to gather descriptive data: pre and
postintervention interviews with each principal and a subset of their teachers; pre and
postintervention observations of the principal interacting with teachers; classroom
observations of teachers interacting with their students and observations of classroom
teachers interacting with other teachers; and a collection of documents (e.g., those
publicly available) and artifacts (e.g., those generated in conjunction with SPCI course
requirements) relevant to the study.
In addition, pre and postintervention data was collected from the administration of
the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) survey to each
principal, his/her supervisor, and all of their teachers. The first administration took place
in the fall (2009), prior to the principals’ interaction with their SPCI coach and before the
start of the fall semester; the postintervention assessment took place in the spring (2010).
Patton (1990) has contended that, “multiple sources of information are sought and
used because no single source of information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive
perspective.” (p. 244). Data collected in response to each research question was
triangulated to facilitate the data analysis process and substantiate any inferences made
with regard to changes in leader practice and teacher professional practice. The VAL-Ed
survey was administered as a part of the overarching longitudinal study as well as the
case studies.
62
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED)
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) is a standards-
based survey of educational leadership, closely aligned with the Interstate School Leaders
Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards and the Southwest Core Leadership Standards
(Appendix D). The VAL-ED was funded by a grant from the Wallace Foundation and
developed by a team of well-respected researchers in educational leadership (Murphy et
al., 2007b). Learning-centered leadership theory is the framework for the VAL-ED
(Porter, Goldring, Murphy, Elliott, & Cravens, 2006). The learning-centered leader
establishes clear vision, exhibits instructional proficiency, aligns the curriculum to
assessment, personally knows his or her staff, implements a culture of learning for adults
and children, encourages a safe and orderly environment, and communicates with all
actors in the teaching and learning process. Through this leadership perspective the
behaviors for this instrument were developed.
The survey is composed of 72 items that are broken down into six core
component subscales and six process subscales. The six core components are (a) high
standards for student performance, (b) rigorous curriculum, (c) quality instruction, (d)
culture of learning and professional behavior, (e) connections to external communities,
and (f) performance accountability. The six key processes are (a) planning, (b)
implementing, (c) supporting, (d) advocating, (e) communicating, and (f) monitoring.
Survey respondents indicate their perceptions of how well the principal engages in
actions (the key processes) that impact effective school activities supported by research
63
(the core components); additionally, survey respondents are asked to identify the
source(s) of evidence that support these perceptions.
The instrument is designed to provide a 360-degree evidence-based assessment of
leadership. VAL-ED survey respondents include the principal, supervisor, and all
teachers at the school. Respondents are asked to rate the perceived effectiveness of the
principal on a scale of 1-5 (1= Ineffective to 5= Outstandingly Effective) for each of the
72 items. Parallel forms of the assessment will be used to measure growth over time,
from the preintervention assessment to the postintervention period. Both principal and
teacher surveys are designed to take from 30 to 45 minutes to complete. The VAL-ED
survey is designed to yield both criterion-referenced and norm-referenced scores. Figure
2, below, illustrates a sample of the VAL-ED survey.
Figure 2
Sample VAL-ED Survey
64
Though a new instrument in the research on educational leadership, VAL-ED
(2008) has been subjected to extensive field-testing in order to establish high standards of
content validity and reliability. The conceptual framework is based on the literature on
school leadership effects on student achievement (Porter et al., 2008). The developers
completed a nine-school pilot test in the fall of 2007 to establish both face and content
validity. Estimated reliability coefficients for each of the 12 subscales were also
established as a result of this pilot. Overall, the investigation revealed high reliability
coefficients for the 72-item scales (α = >.98). Confirmatory factor analysis was
conducted to investigate data fit to the conceptual model. The factor analytic model was
designed to parallel the conceptual framework for the VAL-ED by incorporating higher-
order factors for core components, key processes, and an overall score (Porter et al.,
2008).
Because each item contributed to both a core component and a key process, the
factor analytic model was split into two separate analyses: one on core components and
the other on key processes. Results from the confirmatory factor analyses reveal that both
the core components and the key processes models fit the data very well, having
goodness of fit indices between .96 and .99. A primary source of validity evidence is the
core component and key process intercorrelations. The correlations were high, both for
core components and for key processes, though they appear somewhat higher for key
processes.
For core components, correlations ranged from a low of .73 (Connections to
External Communities and High Standards for Student Learning) to a high of .90 (Quality
65
Instruction and High Standards for Student Learning). For key processes, correlations
ranged from a low of .89 (Supporting and Monitoring) to a high of .94 (Monitoring and
Communicating). Correlations of core components and key processes with total score
were all quite high, with none lower than .9. These high intercorrelations, along with the
factor analysis results described above, suggest that the instrument is measuring a strong
underlying construct, principal leadership. Fall and spring survey results of the VAL-ED
assessment can be found in Appendices O, P, Q, and R. In the winter of 2008, a 300-
school field test was completed. The purposes of this test were (a) to replicate reliability
and validity tests from the initial nine-school pilot in the fall of 2007, (b) to conduct
differential item functioning to determine biases, and (c) to establish norms (Porter et al.,
2008).
For this study, all survey respondents took the on-line version of the VAL-ED
survey; to protect the confidentiality of each participant, all respondents were assigned a
unique ID. The distribution survey IDs, which were provided to participants by a lead
teacher identified by the researcher in cooperation with the principal, also served to avoid
the possibility of retaliation against teachers for their responses. Through this process,
the exact responses of all participants and their contribution to the overall survey results
remained unknown to the principal.
Interviews
Semistructured interviews were conducted with each principal (N = 2) and a
subset of teachers (N=6) from each case study school site. Principal and teacher
interview protocols included a mixture of predetermined as well as open-ended questions.
66
The preintervention interviews (Appendices E and G) took place in the fall (2009) for
approximately 45 minutes with principals and 30 minutes with teachers. The
postintervention interviews (Appendices F and H) took place in the spring (2010). In
addition, probing questions were asked when the responses required more elaboration or
clarification. The interviews were recorded and later transcribed for analysis.
Teachers were randomly selected from the master teacher list secured with
principal cooperation based on whether they taught math, reading, and/or science. A
minimum of three teachers participated in both pre and postintervention interviews at
each school. The interview protocols were designed to elicit responses that could
evidence a change in principal and teacher practice in reflecting the outcomes of value to
this study, which are aligned with the Southwest Core Leadership Standards, the
outcomes and goals of the SPCI, and learning-centered leadership framework (Murphy et
al., 2006). Table 4, below, illustrates the alignment of outcomes across these three
guiding frameworks.
67
Table 4
Alignment Matrix
Core State-wide
Leadership Standards
Addressed
Leadership Development Curriculum
(IFL) & Leadership Institutes
Murphy’s Learning-Centered
Framework
(8 Dimensions)
Standard #1
The leader has the
knowledge and skills to
think and plan
strategically creating an
organizational vision
around personalized
student success.
Transforming Our Public Schools (TOPS)
Develop Vision and Goals
• Institute for Learning (IFL) Institutes &
IFL’s Leadership for Learning: A Theory
of Action for Urban School Districts*
• District design principles and theory of
change
• District Initiatives and Procedures
Vertical Learning Communities
• Learning Walk within and across feeder
patterns
• Book studies and article discussions
• Sharing artifacts that impact student
achievement
Standard #2
The leader is grounded in
standards-based systems
of theory and design and
is able to transfer that
knowledge to his/her job
as the architect of
standards-based reform in
the school.
IFL’s Leadership for Learning:
A Theory of Action for Urban School
Districts
• District design principles and theory of
change
• Foundation of Effective Learning: The
Principles of Learning
• Disciplinary Literacy/Academic Rigor
Standard # 3
The leader knows how to
access and use
appropriate data to inform
decision-making at all
levels of the system.
Leading for Results
• Learning Walks
• Focus on Data Analysis
• Nested Professional Learning
Communities
• Leadership Instructional
Conferring/Coaching and Reflective
Practice Strategies
Vision for Learning
A. Developing vision
B. Articulating vision
C. Implementing vision
D. Stewarding vision
Instructional Program
A. Knowledge and involvement
B. Hiring and allocating staff
C. Supporting staff
D. Instructional time
Curricular Program
A. Knowledge and involvement
B. Expectations, standards
C. Opportunity to learn
D. Curriculum alignment
Assessment Program
A. Knowledge and involvement
B. Assessment procedures
C. Monitoring instruction and
curriculum
D. Communication and use of data
Communities of Learning
A. Professional development
B. Communities of professional
practice
C. Community-anchored schools
Resource Acquisition and Use
A. Acquiring resources
B. Allocating resources
C. Using resources
Organizational Culture
A. Production emphasis
B. Accountability
C. Learning environment
D. Personalized environment
E. Continuous improvement
Social Advocacy
A. Stakeholder engagement
B. Diversity
C. Environmental context
D. Ethics
Source: Porter, Murphy, Goldring, Elliott, Polikoff, & May, 2008. Val Ed Technical Manual
68
Observations and Documents
In addition to interviews, four types of pre/postintervention observations were
conducted at each school to gather additional data. Observational data were necessary to
strengthen data obtained through interviews and the VAL-ED. Interview and survey data
were based solely on individual perceptions. Observations and document analysis
provided additional data that are somewhat removed from individual perceptions and, in
some cases, biases of those working at the school site. Additionally, these observational
data added to the strength of the study as they provided another source of data for
triangulation. Observations included the following:
1. Principal and teacher interactions in both individual and group settings
(i.e., staff meetings, professional learning community meetings)
2. Teachers instructing students in math and language arts
3. Principal interactions during day-to-day responsibilities
4. School-level professional learning opportunities in which the principal
guided the learning process
In total, one day was devoted to collecting qualitative data during the
preintervention and one day during the postintervention period at each school site for a
total of four days. Reflective field notes from these observations were recorded using an
observation protocol designed for each type of observation. The notes were transcribed
for analysis using a template to facilitate organization for analysis. Table 5, below, details
the triangulation of data in relation to each research question identified at the beginning
of this chapter.
69
Table 5
Triangulation Table
.
Research Questions Data Collection Instruments
VAL-
ED
Observations
(Pre/Post)
Principal & Tchr.
Interviews
(Pre/Post)
Artifacts/
Documents
(Pre/Post)
1:
How does participation in the
Principal Coaching Initiative prepare
principals to become effective
instructional leaders?
X X
X
2:
How does the program influence the
knowledge, beliefs and leadership
practices of urban school principals?
X
X X
X
3:
How does an urban school principal
create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote
effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
X
X X
X
4:
What leadership support structures
enable leader practice?
X X X
5:
How can the VAL-ED instrument
serve as a coaching tool to assist
principals to become effective
instructional leaders?
X X X
X
70
Data Analysis Procedures
There is no single, accepted approach to analyzing qualitative data, although
several guidelines exist for this process (Creswell, 2005). Data collected for this study
was analyzed in accordance with two levels of analysis, formative and summative. To
protect the integrity of the case study, each case was fully analyzed (i.e., coding, pattern
matching, organization by themes, and summative data analysis) prior to the cross-case
comparative analysis. Once the data for the two case studies had been individually
analyzed, data from both cases was analyzed again to search for patterns and themes that
would help in making inferences regarding the variance between the two cases.
Formative Data Analysis Procedures
A formative data analysis of this study was completed utilizing Creswell’s (2005)
generic six-step process:
1. Organize and prepare the data for analysis, which involves transcribing
interviews, field notes, and reviewing documents.
2. Read through all the data in order to obtain a general sense of the
information and to reflect on its overall meaning.
3. Begin detailed analysis with a coding process—organizing the material
into chunks or categories.
4. Use the coding process from Step 3 to organize the categories into themes
for analysis and to look for connections between the themes.
5. Define how the themes will be represented in the qualitative narrative.
6. Formulate an interpretation or meaning of the data.
71
Summative Data Analysis Procedures
Emphasizing the theoretical implications from the conceptual framework that
guided this study, for each research question, the data were analyzed through the various
lenses of the literature discussed in Chapters Two to determine if there had been a change
in perceptions of leader behavior and impact on teacher practice and organizational
structures. For the quantitative data collected from the Val-ED survey, the mean
difference between the results of the pre and postadministrations of the assessment was
used. A positive value was considered a change in the direction towards effective
learning-centered leadership practices. A negative value was considered a loss. These
data were then triangulated with the qualitative data and used to further support the
descriptive analysis of the case study data.
It was anticipated that this research study would be completed over a six month
period of time. Table 6, below, illustrates the timeline for the study.
72
Table 6
Timeline for the Research Project
Task Timeline
Proposal Development and Planning
August/September 2009
Recruitment of Study Participants
August/September 11, 2009
On-Site Roll Out Planning and Presentations
September 16-17, 2009
Pre-intervention
• On-Site Case Study Qualitative Data Collection(Fall): Observe case
study principals leading PL; interview principals & classroom
teachers; collect documents for analysis; Collect & Analyze Principal
Artifacts of Practice
• Observe master principals, coaches, IFL presentations;
coordinate/monitor case study data collection process
September 28-29, 2009
ON-LINE VAL ED Survey Administration (Fall)
All principal participants; teachers, & supervisors
September-October, 2009
Data Analysis
November/December 2009
Post-intervention
Case Study Qualitative Data Collection (Spring): Observe principals
leading PL; interview principals & classroom teachers; collect documents
for analysis; Collect & Analyze Principal Artifacts of Practice
February-March, 2010
(January 3-5, 2010)
ON-LINE VAL ED Survey Administration (Spring)
All principal participants; teachers, coaches, supervisors
February-March, 2010
Case Study Schools Data Analysis
February-March, 2010
Validity
Validity strategies are used to determine the trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba,
1985, as cited in Creswell, 2005) and accuracy of interpretations and findings. The
accuracy and credibility of the findings of this study were established using the validation
strategies of data triangulation and peer debriefing. Triangulation is the process of
73
corroborating evidence from various individuals, sources, and methods. Data collected in
this study came from a variety of individuals (i.e. principals, supervisors, and teachers),
sources and methods (i.e., survey, interviews, observations, and review of artifacts). Peer
debriefing was also utilized through a process of identifying a colleague to whom
responsibility for reviewing and asking questions about the interpretations and findings
was given. Through this process, it was anticipated that clarity would be gained from
someone other than the researcher.
Though various limitations and delimitations of the study were addressed in
Chapter One, recognizing additional threats to validity is important. Some potential
threats to internal validity are outlined below:
1. Length of the Study: Time for collecting qualitative data from fieldwork
for this study was limited to six months.
2. Both principals did not have sufficient time to assimilate the learning
gained from participation in the SPCI.
3. The fact that the postassessment of the VAL-ED survey came relatively
soon after the preassessment (approximately five months) limited the
degree to which it could fully measure the principal’s growth in the areas
assessed.
4. Pretest Treatment Interaction: The pre-post design of the administration of
the VAL-ED has inherent issues of validity, in that changes reflected in
the second administration of the VAL-ED could reflect results of factors
other than the participants’ participation in the SPCI.
74
5. The number of teachers completing the VAL-ED survey in the fall, and the
number completing the survey in the spring was different. At Ledbetter
Elementary School, 61% (22/36) completed the survey; the spring survey
showed a response rate of 78% (28/36). At Hampton Elementary School,
53% (20/38) completed the survey, while 55% (21/38) completed it in the
spring.
6. The “halo effect”: Due to the nature of the measures used in the VAL-ED
(ratings of self and colleagues), participants may have had a tendency to
assume specific traits or behaviors based on a general impression.
However, to mitigate the effect of this phenomenon, by design, the VAL-
ED survey requires raters to identify the primary source of evidence for
their rationale on each item (i.e., personal observation, documents, etc.).
Ethical Considerations
The University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program
policies and procedures for conducting research were utilized in the development of this
research design. Prior to participation in this study, each participant was given an
explanation of the purpose, procedures, and scope of the study. In addition, each
principal participant was given an informed consent form, which outlined the nature of
the study, to read and sign indicating voluntary participation. To protect the anonymity
of each participant, pseudonyms were assigned to the principal and teacher participants.
In addition, the names of the schools with which the participants were associated were
75
changed to avoid any possible association that might lead to the identification of
participants in this study. All data were stored in a secure location with restricted access
to the data to the researcher only. The proposal for this study underwent the rigorous
approval process for the conduct of human subjects research through the University of
Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), and was approved prior to the
start of data collection in the fall (2009).
Chapter Three Summary
This chapter reviewed the purpose of the study and the research methodology that
was used to accomplish that goal. Justification for the use of a descriptive qualitative
analysis to address the research questions was given in the beginning of the chapter. The
research design included a detailed description of the sample and how the individual
cases were selected for study. Data collection and analysis procedures were explained, as
were instrumentation considerations. Due to its infancy and limited use in research of
educational leadership to date, a brief review of the VAL-ED survey and its psychometric
properties was given to assure readers of its validity and reliability in assessing leader
behavior in this study. Other topics covered in this chapter included ethical
considerations of the study.
76
Organization of Chapter Four
Chapter Four will begin with a discussion of the Southwest Principal Coaching
Initiative and an introduction of the case study schools participating in the research study.
Included in the overview of the participating schools is a description of the schools’
locations; a discussion of the demographics of the schools; a look at the culture and
climate existing at the schools; and an introduction to the building principals. Following
the introduction of the schools, a discussion of the findings of the research conducted,
and an analysis of the findings viewed through the perspective of theoretical frameworks,
will be presented.
77
Chapter Four
Research Findings
Chapter Four Introduction
This chapter will discuss the findings from two qualitative case studies whose
purpose was to investigate how a focused, district-wide leadership capacity-building and
support initiative carried out in a large, urban school district sought to prepare principals
to become effective instructional leaders. The study also looked at how principals, as a
result of their participation in the Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI), put
into practice behaviors that focused on creating and sustaining organizational structures
and processes that promote effective teacher practice and positively impact student
outcomes. The rigorous design of this study included the pre/post collection of both
qualitative and quantitative data to be used in descriptive analysis of the findings from
this study. Data collected from each case study school are presented and analyzed in this
chapter to determine the impact that participating in the SPCI had on leadership practice.
The chapter begins with a brief discussion of the Southwest Principal Coaching
Initiative, followed by a presentation of each case study school including an introduction
of the principal, staffing, the school context including student demographics, student
achievement patterns in math and language arts, leadership challenges, and
vision/mission/school goals. Discussion and analysis of the findings in relation to each of
the five research questions that guided this study follows each case study. Next, a
summary of the findings will be presented. The chapter concludes with a comparison of
78
the findings for each case study school and an analysis of any variations between the two
schools and a discussion relating to the possible causes for variance.
The research questions guiding this study, which were initially discussed in
Chapter One, are as follows:
1. How does participation in the Southwest ISD Principal Coaching Initiative
(SPCI) prepare principals to become effective leaders?
2. How does the SPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs, and leadership
practices of urban school principals?
3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
5. How can the Val-Ed instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist
principals to become effective instructional leaders?
The Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative
The Southwest Independent School District’s initiative to become the best urban
school district in America includes a leadership component that provides principals and
other administrators ongoing professional development regarding best practices in
teaching and learning, school and district operations updates, and administrator
leadership principles. Since 2006, the Southwest Independent School District has been in
a partnership with the University of Pittsburgh’s Institute for Learning (IFL), whose input
included the design and delivery of much of the curriculum for these programs.
79
The leadership institutes began with an introduction of the IFL’s Principles of
Learning. Those principles are Organizing for Effort, Accountable Talk, Clear
Expectations, Fair and Credible Evaluations, Socializing Intelligence, Recognition of
Accomplishment, Self-Management of Learning, Academic Rigor in a Thinking
Curriculum, and Learning as Apprenticeship. Components of the program also include
professional development evaluation using Learning Walks, Nested Professional
Learning Communities, and Disciplinary Literacy.
The Southwest Independent School District Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI)
provides leadership support to active principals by partnering them with experienced,
often retired, principals. Based on the executive coaching model developed originally in
the business community, this model goes beyond the scope of a mentor/mentee
relationship, with principal coaches committing to offer support to active principals for
an entire year.
Once assigned, principals and their coaches attend professional development
sessions together, oftentimes the same sessions all other principals attend. In some cases,
professional development programs are designed exclusively for the principals and their
leadership coaches; the focus for these specially designed programs is data analysis, goal-
setting related to academic achievement, leadership practice, and establishing systems
and structures to support improved teacher practice and student learning. The leadership
coach also provides at-elbow coaching and conferring to their partner principals to
enhance instructional leadership development and build leadership capacity to ensure
improved academic success for all students.
80
Case Study One
Ledbetter Elementary School: Location and Demographics
Located in the southern part of the state, and bordered by the SRI Thornton
Freeway on the west, the Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway on the South, and the Julius
Schepps Freeway on the east, Ledbetter Elementary School is nestled in a neighborhood
that does not seem to reflect the urban dynamics found within its walls. Surrounded by
older homes occupied by families whose children, for the most part, have grown up and
moved on, Ledbetter Elementary School is situated in an area of the state known as
Ferndale, a formerly incorporated city of its own, which was annexed by the larger city in
1964.
With a total population of 49,681 and a median age of 33.6 years, the residents of
this area are primarily African American (78.3%) and Hispanic/Latino (19%). In terms
of economics, the median household income is $24,960 compared to the national median
of $41,994; just as striking is the poverty level, which in this community stands at 24.8%,
whereas the national level is at 9.2%. As for educational levels of attainment, 59% of the
residents of Ferndale earned a high school diploma or higher (national: 80.4%), whereas
5.6% earned a Bachelor’s degree or higher (national: 24.4%).
(http://www.brainyzip.com/zipcodes/75/75216.html).
Based on demographic figures for the school year 2008-2009, Ledbetter
Elementary School has an enrollment of 450 students, 94% of whom is eligible for
free/reduced lunch. Of this number, 16% is Limited English Proficient students, whereas
81
special education students make up 8% of the student body. In the 2008-2009 school
year, the student composition was 79% African American and 21% Hispanic.
Student academic performance on the Southwest Assessment of Knowledge and
Skills (SAKS), the state’s standardized test administered to students in grades 3 to 10
annually, has shown little or no growth in the key academic areas of math, reading,
science, and writing over the last three years. SAKS results for the school year 2008-
2009 are as follows: in the area of mathematics, 62% of Ledbetter Elementary School’s
students met minimum standards on the SAKS, a drop of 6% (68%) from the 2007-2008
school year, and a negative difference of 12% (82%) when compared to the statewide
average; 71% met the minimum standard in reading, a 2% difference (73%) from the
2007-2008 school year, and well below the state average of 91%; 81% of the students
assessed in writing met the minimum standard, an increase of 7% (74%) from the 2007-
2008 school year, but well below the state average (93%); and 61% met the minimum
standard in science, a decrease of 15% (76%) from the previous school year, and below
the state average of 78%.
Ledbetter Elementary School: Culture and Climate
Upon entering Ledbetter Elementary School, the researcher was immediately
greeted by banners proclaiming: “One Body, One Mind, One Goal,” and “Learn Today,
Lead Tomorrow,” which is the school’s motto. The hallways and grounds were
immaculate, as were the classrooms and office areas. Even at the start of the school day,
most students were already actively engaged in the classroom, following the teacher’s
prompts without hesitation. Classrooms were inviting and reflected the learning
82
objectives for the various content areas; additionally, designated areas were set aside to
honor “star students” and classroom helpers. However, it took four years of grueling
work on the part of the principal and her staff to reach this point.
In the school year 2006-2007, the Southwest Independent School District, in a
budget-cutting move, decided to close many small schools by merging them with
similarly small schools. Thus, Ledbetter Elementary School, which was primarily a 4
th
to
6
th
grade intermediate campus, merged with the neighboring Robert Johnson School, a
Pre-K to 3
rd
grade primary campus, becoming one comprehensive school, offering grades
Pre-K through 5
th
. This newly configured school retained the name of Ledbetter
Elementary School.
Ms. Waters, the principal at Ledbetter Elementary School, recalled that during
that year, “it was just awful.” Even though the two schools were adjacent to each other,
“they did not communicate.” Ms. Waters worked hard that first year to unify the two
groups, but “they saw themselves as us and them…not working together.” And although
teachers came together to accomplish tasks, they were not collegial, which Ms. Waters
blames for the low performance scores on the Southwest Assessment of Knowledge and
Skills; not surprisingly, the intermediate teachers blamed the primary teachers for the low
showing by students, whereas the primary teachers became defensive, thus inhibiting
dialogue about what should be done to improve instruction. Now, three years after the
merger, things seem to have changed for the better. Ms. Waters has seen a change in the
culture of the school; teachers are “becoming more friendly with one another, (and) are
more apt to share.”
83
Introduction to Principal Waters
Principal Waters found her way as principal of a school through the traditional
means. Following completion of a teacher alternative certification program in 1994, she
taught for five years in the Southwest Independent School District (SISD). During this
time, she enrolled in a “fast-track” program for a Masters of Education in Administration
through a cohort with the SISD and the Southwest University; soon thereafter, she
became an assistant principal, serving in that capacity for four years before assuming her
first leadership role as principal in 2003. She has been in her current leadership position
as the principal of Ledbetter Elementary School since 2006.
Ms. Waters began her participation in the Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative
(SPCI) in January of 2009, meeting with her principal/coach initially once a week. They
continued meeting on a regular basis that first year, spending considerable time in the
summer of 2009 “in a more extensive type of coaching/training.”
Research Question #1
Ledbetter Elementary School Research Question # 1: How does participation in the
Southwest ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI) prepare principals to become
effective instructional leaders?
The study’s initial question seeks to address how participation in the SPCI has
prepared principals to become effective leaders. The primary data collection instruments
used to address this research question were the pre and post principal interviews, the pre
and post teacher interviews, and document analysis. Following discussion of the
findings, the data will be analyzed from the research perspective of the design of
84
effective leadership capacity building (Davis et al., 2005) and support structures for
improving and sustaining effective leadership practice (Neufeld & Roper, 2003)
Key Finding: District Initiatives Support Effective Leadership Practices
As a large city school system, the Southwest Independent School District’s goal
to prepare its diverse student body to be successful in the 21
st
Century rests on its ability
to provide “exemplary professional development for ‘everyone who affects student
learning’” (Leadership Development Initiatives, Executive Summary, Southwest
Independent School District, 2009). As such, the district developed leadership institutes
for its principals, assistant principals, instructional coaches, central administrative staff
members, teacher-leaders, and classroom teachers. The various programs, whose
curriculum is aligned with the University of Pittsburgh’s Institute for Learning, have as
their focus the core curriculum content areas of reading/language arts, mathematics,
science, and social studies. The institutes also include on-going information for
principals and other administrators regarding best practices in teaching and learning,
school and district operations updates, and administrator leadership principles. The
Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI), of which Principal Waters was a
participant, is one of these programs.
Principal Waters, who had participated in the SPCI since its inception in January
of 2009, spoke about her experiences with the program, especially as they pertained to
her recruitment for the program and the various levels of support she received. Initially
expressing a desire “a long time ago” to her executive director about possibly having a
mentor/coach, Ms. Waters received a call in January 2009 asking if she would be
85
interested in being a part of the SPCI. This move set the stage for her subsequent
involvement with her Principal Coach, Ms. Wolf, who had been partnered with her for
just over a year.
In her capacity as Principal Coach and mentor, Ms. Wolf provided on-going
support to Ms. Waters in a variety of ways. This included meeting with her one-on-one
on a regular basis, sitting-in with her in meetings with teachers, participating in
classroom walk-throughs and observations, and helping her with the implementation of
district initiatives. Ms. Waters described her conversations with Ms. Wolf as both
conferring and reflective, “She always comes in with something she’s been thinking
about and discusses it with me, and when she leaves she leaves me with ‘based on what I
observed you should think about this.” Their conversations revolved around books Ms.
Wolf was reading, which she shared with Principal Waters; information that was
noteworthy or worthwhile was oftentimes shared with her teachers. On some occasions,
Ms. Wolf attended district professional development sessions with Principal Waters.
As an administrator with the Southwest Independent School District for over 11
years, Principal Waters participated in a number of professional development sessions at
the district level, even before the implementation of the SPCI. The present difference
was that principals have more of a choice in selecting topics to be presented during these
trainings. Ms. Waters explained, “In the past, it (was) chosen for us in terms of what
(would) be presented at our principals’ meetings. Well this year, we have the luxury of
choosing the types of trainings (we) want to attend.” According to Ms. Waters, this
change was received well by the building principals, as the district, she explained “is
86
allowing us to now tailor our training to what our specific needs are…I also think about
that as it relates to my teachers because there are some things that we have to focus on as
a staff for us to get on the same page.”
Key Finding: Leadership Coaching Prepares Principal
As a first year participant in the SPCI, Ms. Waters found the experience
rewarding. Her leadership coach, Ms. Wolf, a retired administrator with vast
experiences, had held a number of leadership positions within the Southwest Independent
School District (SISD). A former teacher and principal, she also served as an assistant
superintendent with the SISD, and held other executive leadership positions at the central
level. That she was a former SISD employee boded well with Ms. Waters, given her
exhaustive knowledge of the district and familiarity with its history; additionally, Ms.
Waters felt that her position as a former principal made her more aware of and sensitive
to the various challenges and issues in an urban environment. In discussing this aspect of
her leadership coach, Ms. Waters stated,
She knows the history of the District and served in leadership at that level…so she
understands that which, I think, helps my situation. She’s a former principal, also,
so she’s well-rounded. I think someone with the SISD background helps.
Ms. Waters worked with her leadership coach regularly since January 2009,
meeting on a weekly basis throughout their first semester together. Although not staying
together the entire day, they still spent three to four hours together for these sessions.
During that first summer as a team, Ms. Waters and Ms. Wolf attended extensive
professional development and coaching trainings together; they also spent many one-on-
one sessions together to discuss various aspects of leadership and how these elements
87
impact instruction. This coaching structure, referred to in the SPCI as an “elbow-to-
elbow” model, was very beneficial to Ms. Waters.
As Ms. Waters stated, the relationship with Ms. Wolf “is very non-
threatening…we collaborate about everything.” She also described it as “a very trusting
environment.” The importance of this bond cannot be underestimated, as Ms. Waters
explained:
I can talk to her about anything and I don’t feel like I have to hold anything back.
She’s very candid with her feedback to me. We walk the building all the time.
She’s in the classroom with me. She’s meeting with teachers alongside of me.
She’s like another part…she’s an extension of me…everything is about how to
improve…and she makes me think. (Everything) is always in the form of a
question which helps me to see things in a different way. I love it.
Ms. Waters further described the coaching model as making use of both “conferring” and
“reflective” coaching strategies. An example she provided was when she sought Ms.
Wolf’s assistance during her observations of teachers. She asked Ms. Wolf “to help me
with the feedback I give to teachers regarding questioning techniques.” She felt this was
reflective because, in her words:
it helps me to practice or know what I’m going to say when I meet with my
teachers; conferring from the standpoint that based upon what we see, maybe
she’s noticed something in the classroom that I didn’t and so we have a
conversation about that.
Although they met less frequently, every other week as opposed to the initial weekly
meetings, Ms. Waters valued the added dimension that Ms. Wolf brought to Ledbetter
Elementary School. Principal Waters observed that:
She always comes in with something she’s been thinking about and she discusses
it with me…she always leaves me with ‘based on what I’ve observed, you should
think about this.’ And the teachers love her, so she’s like another staff member,
really.
88
Prior to providing more formal written feedback to her teachers, Ms. Waters
discussed her observations with Ms. Wolf to garner her insight and expertise. She then
used these findings to complete the Professional Development Appraisal System (P-
DAS), a performance tool that evaluates teachers on eight domains: (a) Active,
Successful Student Participation in the Learning Process, (b) Learner-Centered
Instruction, (c) Evaluation and Feedback on Student Progress, (d) Management of
Student Discipline, Instructional Strategies, Time, and Materials, (e) Professional
Communication, (f) Professional Development, (g) Compliance with Policies, Operating
Procedures, and Requirements, and (h) Improvement of Academic Performance of All
Students on the Campus.
Key Finding: District Professional Development Supports Principal
In attempting to fulfill its goals and mission to become “the best urban school
district in the United States,” the Southwest Independent School District had “as its
centerpiece exemplary professional development for ‘everyone who affects student
learning’” (Southwest Independent School District, 2009). As stated in the Southwest
Leadership Development Initiatives’ Executive Summary (2009), “The goal of the District
is to provide job-embedded professional development for employees at all levels and to
continue to strengthen the foundation for the training framework necessary to improve
student performance.” For principals, programs were provided to build their
“instructional leadership capacity through differentiated, engaging, and rigorous
professional development that is focused on specific academic goals and tied to student
89
achievement” (Southwest Leadership Development Initiatives’ Executive Summary,
2009).
As part of the Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI), which is a key
component of the Southwest leadership initiatives, principals and their leadership coaches
attend professional development together. In some cases, the sessions are the same, as all
district principals attend; in others, the programs are specifically designed for the
principals and their leadership coaches. Because of the Southwest Independent School
District’s collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh’s Institute for Learning (IFL),
the IFL is involved in the design and implementation of much of the curriculum for these
programs. This set-up assures that the content of these sessions, which begin with an
introduction to IFL’s Principles of Learning, align with the Southwest ISD initiatives
across the district so that principals develop greater capacity as instructional leaders in
successful schools.
As a participant in the district professional development, Principal Waters saw the
value of attending, “I guess whenever you have an initiative, you want everyone to be on
the same page…everybody gets the same thing to make sure that the goal focus is clear
and where you’re going.” She also recognized the importance it played in her ability to
work with her teachers; she explained:
They’re starting to allow us to now tailor our training to what our specific needs
are. I think about that as it relates to my teachers because there are some things
that we have to focus on as a staff for us to get on the same page.
In discussing the focus of the professional development at Ledbetter Elementary
School, and based on her participation in the SPCI, Principal Waters stated that the
90
district had begun implementing five of the Principles of Learning, including clear
expectations, accountable talk, academic rigor, and socializing intelligence. In 2009, the
district added self-management of learning. Principal Waters commented, “The teachers
have made a very concerted effort at implementing those. And when they’re planning in
their PLC’s, the responsibility is to make sure that they’re addressing those POL’s in
something that they’re doing.”
Analysis of Findings/Conclusion
The Southwest Independent School District’s leadership initiatives offer programs
that provide support to principals through professional development, and which include
mentoring opportunities that seek to enhance their effectiveness and capacity. The
district’s collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh’s Institute for Learning, which
has been instrumental in working closely with a number of school district’s nationwide in
an effort to improve professional development programs for educational leaders, has also
been essential. As mentioned by Davis et al. (2005), these collaborative efforts support
and sustain both university programs and district initiatives: “A well-defined and
coherent program is one that links goals, learning activities, and candidate assessments
around a set of shared values, beliefs, and knowledge about effective administrative
practices” (p. 8).
More than merely covering topics that have traditionally been offered to
principals, preparation and development programs for school leaders “should incorporate
knowledge of instruction, organizational development, and change management, as well
as leadership skills” (Davis et al., 2005, p. 5). The goals outlined in the Southwest
91
Independent School District’s Plan for Student Achievement: Educational Theory of
Action and Summary of Initiatives and Strategies (2006) include the following:
• Build the capacity of teachers and principals to enact the district’s
education plan and theory of action based on best practices.
• Individualize programs that develop areas of weakness and build upon
strengths.
• Ensure that principals and teachers know the specific knowledge and skills
at each subject and grade.
• Build the instructional leadership capacity of principals through
differentiated, engaging, and rigorous professional development that is
focused on specific academic goals and student achievement.
• Build the capacity of instructional leaders to design, lead, and support the
educational plan.
As shown in the goals above, the Southwest Independent School District’s leadership
program is aligned with those features deemed essential by Davis et al. (2005).
Another important aspect of the leadership initiatives found in the Southwest ISD
program is the mentoring component. As discussed in the Southern Regional Education
Board’s report, Good Principal’s Aren’t Born, They’re Mentored (2007), “mentoring is
an integral component of principal preparation programs designed to improve school and
student performance” (p. 5). Neufeld and Roper (2003) have added that coaches play a
significant, multifaceted role by doing the following:
92
• Helping principals understand the importance of recruiting teachers to
assume instructional leadership roles to drive whole-school change.
• Acting as strategists and assistants in building capacity for shared
decision-making.
• Modeling leadership skills for principals as well as teachers.
• Helping principals organize their time so that they are able to visit
classrooms regularly to observe instruction and offer feedback to teachers.
The Southwest Independent School District’s Principal Coaching Model, in which
Principal Coaches work side-by-side with building principals, provides the support,
guidance, and assistance listed above as a means of informing the practice of educational
leaders.
In their discussion of principal preparation and development, Davis et al. (2005)
have suggested that certain program features are essential for developing effective school
leaders. Whether preservice or in-service, programs should be research-based, have
curricular coherence, provide experience in authentic contexts, use cohort groupings and
mentors, and enable collaborative activity between the program and area schools (Davis
et al., 2005).
The Southwest Independent School District’s Principal Coaching Initiative, with
its close alignment to the University of Pittsburgh’s Institute for Learning, provides its
principals an opportunity to better their leadership skills through a well-informed
program of professional development. Additionally, the inclusion of leadership coaches
allow for principals to work closely with experienced administrators who can offer
93
support and guidance in all areas. At Ledbetter Elementary School, strong evidence
indicated that Principal Waters’s participation in the SPCI proved to be beneficial to her
ability to lead.
Research Question #2
Ledbetter Elementary School Research Question #2: How does the SPCI influence the
knowledge, beliefs, and leadership practices of urban school principals?
This research question provides a discussion and analysis of the influence that
participation in the SPCI had on the knowledge, beliefs, and leadership practices of urban
school principals. The primary data collection instruments used to address this research
question were the pre and postprincipal interviews, the pre and post teacher interviews,
document analysis, and the VAL-ED survey results. Following discussion of the
findings, the data will be analyzed from the research perspective of theoretical and
analytical frameworks that focus on leader influence on student achievement (Davis et
al., 2005), effective instructional leadership (Hallinger, 2005), learning-centered
leadership (Murphy et al., 2006), and servant leadership (Sergiovanni, 2007).
Key Finding: Influences School-Site Professional Development and Teacher
Practice
Some evidence indicated that Principal Waters’s participation in the Southwest
Principal Coaching Initiative had resulted in more effective professional development at
Ledbetter Elementary School. As Principal Waters stated, previously “we had a tendency
to get off task and talk about operational issues. Everything now is instructional and
more student-centered versus teacher-centered.” More importantly, the teachers, with the
94
guidance of Principal Waters, planned and developed the professional development
sessions, selecting topics that addressed immediate concerns related to curriculum and
instruction.
The teacher-led professional development sessions this researcher observed dealt
with strategies all teachers could use in their classrooms to introduce new concepts.
As Ms. Waters stated,
We’re making an effort to look at actual student work and talk about meeting their
needs based on what we see in their work…we try to look and understand why
students are performing the way they are and try to teach from their perspective.
This effort also allowed teachers to work together to refine their instructional strategies
and classroom practice.
One of the issues previously faced by Ms. Waters was teachers’ tendency to do
everything “their own way.” Most teachers introduced similar concepts in a variety of
ways, with students seeing no continuity in the instructional practice as they transitioned
from grade to grade. The new intent was to define a campus strategy that allowed
teachers to differentiate instruction based on students’ skills set, but to use similar
introductory strategies that were familiar to the students; this structure provided students
with skills they could incorporate and use from grade-level to grade-level. Ms. Waters
stated,
Before, there was no continuity when students went from one grade to another
because teachers had all taught it their own way. [Now], we’re trying to get to a
point where when we identify low-scoring objectives, we decide as a campus how
a skill will be introduced.
This change resulted in gains, small or otherwise, that the teachers noticed. One
teacher, Ms. Witherspoon, said “students see that I’ve made some changes in my teaching
95
style and are also able to see how they compare to their classmates.” This transformation
led Ms. Witherspoon to exhibit, in her words, “stronger teaching skills which enabled
[me] to teach them better and they saw the improvement in our class scores.” She
proudly concluded this part of our discussion with the following statement, “They see
their teacher is getting stronger and so are their skills.”
Key Finding: Monitoring Classroom Instruction Through Observation
As demonstrated by Principal Waters, and discussed by her teachers, the practice
of regular classroom observations, followed by constructive feedback that informed
instructional practice, proved beneficial in assisting teachers to make improvements in
their classroom instruction, which ultimately impacted student performance and
achievement.
Evidence suggested that Principal Waters’ participation in the Southwest
Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI) impacted aspects of her leadership. When asked
about changes that occurred in her leadership with her involvement in the SPCI, Ms.
Waters stated that she believed her ability to work directly with her teachers improved
considerably: “I’ve been doing more conferencing with (them); I prioritize opportunities
to get into the classroom to actually give them the immediate and detailed feedback of
what they’re doing versus speaking in generalities in meetings.” She commented further,
“I make sure they have their private time to ask any questions they may need to.” This
approach, which she credits to her involvement in the program and working with her
Principal Coach, is different from the conferencing opportunities prior to her participation
in the program:
96
The way the conferencing takes place is different because there’s a focus instead
of just speaking about everything in general. There may be one particular aspect I
go in to look for and teachers know; so when we’re conferencing, it’s a targeted
session instead of a general one.
Teachers at Ledbetter Elementary School noticed increased involvement by
Principal Waters when conducting classroom visits, or when offering suggestions for
improvement. Rather than undertaking cursory visits with little follow-up or suggestions
for improvement, Ms. Waters became actively engaged with teachers on improving
classroom practice, especially as it related to improved outcomes on student performance.
As Ms. Waters mentioned during our interview, “I’m more focused knowing [that] there
is an intended purpose and an intended outcome [for my visits].” She went on to say,
“I’m more organized. I try to model organization and agendas to show [my teachers]
how I’d like them to be organized in their classroom. [I also] want them to interface with
their students in a similar manner.”
Teachers at Ledbetter Elementary School also noted that Ms. Waters had become
a more active presence in the classroom. Ms. Reed, a 5
th
-grade science teacher at
Ledbetter Elementary School, stated,
She walks more. You may be teaching a class and look up, and there she is,
standing in your door. I think her walking helps. When she comes in, she goes
from student to student, talking to them, looking at their work. She’s very visible
with them.
Ms. Reed has also noticed an increased “rigor” on the part of the principal: “She
actually goes into the grading system…and looks at who’s failing…she’s doing walk-
throughs, she’s looking in folders, she’s sitting, she’s watching. She’s paying attention,
she’s really just paying attention.”
97
Ms. Witherspoon, a 4
th
-grade teacher at Ledbetter Elementary School, also
commented on the increased visibility and involvement of Ms. Waters, and its impact on
the instructional practices of teachers; she explained:
She plays a very important part because she has to ensure…that her staff is
carrying out the steps in obtaining and reaching [instructional] goals. I think it’s
very important that she’s visible with the students so they’ll recognize that she’s
supporting [them].
Aside from the sound instructional advice, Ms. Witherspoon mentioned that Ms.
Waters supported them by gathering resources and materials they could use in their
classrooms; additionally, she provided them with monetary resources, when available, for
trainings or other professional developments outside of the school site.
These greater opportunities to observe classroom instruction allowed for more
feedback to teachers on the part of Ms. Waters. Whether from receiving more formal
written notes or documentation, or having informal conversations during Thursday
afternoon faculty discussions, teachers felt that the increased input from Ms. Waters led
to an improvement in their day-to-day practice. Teachers were also encouraged to
participate in walk-throughs and observations, as the Southwest ISD’s program is closely
aligned with the University of Pittsburgh’s Principles of Learning. Information gathered
from these observations was shared with Principal Waters, who then met with the groups
to discuss instructional strategies and best practices based on the classroom visitations.
Results of the spring VAL-ED survey supported the findings discussed above.
Teachers surveyed (28 of 36 possible respondents) reported that in the core component
area of Quality Instruction, Principal Waters was “proficient” in supporting, advocating,
and communicating to them the tenets of quality instruction. This effort was done
98
undertaken through classroom instruction monitoring and timely and focused feedback,
as mentioned by teachers at Ledbetter Elementary School.
Key Finding: Focus on Strategies to Improve Student Outcomes
Even though the Hispanic population (21%) at Ledbetter Elementary School was
relatively small when compared with the African American population (79%), Hispanic
students outperformed their African American counterparts considerably in all academic
areas. As a way of addressing this inequity, Principal Waters focused on two distinct
areas: parental involvement and teacher training.
Because she believed that the parents of her African American students weren’t
preparing their children to be successful in school, she initiated meetings to impress upon
them the importance of working with their children at home. Ms. Waters explained, “As
it relates to targeting our African American students in particular, it’s not really
instructional but we are meeting more with their parents to help them understand the need
for study habits.” She saw this step as an important in “providing more time for [our
African American students] to be engaged in whatever it is that we’re trying to get them
to understand.”
Ms. Waters did not see the need to focus on this area with her Hispanic students,
“[they] don’t have that kind of issue…they’re coming to school ready, they’re interested
in learning, they’re practicing at home, they’re studying.” Her African American
children, however, did not come to school prepared, in her opinion. Ms. Waters
continued, “What our African American students do here at school has been it. There
hasn’t been a whole lot of studying per se at home, additional time being spent to review
99
and learn the concepts.” She believed that providing regularly scheduled meetings with
the African American parents would increase involvement in their children’s education.
The workshops, held once a month, involved, “diverse kinds of trainings,” according to
Ms. Waters. She continued, “It’s not just about how you can help your kid instructionally
but it’s just parenting. So those types of additional trainings that we provide just for
parents have been to target those things.”
Teachers also focused their efforts on improving the academic performance of
African American students by targeting this issue in their professional learning
communities. Ms. Waters explained that “teachers (are) broken up into learning
communities by content areas so that (they) can share school wide strategies” related to
student improvement. This move helped teachers develop content-specific strategies that
would lead to increased student performance. Also presented to teachers in 2009 were
programs to target math instruction, especially as they pertained to African American
students. Ms. Waters spoke about one of these programs, the African American Math
Initiative, which helped teachers “to understand culturally how African American
students learn.” The initiative provided for teachers “training on conceptual
understandings for math to help with teacher content and teacher skill base to understand
how to deliver instruction.” The program also sought “to develop teachers more in terms
of student focus because that has been the issue.” Ms. Waters recognized that “teachers
themselves have not been very knowledgeable about the deep content for math, so [the]
focus is more teacher-based at present.” This program led teachers to implement varied
100
strategies, especially in math, to meet the needs of those struggling students; these efforts
included tutorials, small group instruction, and one-on-one conferencing with students.
The fact that students were underperforming in mathematics made Ledbetter
Elementary School a “targeted campus,” according to Ms. Waters. The District, in its
efforts to provide Ledbetter’s teachers with a program to address the math inequity, sent
program after program to Ms. Waters, for use by her teachers. “You’re not performing
well,” stated Ms. Waters, “so you become a targeted campus; every initiative coming
through, the expectation is take it over to Ledbetter.” She continued, “We’re trying to
filter through all that to find what works for us. I can’t specifically say right now what
works.”
Key Finding: Leadership Builds Teacher Capacity
Principal Waters found that her professional practice and leadership style were
impacted by her participation in the Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI).
When meeting with her teachers, she became “more focused, knowing anytime we meet
there is an intended purpose and an intended outcome.” She continued:
I think through that whole process and what we want to accomplish for that day. I
make sure I summarize and recap throughout the day what the purpose is and
make sure people know beforehand what the intent is, so that we’re all on the
same page.
Teachers, as well, noticed a change in Ms. Waters’s ability to provide leadership and
support. Ms. Witherspoon, the 4
th
-grade teacher, stated, “If she notices the expectations
aren’t clear, she restates them in a way so that we all can understand…[and] then gives us
the opportunity to fulfill that expectation.”
101
This change allowed her to “model” for her teachers, which in turns built their
capacity. In discussing this issue, Ms. Waters stated, “I’m more organized. I make sure I
utilize others in planning and developing and don’t take it all on myself. This helps me
build capacity with my teacher leaders.” She continued, “I try to model for them, too. I
try to model organization and agendas to show them how I want them to be organized in
their classroom and want them to interface with their students in a similar manner.”
Key Finding: Leadership Fosters Student Learning
In looking at the role principal leadership plays in informing instruction and, in
turn, student learning, taking into consideration the manner in which leadership manifests
itself in the day-to-day activities and routines of a school setting is important. Ms. Waters
described her current style of leadership as more student-centered, with a true focus on
students and their needs: “Now we try to think from the kids’ perspective. We ask
ourselves what we’re doing that’s ineffective, we self-examine ourselves. We’re trying
to look at it from the kids’ perspective rather than having the kids adjust to us.” Teachers
also commented on this aspect of Ms. Waters’s leadership style as it related to the school
improvement process.
Ms. Reed, who taught fifth grade at Ledbetter Elementary School, believed that
it all starts with [Principal Waters]. I mean, she has to set the tone. I feel…the
principal can display that “success is it.” We know our children have other
problems, but we’re going to help [them] through those and we’re going to make
sure that failing is not an option. It all starts at the top.
Ms. Berry, who taught 3
rd
grade, also noticed “a more cohesive effort to pull the
whole campus together and not just pockets of students here and there.”
102
In communicating her school vision for the students of Ledbetter Elementary
School, Ms. Waters demonstrated another aspect of leadership. As Ledbetter Elementary
School’s motto is “Learn Today, Lead Tomorrow,” the students and staff recognized that
preparation today will reap its own benefits tomorrow. “We talk to them about how what
they do now will affect them later,” stated Ms. Waters. “It translates into you attending
college and having a better chance at [being] whatever you choose to be.” This message
is communicated to teachers, students, and parents on a regular basis; it’s posted
throughout the campus, it’s typed on all agendas, and it’s verbally expressed every
morning in daily announcements. Ms. Witherspoon, a 4
th
-grade teacher at Ledbetter,
reiterated this fact:
At the beginning of the school year that information [is] discussed with the
Leadership Team. It’s documented on paper and we do a lot of self-reflection.
She asks for our input on how we can meet our goals and achieve the vision…and
if we are off-track, she gets us back on track through team-building activities and
self-reflection.
With the Jets as the Ledbetter Elementary School logo, the instructional focus is
on math, science, and technology, which was communicated through the school’s mission
and vision statements. Principal Waters elaborated:
[Because] our logo is the Jets…we have decided as a staff that we would focus a
lot on math, science, and technology; and with doing that, ironically, those have
been our low-scoring objectives, math and science. So our way of targeting those
particular objectives, not just as it relates to concepts, [is] trying to steer students
into non-traditional careers in those fields. Our theme this year is being college
and career ready…so we’ve done a lot of stuff with our children as it relates to
post-graduate work and getting them to understand that what they’re doing now in
school is not just about learning now, you’re going to be a life-long learner. And
the way to become a productive citizen…is to continue to hone those skills to
make you better [at] whatever it is that you choose to do.
103
As it was communicated and embraced, this vision led to a greater sense of accountability
on the part of all faculty and staff, which found its way to the implementation of
improvement initiatives school-wide.
In order to assure that the initiatives to improve student achievement were
implemented, Principal Waters became a more visible presence in classrooms and on
campus. This effort was meant not only to support teachers but also to encourage the
growth of the students at Ledbetter Elementary School. When in classrooms, Principal
Waters went from student to student, commenting on their work or assisting them with
problems that they may be encountering. Ms. Witherspoon, 4
th
-grade teacher, expressed
the belief that “it’s very important that she’s visible with the students so they’ll recognize
that she supports their goals and what we, as a campus, agreed upon to reach those
goals.”
Teachers also participated in walk-throughs, albeit for a different reason; their
purpose was to observe instructional practices and to provide constructive feedback to
their colleagues. This activity was undertaken across grade levels so that teachers in the
fourth grade, for example, observed teachers in the 5th grade and vice-versa. Information
gleaned from these observations was then discussed during Thursday afternoon meetings.
Learning walks were also conducted at other campuses so that teachers could
have the opportunity to observe the Principles of Learning and Accountable Talk
implemented. Ms. Witherspoon stated it thusly,
It’s…a way of problem-solving. Some of my students have learned to express
themselves in more graceful ways that will help them beyond the classroom.
They are using “principles of learning” to be their own resource instead of relying
on someone else to be the resource.
104
The principal also supported teacher implementation of the instructional
initiatives by making available resources that will assist them towards this goal. Ms.
Witherspoon commented on this support:
She finds whatever materials that we maybe can use in our classroom. Finances,
we may need some additional monies for tutoring… “Do we have any in the
budget? Can we get permission to attend this training? If it’s okay, can we get a
sub to go to this staff development?”
Principal Waters also sought resources outside the district to assist her teachers in
implementing instructional initiatives. An example provided by Ms. Witherspoon were
instructional coaches, as she explained: “We may not be assigned to an instructional
coach…for the entire year [but] Ms. Waters has saved…money so she can get resources
outside of the District, [people] that know the District that can help us.” And even
though the District gave teachers the instructional curriculum, Principal Waters found
additional resources that provided for students skills reinforcement in the various subject
areas, which in turn, would lead to greater success on the goals and initiatives that
supported the vision of Ledbetter Elementary School.
Analysis of Findings/Conclusion
Leadership that is “firmly grounded in shared ideals, and with moral connections
in place” allows for “principals, teachers, parents, and students [to] come together in a
shared followership” (Sergiovanni, 2007). School leadership is “about connecting people
morally to each other and their work; [it] involves developing shared purposes, beliefs,
values, and conceptions themed to teaching and learning, community building,
collegiality, character development, and other school issues and concerns” (Sergiovanni,
2007, p. 83).
105
Principal Waters, in her capacity as leader of Ledbetter Elementary School,
exhibited many of the facets of a leader whose model of leadership is based on
stewardship and service. Whether conducting classroom observations and providing
valuable feedback to her teachers, organizing effective workshops for parents on how to
best address the needs of their children, developing learning communities so as to allow
teachers to share strategies for improved student performance, or modeling for teachers
leadership traits that would allow them to build capacity themselves, Principal Waters
embodied leadership as discussed by Sergiovanni (2007).
The value of regular classroom observations by principals, followed by
constructive feedback that informs instructional practice, cannot be understated. As
discussed by Ovando (2006), “Competent instructional leaders who assist teachers in
their search of effective teaching practices ‘analyze instruction and student learning
through regular classroom observations and provide detailed feedback to teachers that
supports instructional improvement” (U.S. Department of Education Office of Innovation
and Improvement, 2004, p. 11, as cited by Ovando, 2006).
The findings also show that key areas, as discussed by Neufeld and Roper (2003),
were impacted by Principal Waters’s participation in the SPCI, among them were the
principal’s ability to build capacity for shared decision making, modeling leadership
skills, assisting in scheduling, and observing classroom instruction and offering feedback.
In their discussion of effective school principals, Davis et al. (2005) identified
three aspects of the principal’s job that influence student achievement: (a) developing a
deep understanding of how to support teachers, (b) managing the curriculum in ways that
106
promote student learning, and (c) developing the ability to transform schools into more
effective organizations that foster powerful teaching and learning for all students.
According to findings in this case study, Principal Waters has an awareness of the skills
required to successfully lead a school toward improved student performance.
Hallinger (2005), in defining the role of an effective instructional leader, found
that the focus of the principal should be on:
Creating a shared sense of purpose in the school, including clear goals focused on
student learning;
• Fostering the continuous improvement of the school through cyclical
school development planning that involves a wide range of stakeholders;
• Developing a climate of high expectations and a school culture aimed at
innovation and improvement of teaching and learning;
• Coordinating the curriculum and monitoring student learning outcomes;
• Shaping the reward structure of the school to reflect the school’s mission;
• Organizing and monitoring a wide range of activities aimed at the
continuous development of staff; and
• Being a visible presence in the school, and modeling the desired values of
the school’s culture.
Discussions of Principal Waters’s leadership skills revealed many of Hallinger’s
(2005) elements of an effective instructional leader. Her day-to-day activities were all
done with one thing in mind: improving the academic performance and success of her
students. This commitment was illustrated by the manner in which she conducted
107
observations in the classroom, with a clear focus on student learning. She also enlisted
the support of parents and other stakeholders to assure continued school improvement;
developed a climate of high expectations and a school culture that sought to improve
teaching and learning through collaborative professional development; and served as a
visible presence on the campus, modeling effective leadership skills that built capacity
amongst faculty and staff.
Murphy et al. (2006) discussed the various dimensions of learning-centered
leadership and the impact they have on improved learning. In looking at Ledbetter
Elementary School and the leadership practices of Principal Waters, she seemed to be
modeling the characteristics associated with a learning-centered leader. Some evidence
indicated dimensions of learning-centered leadership, which include a vision for learning;
knowledge of and involvement in the instructional, curricular, and assessment programs;
establishing communities of learning; resource acquisition and use; an organizational
structure; and social advocacy (Murphy et al., 2006) also manifested in the leadership
practices of Principal Waters.
Murphy et al. (2007b) identified High Standards for Student Learning as a core
component of the VAL-ED survey. As measured by the VAL-ED survey, this
component of leadership looks at “the extent to which leadership ensures there are
individual, team, and school goals for rigorous student academic and social learning”
(Murphy et al, 2007b, p. 4). Murphy et al. (2207b) continued:
Traditionally, this aspect of leadership focused primarily on the principal’s role in
ensuring that the school has clear, measurable goals for student learning and
academic progress. Setting clear goals for student achievement is central to
108
effective leadership, as it guides the daily practices and decisions of all
stakeholders. (p. 5)
As can be seen in the data collected at Ledbetter Elementary School, significant evidence
indicated Principal Waters reinforced this aspect of leadership on a daily basis.
Whether as a result of the principal’s participation in the SPCI or not, teachers
noticed a change in the instructional focus and leadership practices exhibited by Ms.
Waters. Ms. Witherspoon, who taught 4
th
-grade students, credited her development as a
teacher to Ms. Waters’s stronger instructional focus, but also believed that her natural
progression as a teacher helped her to define her practice. Another teacher, Ms. Reed,
saw “changes and growth” over the previous year; she explained: “I can’t say if it’s
actually [the] program or just having another set of eyes, but there is definitely change for
the better.” Similar comments from other teachers indicated a marked change in the
leadership practice of Principal Waters, all positive, and all to the benefit of the students,
staff, and community of Ledbetter Elementary School.
Question #3
Ledbetter Elementary School Research Question #3: How does an urban school
principal create and sustain organizational structures and processes that promote
effective teacher practice and improve student outcomes?
The study’s third question seeks to addresses the manner in which an urban
school principal created and sustained organizational structures and processes that
promoted effective teacher practice and improved student outcome. The primary data
collection instruments used to address this research question were the pre and post
principal interviews, the pre and post teacher interviews, document analysis, and results
109
of the VAL-ED survey. Following discussion of the findings, the data will be analyzed
from the research perspective of theoretical and analytical frameworks from DuFour and
Eaker (1998), Hallinger and Heck (1996), Leithwood et al. (2004), Marzano (2003), and
Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005).
Key Finding: Professional Learning Communities Enhance Collaboration
In professional learning communities, “educators create an environment that
fosters mutual cooperation, emotional support, and personal growth as they work together
to achieve what they cannot accomplish alone” (Dufour & Eaker, 1998, p. xii). At
Ledbetter Elementary School, Principal Waters was instrumental in developing grade-
level and content-area professional learning communities that met regularly to analyze
data, examine student work, and look at instructional practice with the goal of improving
student achievement. “Of course,” added Ms. Waters, “[we’re] looking at the rigor and
how [teachers] can make it more rigorous to help with advancing learning.” In addition,
the group reviewed books and articles that pertain to instructional practice and
improvement, and that form the basis for intellectual discussion and conversation.
The professional learning communities, which met weekly, alternated their
schedule from week to week, working with their grade level one week, and then meeting
with vertical teams to work on content strategies. Bilingual teachers, who had their own
individual professional learning communities, were also part of the whole professional
learning communities for each of grade level.
During District-wide trainings, such as those observed during data-collection in
September 2009 and January 2010, were professional learning communities that
110
collaborated to work on content-specific school-wide strategies to ensure that students
“basically learn the same thing.” Ms. Waters explained, “We do things like we’re doing
today, making sure that all of the training that we do and the expectations that we have
instructionally are school wide, and not tailored to any particular student group.”
In responding to the core component of Culture of Learning and Professional
Behavior on the spring VAL-ED survey, which speaks to “integrated communities of
professional practice in the service of student academic achievement” (Murphy et al.
2007b, p. 8), teachers (28 of 36 possible respondents) found that Principal Waters was
proficient in this area of leadership. This proficiency was true in five of the six Key
Process areas surveyed including implementing, supporting, advocating, communicating,
and monitoring professional communities.
Key Finding: Tutoring/Intervention Targets Low-Performing Students
As mentioned earlier, the Academic Coordinator at Ledbetter Elementary School
played an important role in improving the academic achievement of low-performing
students. In addition to this support, though, students were given the opportunity to
participate in afterschool programs and Saturday school for the purpose of improving
their performance in the key areas of language arts and reading and mathematics.
The afterschool program at Ledbetter Elementary School was open to all grade
levels and involved all teachers. The tutorial program, as it was known at Ledbetter, took
place on Tuesdays and Thursdays and was open to all students; however, teachers usually
worked with small groups of students, about five to eight, so as to provide more
individualized attention to them. As Ms. Reed, the 4
th
-grade teacher mentioned, the
111
tutoring sessions target skills that were being used in the daily lessons students were
receiving. As Ms. Reed said, “We don’t really go out and find any type of supplementary
work, we just use [what] we’ve been working on and we just dedicate more one on one
time with them.” She also recognized that children may have to use different strategies to
come up with the answers to problems: “What I was doing earlier may work for the
masses, but this child may need to see it in another way that works just for [them].”
The Saturday school program, which also targeted students who were not
performing well in their classes, was held in the fall and spring, with the majority of
sessions taking place in the spring. As explained by Ms. Reed, “By January, we know
who really needs some more intensive support in learning and who we need to continue
to keep focusing on.”
Even though students can’t be forced to participate in these sessions, the Saturday
classes were usually well attended. Teachers made certain that students who required this
additional instructional support attended the Saturday program by contacting parents
personally. Ms. Reed used this strategy to ensure student attendance at the Saturday
school, “I call my parents personally Friday night and tell them I need their children there
on Saturday and they usually all show up.”
Teachers at Ledbetter Elementary School all agreed that the additional instruction
provided to students during the afterschool tutoring sessions and Saturday school really
helped out. Ms. Reed found that, “It makes a world of difference…after four or five
Saturdays, you can see a big difference because you’re able to do more one on one.” Ms.
Witherspoon echoed this sentiment as well:
112
When I explain things in a tutoring session, the students become more familiar
with a concept or they’re able to incorporate the language; [this] boosts their
confidence in class discussions and [gives them] a willingness to share what
they’ve learned with students who don’t yet understand the concept.
Analysis of Findings/Conclusion
In building the capacity of teachers, principals must take active roles in the
decision-making process as it pertains to instruction and student achievement.
Professional learning communities, in which teachers at Ledbetter Elementary School
participated, provided teachers the opportunity to work as a team toward the goal of
increased student achievement and success. DuFour and Eaker (1998), in defining a
professional learning community, stated that, “its members must engage in the on-going
study and constant practice that characterize an organization committed to continuous
improvement” (p. xii). But in order to be successful, the professional learning
community requires the guidance of an effective leader who can work collaboratively
with others in building consensus (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
DuFour and Eaker (1998) have listed 10 guidelines that principals committed to
helping their schools function as professional learning communities should keep in mind;
they are:
• Attend to the building blocks of a professional learning community.
• Communicate the importance of mission, vision, values, and goals on a
daily basis.
• Create collaborative structures with a focus on teaching and learning.
• Shape the school culture to support a professional learning community.
113
• Foster an approach to curriculum that focuses on learning rather that
teaching.
• Encourage teachers to think of themselves as leaders.
• Practice enlightened leadership strategies.
• Establish personal credibility.
• Be fixated on results.
• Recognize that continuous improvement requires continuous learning.
Through observations, interviews with teachers, and document review, some evidence
indicated that Principal Waters modeled the guidelines as discussed by DuFour and Eaker
(1998) to inform her practice, especially as they pertained to her role in the professional
learning communities at Ledbetter Elementary School.
As a manner of addressing the instructional needs of students as they pertain to
language arts/reading and mathematics, the afterschool tutoring sessions and the Saturday
program provided this extra layer of assistance and support to students who were not
meeting adequate performance levels. Marzano (2003), in discussing instructional
strategies that work, found that “everything else being equal, the typical student who
receives tutoring will obtain achievement scores…higher than the typical student who
does not receive tutoring” (p. 80). As shown by the comments of teachers at Ledbetter
Elementary School, students who received additional support through participation in the
afterschool tutoring sessions and Saturday program showed noticeable gains in their
ability to access the instruction.
114
The impact that effective school leaders have on their schools cannot be
downplayed. Leithwood et al. (2004) have found that effective school leadership is
second only to teaching among school-related factors that have a strong influence on
academic achievement. Additionally, effective school leadership has been shown to have
a greater impact on schools that are faced with greater difficulties (Leithwood et al.,
2004). The ability of effective principals to impact student achievement positively is tied
to the organizational structures they establish at their schools, and the interaction they
have with their teachers and staff (Hallinger & Heck, 1996). Likewise, the organizational
structures in place at Ledbetter Elementary School served to promote effective teacher
practice, which in turn led to improved student outcomes.
Question #4
Ledbetter Elementary School Research Question #4: What leadership support structures
enable leader practice?
The study’s fourth question will discuss the various leadership support structures
that enable leader practice; these include district, school, and teacher-level structures.
The primary data collection instruments used to address this research question were the
pre and post principal interviews, the pre and post teacher interviews, document analysis,
and results of the VAL-ED Survey. Following discussion of the results, theoretical and
analytical frameworks from Davis et al. (2005), Heck et al. (1990), Leithwood et al.
(2004), Marzano et al. (2005), and Neufeld and Roper (2003) will be utilized as critical
sources to determine patterns and themes across the various data sets.
115
Key Finding: Campus Instructional Leadership Team Informs Practice of Teachers
The Campus Instructional Leadership Team (CILT), in supporting Principal
Waters’s achievement of the academic goals at Ledbetter Elementary School, provided
instructional leadership to teachers in the various content areas. The CILT, which is
composed of teachers, the academic coordinator, and the principal, also conducted
observations of all teachers about two times a year. During these sessions, they observed
and gathered data that could be useful in informing the instructional practice of all
teachers. Teachers also had the opportunity to schedule visits or to participate in
observations of other teachers.
The CILT met weekly so as to address the instructional needs of students in the
various grade levels. As mentioned by Ms. Witherspoon, “The CILT is taking
responsibility in leadership for [the] different content areas.” Members of the CILT
represented teachers from all content areas including language arts and reading,
mathematics, and science. Aside from content area members, the CILT included
members from the various grade levels, as well as primary and intermediate teachers.
Ms. Reed added, “We’re doing more vertical planning and have time set aside to do
grade-level planning. It’s a more cohesive effort to pull the whole campus together.”
Key Finding: Academic Coordinators and Coaches Support Instruction
At Ledbetter Elementary School, Principal Waters relied on the academic
coordinator and instructional coaches to provide assistance to her and her teachers as it
pertained to the instructional program. Though they both played different roles, their
work was essential to offering support to staff at Ledbetter Elementary School. Ms.
116
Waters stated, “My coordinator handles the logistics; the coaches handle the teacher
planning, the actual teaching piece.”
In discussing the opportunity to observe teachers on a regular basis, Ms. Waters
stated that, as a single administrator, “I have not gotten to the classroom as much as I
would have liked to in years past.” Things changed in 2009, though, with the addition of
an academic coordinator, she said, “who has really been helping to free up more of my
time so that I can get into the classrooms more.” This help afforded her the ability to
remain in classrooms for at least 30 minutes, where she could spend more quality time
observing instruction, and being “able to give more specific feedback to teachers,”
including constructive feedback and instructional support.
Ms. Beck, the academic coordinator at Ledbetter Elementary School, assisted
Principal Waters by checking lesson plans submitted by teachers, ordering materials
requested by teachers, planning schedules for teacher assistants, and handling other
logistical concerns. She also visited classrooms with Principal Waters on a regular basis
to observe instruction, gather information, and provide feedback to teachers on
instructional practices. Ms. Beck was also instrumental in providing assistance to
teachers struggling with concepts and/or instructional strategies. She further supported
teachers by working with students in their classrooms who were considerably below
grade level in reading and mathematics.
Students who scored at a “Tier 3 Level” on the Southwest Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills, or two grade levels below on mathematics and reading,
participated in a pull-out program with Ms. Beck. The students, who worked in small
117
groups, were given intense instruction in reading and math with the goal of improving
their performance in these areas. Additionally, Ms. Beck worked with students after
school as part of the tutorial program.
Ms. Witherspoon, in discussing the role of the Academic Coordinator, stated,
“Ms. Waters comes in, along with her Academic Coordinator, Ms. Beck, maybe once
every week or twice within a two-week period, depending on their schedule; they come
in to just gather, observe.” She also mentioned the Academic Coordinator’s role in
providing students with additional assistance to improve their learning, stating: “She
doesn’t really go out to find any type of supplementary work, she just uses the work that
we’ve been working on and dedicates more one on one time with them.” She added,
“She also discusses what may work best for them in solving a specific problem.”
The instructional coaches also assisted Principal Waters by providing an
additional layer of support for teachers at Ledbetter Elementary School. Coaches met
with teachers weekly for instructional planning and to discuss strategies that could be
used to meet academic goals. They also assisted with training and development of
teachers’ skill sets as they related to instructional content. Content area coaches also
participated in professional development and oftentimes modeled lessons for other
teachers. This assistance allowed teachers to share best practices and helped in assisting
those teachers struggling in the classroom by providing them with alternative
instructional strategies to meet student needs.
This dimension of leadership, as discussed by Murphy et al. (2007) included
providing individualized support to staff; at Ledbetter Elementary School, the academic
118
coordinator and instructional coaches assisted teachers in providing quality instruction to
their students, which can lead to improved student achievement. As addressed in the
spring VAL-ED survey, this core component of leadership, which is known as
Performance Accountability, was identified as an area of strength for Principal Waters
based on teacher responses (28 of 36 possible respondents, or 78%). Principal Waters
scored “proficient” in supporting and communicating to teachers this aspect of
leadership; however, she scored “basic” in implementing and advocating for this core
component, as measured by the VAL-ED survey.
Key Finding: Counselor Provides Behavior Support
To assist Principal Waters in addressing the socio-emotional needs of students,
which may hinder their ability to access the instructional program, Ledbetter Elementary
School enlisted the services of a counselor, Ms. Davis. And in the words of Ms. Reed, a
5
th
-grade teacher, “She has been wonderful with discipline issues.” Students who were
experiencing difficulties in the classroom were referred to Ms. Davis, who then pulled
them out of class to discuss their behavior with them. On some occasions, students who
worked with Ms. Davis were sent to her before they experienced further problems. She
also spoke with teachers on a regular basis to see if there were any students she could
work with before their behavior escalated. Ms. Davis also worked with students in
groups to discuss issues or concerns with them.
Another important aspect of her work involved creating behavior plans for
students who had on-going problems. This plan was crafted with the help of the
classroom teacher and provided the student with specific guidelines to support improved
119
behavior. The plan was usually in effect for a period of three weeks or until the desired
behavior was achieved. Parents were asked to sign the plan on a daily basis and to
monitor their child’s progress at home, as well. In the event that a parent could not be
reached, the community liaison, Mr. Fogerty, made a home visit to ensure that the parent
was aware of the problems the student was having and was familiar with the behavior
plan.
The spring VAL-ED survey addressed this core component of leadership, known
as Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior. This area of leadership “ensures that
there are integrated communities of professional practice in the service of…social
learning; [additionally], there is a healthy school environment in which student learning
is the focus” (Murphy et al., 2007b, p. 8). In the fall administration of the VAL-ED
survey, responses indicated that Principal Waters was “below basic” in this category;
spring survey results were more promising, with 28 of 36 respondents indicating that Ms.
Waters was “proficient” in this category.
Analysis of Findings/Conclusion
The support provided to Principal Waters by the academic coordinator and
content coaches proved to be invaluable in addressing the instructional goals of Ledbetter
Elementary School. Although playing a somewhat similar role in that they provided on-
going support to the teachers at Ledbetter Elementary School, the academic coordinator
and content coaches also performed dissimilar duties that ultimately proved valuable to
the principal and teachers. The academic coordinator worked at the “school” level by
providing assistance to the entire staff and performing duties that alleviated some of the
120
responsibilities of the principal. The instructional coaches, on the other hand, worked
more at the classroom level by assisting teachers with daily planning and implementing
classroom lessons.
As discussed by Neufeld and Roper (2003), “coaches focus their attention on
helping teachers improve instruction in a particular academic discipline…but they do not
ignore the larger issues of school organization and resource allocation.” (p. 7). The
academic coordinator and coaches, working as part of the instructional team,
must first determine teachers’ learning needs and then meet those needs by
targeting conversations around instruction, raising questions, organizing
professional development opportunities, bringing in research and articles, and
guiding teachers in developing new practice. (Neufeld & Roper, 2003, p. 8)
Marzano et al. (2005) have defined the members of a school’s leadership team as
a “group of individuals highly committed to the general well-being of a school” (p. 104).
As such, they share a “culture of commitment” to the school. At Ledbetter Elementary
School, the Campus Instructional Leadership Team (CILT) was composed of various
instructional leaders commited to quality instruction and increased student achievement.
Ms. Witherspoon, 4
th
-grade teacher, described the team as having “a common goal of
meeting the commitment to our students.” This quality was exemplified in the
interactions observed at Ledbetter Elementary School between the staff and members of
the CILT, and also during the professional development sessions observed during the
data-collecting visits to the Southwest ISD.
As a school counselor, Ms. Davis played a critical role in her support of teachers
by addressing behavior problems that may hinder a student’s academic achievement.
Davis et al. (2005) have offered that, “successful school leaders influence student
121
achievement…both through their influence on other people or features of their
organization and through their influence on school processes” (p. 5). Heck et al. (1990)
found that, “the principal’s role in establishing a strong school climate…strongly
predicted school achievement.” This support, which is crucial to maintaining an
educational environment conducive to student learning and achievement, speaks to the
leadership practices of Principal Waters.
Leithwood et al. (2004) outlined three sets of core leadership practices that define
successful school leaders: (a) developing people, (b) setting directions for the
organization, and (c) redesigning the organization. Through the support of academic
coordinators and coaches, and a counselor to provide assistance to students struggling
with issues, some evidence indicated that Principal Waters reflected those qualities that
define a successful school leader. The support structures at Ledbetter Elementary School
enabled the principal to be more effective in her leadership practices. Additionally, they
allowed for teachers and other staff to do their jobs effectively, develop shared goals,
monitor organizational performance, promote effective communication, and create a
productive school culture (Davis et al., 2005).
Question #5
Ledbetter Elementary School Research Question #5: How can the Val-Ed instrument
serve as a coaching tool to assist principals to become effective instructional leaders?
The study’s final research question seeks to address how the Vanderbilt
Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) could serve as a coaching tool to aid
122
principals in their progress toward becoming effective instructional leaders. Data to be
used in answering this research question was gathered from the results of the pre and post
intervention survey, which was administered in fall (2009) and spring (2010). The data
will be analyzed from the perspective of learning-centered leadership theory and
frameworks (Murphy et al. 2006; Murphy et al., 2007; and Porter, Goldring, Murphy,
Elliott, & Cravens, 2006).
Purpose of the Assessment
The VAL-ED Survey is designed to provide a summary of the effectiveness of a
principal’s learning-centered leadership behaviors during the current school year. It also
presents a comprehensive picture of the principal, which is arrived at through input from
teachers, the principal’s supervisor, and his or her own self-report. Respondents to the
VAL-ED are asked how effective the principal is in ensuring the school carries out
specific actions that affect core components of learning-centered leadership. The
effectiveness ratings, based on evidence, range from one (ineffective) to five
(outstandingly effective) for each of the 72 leadership behaviors. The results are then
interpreted against both norm-referenced and standards-referenced criteria that highlight
areas of strength and possible areas for improvement. (See Appendices L and M for
results of the survey and recommended suggestions for improvement).
Key Finding: Respondents, Sources of Evidence, and Overall Score
Teachers at Ledbetter Elementary School were allocated time to complete the
VAL-ED Survey during one of their collaboration periods in fall (2009), and again in
spring (2010). For the fall assessment, 61% of the possible respondents (22 of 36)
123
completed the survey; the spring survey showed a response rate of 78% (28 of 36). As
determined by the VAL-ED survey, a response rate of 50% to 74% is considered
moderate. This response is considered to be a high level. Principal Waters and her
supervisor also completed the survey during its fall and spring administration.
When providing responses to the 72 items on the survey, respondents were asked
to indicate a “source of evidence” for each question answered. According to the VAL-
ED Survey:
Ratings of a principal’s behaviors should be based on evidence that is recent,
relevant, and representative. After reflecting on a sample of evidence,
respondents’ effectiveness ratings of leadership behaviors are behaviorally-
anchored and more accurate. (Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education
Principal Report, 2008)
Possible sources of evidence include reports from others, personal observations, school
documents, school projects or activities, or other sources.
For the initial fall survey, the top three evidence sources cited by teachers
included personal observations (63%), school documents (46%), and school projects or
activities (30%). The spring survey completed by teachers yielded the following top
three evidence sources: personal observations (79%), school documents (51%), and
school projects or activities (37%). Principal Waters’s three highest sources of evidence
cited in the fall and spring included reports from others (fall 58%, spring 54%), personal
observations (57%, 75%), and school documents (55%, 74%). Her supervisor cited
personal observations (97%) and school documents (96%) as sources of evidence in the
fall, whereas the spring survey showed a total reliance on personal observations (100%)
as a source of evidence.
124
Key Finding: Results of the Assessment
In the fall administration of the VAL-ED Survey, Principal Waters showed an
overall effectiveness score of “below basic” with a mean score of 3.22 (5-point
effectiveness scale: 1=ineffective to 5=outstandingly effective) and a percentile rank of
13.6 based on the average ratings of all respondents. As defined in the VAL-ED Survey
Principal Report, “a leader at the below basic level of proficiency exhibits learning-
centered leadership behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are unlikely to influence
teachers positively nor result in acceptable value-added to student achievement and social
learning for students.”
The spring administration of the VAL-ED Survey yielded more positive results
for Principal Waters. Her overall effectiveness score showed a performance level of
“basic” with a mean score of 3.54 and a percentile rank of 40.5 based on the average
ratings of all respondents. As defined in the VAL-ED Principal Report:
a leader at the basic level of proficiency exhibits learning-centered leadership
behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are likely to influence teachers positively
and that result in acceptable value-added to student achievement and social
learning for some sub-groups of students, but not all.
In the fall survey scores of Principal Waters in the Core Components, which
represent the focus of effective learning-centered instructional leadership as grounded in
the literature (Murphy et al., 2007b), the mean item ratings ranged from a low of 2.56 for
Connections to External Communities to a high of 3.54 for Quality Instruction. The
spring survey yielded far better results, overall, in the Core Components, with the mean
item ratings ranging from a low of 3.29 for Connections to External Communities to a
high of 3.75 for Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior. However, unlike the fall
125
survey results, in which Principal Waters scored “below basic” in four of the Core
Components, she scored only “below basic” in one of the areas, “proficient” in two of the
six areas, and “basic” in three of the six.
In the summary of Key Processes scores for the fall survey, Principal Waters’s
mean item ratings ranged from a low of 3.04 for Planning to a high of 3.45 for
Supporting. Overall, she scored “below basic” in four of the six areas. Her spring survey
results showed improvement in the area of Key Processes. The mean item ratings ranged
from a low of 3.29 for Planning to a high of 3.84 for Communicating. Her overall results
showed her as “proficient” in two of the six Key Processes, and “basic” in three of the
six.
Key Finding: Assessment Profile and Respondent Comparisons
In reviewing the Assessment Profile and Respondent Comparisons provided in the
Val-Ed Survey Principal Report, the principal’s relative strengths and areas for
development can be determined by comparing scores for each of the six Core
Components and six Key Processes across different respondent groups. In terms of Total
Effectiveness in the Core Components, as measured by the fall survey, Principal Waters
rated herself 3.20, whereas her teachers rated her higher (3.55) and her supervisor rated
her lower (2.90). The spring survey ratings in this area showed Principal Waters rating
herself higher (4.16) than did her teachers (3.71) or her supervisor (2.74). For Total
Effectiveness in the Key Processes for the fall, Principal Waters rated herself 3.20,
whereas teachers rated her higher (3.55) than did her supervisor (2.90). Spring ratings in
126
this area found the principal rating herself higher (4.16) than her teachers (3.71) or her
supervisor (2.74).
A review of the mean effectiveness ratings across the Core Components for the
fall survey found that Principal Waters rated herself higher than did her teachers in two of
the six areas, High Standards for Student Learning and Quality Instruction. Teachers
rated her higher in the Core Component Areas of Rigorous Curriculum, Culture of
Learning and Professional Behavior, Connections to External Communities, and
Performance Accountability. Principal Waters’s supervisor rated her anywhere from 2.75
to 3.08 in the Core Components, with Performance Accountability the lowest, and
Quality Instruction the highest. Spring survey mean effectiveness ratings in the Core
Components found Principal Waters rating herself higher than her teachers and
supervisor in all areas with the exception of Connections to External Communities.
An examination of the mean ratings across Key Processes for the fall survey
found that teachers rated the principal higher in all areas than she did herself, with the
exception of “supporting” (Principal=3.64, Teachers=3.61) and “advocating” (3.56,
3.55), which were very close. The principal’s supervisor rated her lower in all areas (2.64
to 3.08) than she or her teachers did, with the exception of “planning.” The spring survey
found the principal rating herself higher in all Key Processes than her teachers, whereas
the supervisor ranked her lower than did her teachers.
Key Finding: Using Results for Professional Growth
The VAL-ED Survey Principal Report provides a matrix that gives an integrated
summary of the principal’s relative strengths and areas for growth based on the mean
127
item scores for the intersection of Core Components by Key Processes across the three
respondent groups. In reviewing the matrix for the fall results of the VAL-ED Survey,
Principal Waters scored “proficient” in three areas: Monitoring High Standards for
Student Learning, Supporting Quality Instruction and Communicating Quality
Instruction. She scored “below basic” in 21 of 36 areas, and “basic” in 12 of 36 areas.
Spring results of the VAL-ED Survey were much more favorable, with Principal Waters
receiving a rating of “proficient” in 15 of the 36 areas, and “basic” in 12 of the 36 areas.
She received a rating of “below basic” in only 9 of the 36 areas.
Key Finding: Leadership Behaviors for Possible Improvement
The VAL-ED Survey offers a list of leadership behaviors that may need possible
improvement, based on the results of the assessment. As noted in the Principal Report,
“the leadership behaviors listed in each cluster are representative of the lowest rated core
component by key process areas of behavior.” For Principal Waters, possible areas for
improvement, as identified in the fall survey, included Communicating Connections to
External Communities, Implementing Performance Accountability, Planning Connections
to External Communities, Communicating Culture of Learning and Professional
Behavior, Supporting Connections to External Communities, and Monitoring Culture of
Learning and Professional Behavior. Spring survey results found Principal Waters
possibly needing improvement in the following areas: Planning Connections to External
Communities, Planning Performance Accountability, Monitoring Performance
Accountability, Implementing Connections to External Communities, Implementing High
Standards for Student Learning, and Implementing Quality Instruction.
128
Analysis of Findings/Conclusion
According to Porter, Goldring, Murphy, Elliott, and Cravens, the Vanderbilt
Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) was developed “as a multi-component
assessment system for measuring critical leadership behaviors of individual
educators…especially in urban settings for the purpose of diagnostic analysis,
performance feedback, progress monitoring, and personnel decisions” (2006, p. 1).
Murphy et al. explain that, “Principal leadership assessment and evaluation can be an
integral part of a standards-based accountability system and school improvement,” the
VAL-ED, when “properly implemented, has the power to improve organizational
performance” (2007b, p. 1).
The VAL-ED’s use by the Southwest Independent School District would serve to
inform the District of leadership behaviors of principal participants in the Southwest
Principal Coaching Initiative. With the assessment administered in the fall, as principals
began their work with their leadership coaches, and again in the spring, following four
months of participation in the program, “a comprehensive picture of the principal [will
emerge] and is reported with input from teachers, the principal’s supervisor, and his or
her own self-report” (Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education Principal
Report).
Based on reviews of the fall and spring Principal Reports generated following
completion of the survey by the principal, teachers, and the principal’s supervisor,
evidence indicated that Principal Waters showed some improvement in her effectiveness
as a leader. Given that more teachers completed the survey in the spring (78%) than in
129
the fall (55%), one might draw the conclusion that greater participation yielded a more
correct picture of Principal Waters’s effectiveness as a leader. However, even though the
“Total Effectiveness” rating of Principal Waters improved from fall to spring based on
her own self-evaluation (3.35 to 4.16) and the teachers’ evaluations (3.37 to 3.71), her
supervisor’s rating of her effectiveness dropped from 2.96 to 2.74.
As the intention of its authors was to develop an assessment that would “yield
valid performance information that can facilitate both formative and summative
evaluation of leaders and leadership teams” (Porter et al., 2006), the assessment results
for Principal Waters may serve as a guide, whereby her leadership coach is able to
provide more focused support in the various areas addressed in the VAL-ED.
Additionally, the results of the VAL-ED can serve as benchmarks for professional
growth.
Case Study Two
Hampton Elementary School: Location and Demographics
Hampton Elementary School, located in the southern part of the state, is bordered
by the Patriot Parkway on the west, the Marvin D. Love Freeway on the east, the Tom
Landry Freeway on the north, and the Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway on the south. It is
situated in a middle-class neighborhood that is not reflective of the student demographics
found within its walls. Also of note is its close proximity to a private school that more
accurately reflects the neighborhood in which Hampton Elementary School is located.
With a total population of 38,562 and a median age of 26.8 years, the residents of
this area, which is also known as Ledbetter Commons, are represented by a large Latino
130
population (41%) and an equal division of African American (29%) and White (29%)
residents. In terms of economics, the median household income is $33,515 compared to
the national median of $41,994; the poverty level in this community stands at 17.6%
compared to the national level of 9.2%. As for educational levels of attainment, 59.2% of
the residents of this community earned a high school diploma or higher (national:
80.4%), whereas 7.2% earned a Bachelor’s degree or higher (national: 24.4%).
(http://www.brainyzip.com/zipcodes/75/75216.html).
Based on demographic information for the school year 2008-2009, Hampton
Elementary School had an enrollment of 401 students in Pre-K through 6
th
grade
programs, 90% of who are eligible for free/reduced lunch. Of this number, 25% is
Limited English Proficient students, whereas special education students make up 7% of
the student body. The student ethnic composition was 60% African American, and 40%
Hispanic.
Student academic performance on the state’s standardized test, the Southwest
Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (SAKS), which is given to students in grades 3 to
10 annually, actually showed a decline in the school year 2008-2009 in the key academic
areas of math, reading, science, and writing. SAKS results for the school year 2008-2009
are as follows: in mathematics, 66% of Hampton Elementary School’s students met
minimum standards on the SAKS, a steep drop of 15% (81%) from the 2007-2008 school
year, and a negative difference of 16% (82%) when compared to the statewide average;
74% met the minimum standard in reading, a 10% difference (84%) from the 2007-2008
school year, and well below the state average of 91%; 64% met the minimum standard in
131
science, a decrease of 1% (65%) from the previous school year, and below the state
average of 78%; and 71% of the students assessed in writing met the minimum standard,
a decrease of 14% (85%) from the 2007-2008 school year, and significantly below the
state average of 93%.
Hampton Elementary School: Culture and Climate
Hampton Elementary School’s motto— “Creating a Culture of Excellence”— was
visibly displayed in the main hallway and greeted visitors upon their arrival to the
campus. At the start of the day, students were lined up in the hallways awaiting the
signal from their teachers to proceed in an orderly fashion to their classrooms. Building
and grounds workers were actively engaged in carrying out their assigned duties, but still
offered friendly greetings to the visitors on their campus. Gazing into classrooms, one
can see the inviting atmosphere created by teachers, which allowed students to learn in an
environment conducive to teaching and learning.
Principal Coltrane, who had been at Hampton Elementary School for just over
three years, described the culture and climate as “a work in progress; our biggest piece is
working on cohesiveness amongst all staff members.” She also stated that, “there are
pockets of people that work well together, but teachers are still learning how to openly
trust and professionally communicate with others their concerns, and then work to solve
problems.” As the majority of teachers had beem at the school from 13 to 24 years,
getting them all on the same page was challenging. Ms. Coltrane added, “Historically,
this has been a challenging staff, even prior to me being here…the principals that they’ve
had before me were only here for two years. One principal quit after her second year.”
132
Introduction to Principal Coltrane
Principal Coltrane, a teacher and an administrator with the Southwest Independent
School District for over 18 years, was also a product of the district. A graduate of North
State University, she was an undergrad in Education, Secondary Speech, and English.
She was also fortunate enough to be selected as a graduate student for a fast-track
program at the University of the Southwest where teachers participated in a principalship
program. Ms. Coltrane taught for 12 years in a high school before becoming assistant
principal at an elementary school, and then a Dean of Instruction at a middle school. She
had been in her current leadership position as the principal of Hampton Elementary
School since 2006. Principal Coltrane had just begun participating in the Southwest
Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI) in September of 2009. At the initial interview with
Ms. Coltrane, she had yet to meet her Principal Coach.
Question #1
Hampton Elementary School Research Question # 1: How does participation in the
Southwest ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI) prepare principals to become
effective instructional leaders?
The study’s initial question seeks to address how participation in the SPCI
prepared principals to become effective leaders. The primary data collection instruments
used to address this research question were: (a) the pre and post principal interviews, (b)
the pre and post teacher interviews, and (c) document analysis. Following discussion of
the results, theoretical and analytical frameworks from Davis et al. (2005), Marzano et
133
al., (2005), and Neufeld and Roper (2003) will be utilized as critical sources to determine
patterns and themes across the various data sets.
Key Finding: District Initiatives Support Effective Leader Practice
The Southwest Independent School District’s goal of preparing its diverse student
body to be successful in the 21
st
Century rested on its ability to provide “exemplary
professional development for ‘everyone who affects student learning’” (Southwest
Leadership Development Initiatives, Executive Summary, Southwest Independent School
District, 2009). The development of leadership institutes for its principals, assistant
principals, instructional coaches, central administrative staff members, teacher-leaders,
and classroom teachers all supported the attainment of this goal. The institutes, which
provide on-going training for principals and other administrators regarding best practices
in teaching and learning, school and district operations updates, and leadership principles
were also focused on attaining that goal. The Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative
(SPCI), of which Principal Coltrane was a participant, was one of these programs.
In developing the instructional leadership of Principal Coltrane, who had been a
participant in the SPCI since September of 2009, the Southwest Independent School
District provided various layers of support to ensure that the goals of the district would be
attained. This goal was actualized not only through the SPCI, which provides a
leadership coach to its participants, but also through professional development that
informed the practice of school-based leaders. These sessions, which are meant to aide in
the establishment and support of professional learning communities at the school, district,
134
and higher education levels, provided training to build the leadership capacity of
participants.
As discussed in the Southwest Independent School District’s Plan for Student
Achievement: Educational Theory of Action and Summary of Initiatives and Strategies
(2006), the District will:
• Build capacity or principals and teachers, teacher leaders (Campus
Instructional Leadership Team), and instructional coaches to develop and
lead campus professional learning communities to support enactment of
the education plan and theory of action.
• Build a cadre of principals, teachers, teacher leaders (CILT), and
instructional coaches with the skills and knowledge needed to facilitate
district-wide professional learning.
• Collaborate with teacher and principal preparation institutions to support
alignment and coherence to the education plan.
• Build instructional capacity through “at elbow” conversations centered
around student work and student learning standards.
• Ensure alignment and coherence of instructional professional
development, both internal and external.
As an active participant in the district-wide professional development, Principal Coltrane
had the opportunity to build a strong leadership team at Hampton Elementary School that
reflected the goals discussed above.
135
As the instructional leader of Hampton Elementary School, she also participated
in smaller more focused team-building opportunities. Principal Coltrane discussed these
other opportunities:
There are other nested-learning communities…we have a small-group learning
community where the southwest principals are divided into small groupings, and
then there is a second professional learning community which exists of the
cluster, all of the schools that feed into a particular high school.
The district also coordinates learning walks for principals in the various clusters.
Principal Coltrane spoke about this practice:
We do have learning walks that take place within those clusters of groupings that
I just mentioned, the small learning community and the cluster learning
community where those principals are able to come on campus. You can ask for
their eyes, if you will…observations on whatever practices you’re concerned
about.
Opportunities to participate in the learning walks occurred at the start of the month when
the small learning communities met.
Principal Coltrane also spoke briefly about the additional support offered by the
district in helping schools to achieve their instructional goals:
The nested learning communities are available. The actual district content-area
specialists are available, and, like I stated, this campus has instructional coaches
for the content areas, so they are available. Then there are the Southwest ISD
training sessions that we’re going through.
Key Finding: Leadership Coaching Informs Principal Practice
Although beginning participation in the Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative
only in September 2009, Principal Coltrane found the experience somewhat beneficial to
her leadership practice, especially as it pertained to her communication skills and
interpersonal communication; she also felt that the program had a positive impact on the
136
instructional program at Hampton Elementary School. Her Principal Coach, Ms.
Turrentine, a retired principal was usually on the campus at least twice a month and spent
the entire day at Hampton Elementary School. On some occasions, she dropped in for a
half-day to participate in special assignments or to confer with Principal Coltrane on
pertinent issues.
In her capacity as Principal Coach, Ms. Turrentine attended district-wide
professional development with Ms. Coltrane. Additionally, as part of her coaching
responsibilities, she sat in on instructional meetings, did classroom observations with Ms.
Coltrane, brought in resources, wrote up recommendations, and provided the principal
with feedback and follow-through on various concerns. Given that she had a wealth of
experience as an administrator, she also provided another facet in her role as Principal
Coach. According to Ms. Monk, a 5
th
-grade teacher,
As a retired principal, she has a lot of experience and can come in and see things
that maybe the principal doesn’t see because another set of eyes is better; the
coach critiques her to help her in her area of weakness, and she’s really acceptable
to that.
Principal Coltrane found that the reflective sessions spent with Ms. Turrentine
were the most beneficial, especially the “a-ha’s or things that come up to be best
practices.” She added, “She helps to facilitate my reflection, if you will.” Continuing to
comment on the importance of the reflective model as practiced by Ms. Turrentine,
Principal Coltrane commented, “I think, again, that the reflective piece that takes place
with the coach is significant for me to reassess my approach in how teachers interface
with one another, and making sure that the collaborative time is productive.”
137
The time spent with the Ms. Turrentine was also been significant because she was
usually scheduled to be on the campus on days when grade-level meetings and other
planning sessions were held. As explained by Principal Coltrane, “She’s in the
meetings…and then we’re able to debrief afterwards to review how issues were handled
and how things were addressed, to make sure that I’m staying on track with best
practices.”
Teachers at Hampton Elementary School also made positive comments regarding
the influence that the Principal Coach had on the leadership abilities of Principal
Coltrane. Ms. Barbieri, the librarian, saw the principal and her Principal Coach “walking,
sharing, talking; I have heard, kind of through the grapevine, that she’s given her advice
on things that she has followed-through with that turned out to be positive.” Another
teacher, Ms. Clemons, also took notice of Ms. Turrentine’s presence on campus: “I
noticed that the coach has been at the school giving [Principal Coltrane]
reinforcement…coming with her to grade-level meetings…walking around, coming to
the classroom and sitting in on our vertical team meetings.” She saw this interaction as
the Principal Coach “wanting to have an understanding of the school in order to assist the
principal.” She added, “I have to believe [Principal Coltrane’s] getting something out of
it.”
Ms. Monk, the 5
th
-grade teacher, spoke about the classroom visits made by Ms.
Turrentine without the principal at her side; “A lot of times back in the fall, she would
just be walking the halls by herself, and she would come into my classroom…and
observe what’s going on.” Following these observations,
138
She would stop me in the hall and say she liked what was going on. So she was
always positive, or even if it was negative, she would take the negative and turn it
into a positive by adding what she would recommend.
Ms. Monk discussed how this specific aspect of instructional leadership, as
modeled by Ms. Turrentine, became a part of Principal Coltrane’s practice, “I like it
because you get caught up in teaching every day, and some things you may not
notice…so feedback is good.” She continued, “I like it when people can tell me my good
and my bad because that‘s what’s going to benefit me.” She also believed that the
teachers see this responsiveness as something worthwhile, “I would think for the majority
of the staff, maybe that’s good. I don’t see it as someone that’s coming in to see what
I’m doing wrong, I see it as someone coming to actually help.”
Key Finding: District-Wide Professional Development Prepares Principal
As discussed earlier, principals participating in Southwest Principal Coaching
Initiative (SPCI) attend professional development sessions with their Principal Coaches.
Oftentimes, the sessions are the same for all district principals; in others, the programs
are specifically designed for the principals and their Principal Coaches. As the Southwest
Independent School District works in collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh, the
Institute for Learning is involved in the design and implementation of much of the
curriculum for these programs. This involvement assures that the content of these
sessions is aligned with the district initiatives so that principals may develop greater
capacity as instructional leaders in successful schools.
In working with her teachers and instructional team, Principal Coltrane assessed
the needs of the school as they pertained to the delivery of instruction and academic
139
achievement. In this way, programs to benefit the entire staff could be presented during
professional development. As discussed by Ms. Monk,
Staff development is a big thing…and we have to evaluate our campus. Whatever
the needs are for our building, suggestions are made and then the principal is right
on it to say, “okay, let me get this information to you.”
The district also provided expert presenters at staff development sessions to target
reading and mathematics. Because Hampton Elementary School was considered “one of
those borderline schools,” according to Ms. Monk, “we get extra help.” Teachers and
staff also “find other sources that we need,” according to Ms. Monk. “We’ll do research
or whatever we need to do, reading articles or books that can benefit our school.”
The professional development sessions I observed in the fall were led by teachers
and covered the following topics: analyzing data, student profiles, applying best
practices, pacing and sequence, and preparing for benchmarks. An afternoon session
included Institute for Learning (IFL) math training. During the sessions, teachers had the
opportunity to share their best practices as they pertained to the lessons being presented,
and also participated in discussions about student achievement.
Professional development observed in the spring included topics presented by
grade levels in various break-out rooms. Teams of teachers were divided up into two
groups: Kindergarten to 2
nd
grade, and 3
rd
to 6
th
grade. Opportunities for collaboration
were given in reading/language arts and math/science. Topics in the area of
reading/language arts included best practices in reading comprehension fluency
achievement and high quality instruction in writing. Mathematics sessions covered best
140
practices for ITBS/Logramos Success, high quality instruction in science, and
measurements and effective questioning.
As the school mission is to create a positive and safe learning environment where
children receive a quality elementary school education for advancement to the secondary
level with opportunities to reach success, some of the discussion involved addressing the
whole child. Principal Coltrane elaborated on this:
We had a discussion this morning about ensuring that students have an
opportunity to work not only with academics but also with their elective classes.
The vision is that we keep pushing the students beyond where they are; the
challenge is to build within them intrinsic motivation so that it’s not a coercive
process of trying to teach them by rote.
This effort allowed teachers to work toward defining the vision and mission as it related
to student achievement, and also to share out how they saw Hampton Elementary School
in the future.
All of this has led to “a positive and collaborative environment,” according to
Principal Coltrane, whereby the instructional coaches on the campus “helped us in
identifying common patterns among the grade levels within a department and exploring
best practices for teachers to use in the room.” Principal Coltrane elaborated further,
“Everything that we do, the planning in the vertical teams, the grade-level planning, the
lesson planning is all based upon where the students are and what they need to help us
reach our goals.” This close attention includes monitoring lesson plans, classroom
visitations, and meeting with teachers during the weekly planning time held on
Wednesdays, which all have as their goal teachers working together to refine their
instructional strategies and classroom practice.
141
Analysis of Findings/Conclusion
The Southwest Independent School District’s collaboration with the University of
Pittsburgh’s Institute for Learning was essential in providing a focused and
instructionally sound leadership program for participants in the Southwest Principal
Coaching Initiative. Davis et al. (2005) believed that these programs can help in
“developing knowledge that will allow school leaders to better promote successful
teaching and learning” (p.8). Leadership programs should also focus on developing
collaborative decision-making strategies, distributed leadership practices, a culture of
collegiality and community, processes for organizational change and renewal, and
developing management competence in the analysis and use of data and instructional
technologies to guide school improvement activities (Davis et al., 2005).
Another aspect of the Southwest Independent School District’s Principal
Coaching Initiative, the use of leadership coaches to support and inform the principal’s
practices as they pertain to student achievement, proved valuable, based on the evidence
of the findings. In its discussion of the importance of mentors to assist school leaders in
attaining instructional goals, the Southern Regional Education Board stated that good
mentors provide the day-to-day feedback and coaching help school leaders solve a range
of problems through observing and participating, and then by identifying, implementing,
and evaluating improvement initiatives. Evidence indicated that Principal Coltrane was
provided this type of support on an on-going basis by her leadership coach, Ms.
Turrentine.
142
In discussing the impact that her participation in the Southwest Principal
Coaching Initiative (SPCI) had on her leadership practice, Principal Coltrane offered
praise to her leadership coach, Ms. Turrentine, for taking the time to reflect with her and
for offering sound advice on various concerns. As she commented, “The reflective piece
that takes place with the coach, that’s significant for me to reassess my approach in how
teachers interface with one another, and making sure that collaborative time is
productive.” Ms. Monk, the 5
th
-grade teacher, also commented on this aspect of the
leadership coach’s impact, “I can see the benefit; I think it’s more of just the techniques
and how she deals with staffing because that’s always a big part of how you work.” Ms.
Barbieri, the librarian, added, “I see them together…there is some sharing, some
listening, and some reacting going on.”
In the area of classroom observations and feedback, Ms. Turrentine provided for
Principal Coltrane another lens through which to view the instructional practices of
teachers. Neufeld and Roper (2003) discussed this aspect of the coach’s role in
improving instruction by participating with the principal in effective classroom
observations, “Good instructional leadership is more than having a presence in
classrooms; it requires principal engagement with teachers about teaching and
learning…coaches can encourage this engagement by giving principals concrete
strategies for analyzing instruction” (p. 6). As shown in the comments made by teachers
at Hampton Elementary School, it would be correct to say that Principal Coltrane’s
observations and feedback provided to her staff became more focused.
143
In discussing mentor relationships, Davis et al. (2005) have stated that, “they
should serve to reduce the distance between a learner’s independent problem-solving
performance and his/her potential developmental level achieved through problem solving
with guidance from an expert.” Lave (1991) also found that competent mentors guide the
learners in their search for effective leadership strategies “through modeling, coaching,
gradually removing support as the mentee’s competence increases, questioning and
probing to promote self-reflection and problem-solving skills, and providing feedback
and counsel” (as cited in Davis et al., 2005). Principal Coltrane, in speaking of the
working relationship she developed with her leadership coach, touched on those
characteristics discussed by Davis et al. (2005). And, as characterized in conversations
with teachers at Hampton Elementary School, the “mentor/mentee” relationship certainly
proved to be beneficial to the leadership practices of Principal Coltrane.
Another important aspect of the Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI)
was the willingness of principals to participate in the program. Although admitting that
one may need assistance and guidance to better leadership abilities may be difficult,
principals entering the program are acknowledging, tacitly or otherwise, that they may
require some assistance in addressing the leadership needs of their schools. In speaking
with Principal Coltrane before she met her leadership coach, this observer discerned that
involvement in the program wasn’t her decision; when asked how participants for the
program were selected, Principal Coltrane responded with a curt, “I have no idea.” But
after spending about four months with her leadership coach, the partnership seemed to be
proving successful. Although responding in a somewhat stoic and sparse fashion,
144
Principal Coltrane still offered words of praise about the program, “It’s helping me to be
a better leader.”
Neufeld and Roper (2003), in their discussion of practical conditions to consider
when implementing a coaching model, believed that “coaches can have a powerful
impact on learners…they can diagnose their learners’ needs and employ multiple
coaching approaches, but in the end, if the learner does not or is not willing to learn,
coaches cannot be successful” (p.18). They add, “coaches have no formal
authority…their credibility depends on the knowledge and skill they bring to the job and
the trust they establish with principals and teachers” (Neufeld & Roper, 2003, p. 18).
Even though Principal Coltrane seemed somewhat reluctant to participate in the SPCI
(based on this researcher’s initial impressions), she embraced the relationship with her
Principal Coach, which served to inform her leadership practice.
As stated by Marzano et al. (2005), “One of the most frequently mentioned
resources important to the effective functioning of a school is the professional
development opportunities for teachers” (p. 59). The professional development sessions
observed at Hampton Elementary School provided teachers opportunities for learning and
reflection; as such, they were “focused, skill-oriented, and cohesive” (Marzano et al.,
2005, p. 89). Marzano et al. (2005) added that staff development sessions with the
strongest relationship to reported change in teacher behavior are focused on content,
provide opportunities for active learning, and have an overall coherence. Whether
conducted by instructional coaches provided by the district, or developed in-house
145
through the instructional leadership team, professional development sessions at Hampton
Elementary School addressed the areas of concern identified by teachers and staff.
The Southwest Independent School District’s Principal Coaching Initiative provides its
principals an opportunity to better their leadership skills through a well-informed
program of professional development. The support offered by leadership coaches also
allows for principals to work closely with experienced administrators who can offer
support and guidance in all instructional and operational areas. Gathered through the
observations conducted at Hampton Elementary School, strong evidence indicated that
Principal Coltrane’s participation in the SPCI provided her with experiences that would
support her ability to successfully lead the students and teachers towards the attainment
of their instructional and academic goals.
Question #2
Hampton Elementary School Research Question #2: How does the SPCI influence the
knowledge, beliefs, and leadership practices of urban school principals?
The study’s second question provides a discussion and analysis of the influence
that participation in the SPCI has on the knowledge, beliefs, and leadership practices of
urban school principals. The primary data collection instruments used to address this
research question were: (a) the pre and post principal interviews, (b) the pre and post
teacher interviews, (c) document analysis, and (d) the Val-Ed survey results. Following
discussion of the findings, the data will be analyzed from the research perspective of
theoretical and analytical frameworks that focus on leader influence on effective
instructional leadership (Leithwood et al., 2004; Murphy et al., 2007).
146
Key Finding: Improving Instructional Practice through Observation
When asked about the opportunity to observe classroom practice and provide
feedback to teachers, Principal Coltrane stated that she was in classrooms on a daily
basis; however, she had not had a real opportunity to give out “formal observations, at
this point.” She stated, “I’ve just been walking the rooms and kind of speaking to them
in general. I will meet with them in large settings like we met this morning in the faculty
meeting to just give some overall observations.” Teachers, however, felt that she
provided them with timely and quality feedback following observations in the classroom.
In responding to the question of feedback, Ms. Clemons, 1
st
-grade teacher, stated,
“I remember a couple of years ago, [Principal Coltrane] went to all the first grade classes
and she didn’t understand why we weren’t all at the same thing. She wrote a letter and
we all sat down and discussed it with her.” She added that this year, “Ms. Coltrane will
just let us know that it went well and she likes what she sees.” Ms. Monk also mentioned
that:
Principal Coltrane] will take a little time and write up some information
…positives and negatives because we build on those things that we are weak
in…we’ll also talk together one-on-one about what took place in the classroom,
what she noticed in the classroom, and what she thought maybe could be
different.
Teachers at Hampton Elementary School also participated in peer observations,
not so much to offer feedback to their colleagues, but to look for strategies that may assist
them in reaching instructional goals or to observe best practices. Even though some
teachers felt that the peer observations were an imposition, Ms. Monk saw the value in
observing other teachers, “I want to be able to peep into another classroom and see what I
147
can glean from [them] because I can always get something from another teacher.” As for
those teachers who may have felt uncomfortable practicing their profession in the
presence of peers, she commented, “I’m not coming in…to scrutinize what you’re doing
and drag you down. It’s okay because we help each other. And that’s what I want to
do.”
On the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) spring
survey, Principal Coltrane was rated “below basic” in quality instruction, the area of
leadership that encompasses monitoring of instruction. In discussing this aspect of
leadership, Murphy et al. (2007b) defined quality instruction as “effective instructional
practices that maximize student academic and social learning” (p. 7). The VAL-ED
survey results notwithstanding, comments by teachers, and observations undertaken by
this researcher, indicated that Principal Coltrane was engaged in effective instructional
practices that manifested daily through her monitoring of instruction, and the
collaborative culture that existed at Hampton Elementary School.
Key Finding: Leadership Fosters Student Learning
School leadership, especially as it pertains to student learning, manifests itself in
various ways. Whether promoting teacher collaboration, implementing strategies that
support the attainment of instructional goals, communicating the school’s vision,
participating in learning walks, or providing resources to teachers, the principal acts with
one purpose: the improvement of student performance.
In a conversation with Principal Coltrane about her leadership practice and the
impact it had on student learning, she commented,
148
The focus here is on collaboration. I’m pushing toward making sure teachers
have time to work, not in isolation but in groups so they can look at trends for the
entire grade level and not just their individual classes.
Ms. Barbieri, the school librarian who participated in the Faculty-Staff Advisory, added,
“We’re trying to address those areas that we’ve got weaknesses in; so there’s lots of
meetings that take place that really attempt to iron out those issues.”
Weekly grade-level meetings also provided another venue in which teachers could
work collaboratively. Ms. Barbieri, the school’s librarian, offered this observation,
“Principal Coltrane meets with the grade-levels practically every week during their
planning time. She is religious about meeting with them, finding out where they are,
what they’re doing.”
Teachers also planned instructional activities that they could use in their
classrooms with the purpose of improving student performance. Ms. Clemons, 1
st
grade
teacher and member of the instructional leadership team, commented on this area, “I meet
with my team and we discuss projects and activities that we want to do in the classroom;
we’re always planning and coming up with ways to make instruction better.”
Principal Coltrane also afforded teachers at Hampton Elementary School the
opportunity to openly discuss with her any concerns they may have regarding school
programs. Ms. Barbieri, in discussing this aspect of Principal Coltrane’s leadership,
stated,
She opens herself up to say, “If there’s something that you think we can do better
or something that I need to improve on, just stop by, just tell me, catch me in the
hall and give me a suggestion.” So she does listen to our needs.
149
Analysis of Findings/Conclusion
In discussing effective instructional leaders, Murphy et al. (2007b) emphasized that they
“understand the properties of quality instruction [effective pedagogy] and find ways to
ensure that quality instruction is experienced by all students in their school” (p. 8). As
such, they spent time observing instruction in the classroom, providing thorough
feedback to their teachers, and supporting teachers in improving their instruction
(Murphy et al., 2007b). Principal Coltrane demonstrated those aspects of leadership
identified by Murphy et al. (2007b) as elements of quality instruction. Additionally,
teacher participation in critical analysis of their practice through collaboration and
observation was a result of Principal Coltrane’s influence. Although not all teachers at
Hampton Elementary School fully embraced the practice, critical analysis proved useful
to teachers in informing their classroom practice. And by encouraging teachers to
observe each other as a means of bettering their practice, Principal Coltrane modeled an
essential element of leadership: developing people. As discussed by Leithwood,
Seashore-Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004), leaders who exhibit this characteristic
enable teachers and other staff to do their jobs effectively, offer intellectual support and
stimulation to improve their work, and provide models of practice and support with the
ultimate goal of developing capacity amongst their staff. This support also extended to
the professional learning opportunities afforded teachers and staff at Hampton
Elementary School.
150
Question #3
Hampton Elementary School Research Question #3: How does an urban school
principal create and sustain organizational structures and processes that promote
effective teacher practice and improve student outcomes?
The study’s third research question seeks to addresses the manner in which an
urban school principal creates and sustains organizational structures and processes that
promote effective teacher practice and improve student outcome. The primary data
collection instruments used to address this research question were the pre and post
principal interviews, the pre and post teacher interviews, document analysis, and the
VAL-ED survey. Following discussion of the findings, the data will be analyzed from
the research perspective of theoretical and analytical frameworks from DuFour, DuFour,
Eaker, and Karhanek (2004), Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005), and Murphy, et al.
(2007).
Key Finding: Common Assessments Inform Instructional Practices
So as to better monitor student progress and implement instructional strategies
that target areas requiring support in the classroom, teachers at Hampton Elementary
School conducted common assessments throughout the year. These assessments,
conducted school-wide, allowed teachers to identify those students requiring intervention
or more structured support. Principal Coltrane stressed, “The main thing is that teachers
know their students.” In further elaborating on the common assessments, Principal
Coltrane stated:
We’re asking them to be able to conduct the assessments throughout the year so
that they’re able to see where their students are, and then conduct small group
151
instruction where they’re able to pull a small group of students aside to meet some
of their basic needs and to get them back on track with the rest of the class.
This close study allowed teachers to meet as grade-level and vertical teams to discuss the
strategies they would use to reach students struggling with key concepts.
The common planning time devoted to discussion of common assessments
provided teachers the opportunity to work toward “a unified goal.” Ms. Monk, a 5
th
-
grade teacher at Hampton Elementary School, continued:
We set goals…and then we look at profiles. We take a look at what we’ve been
working on and we go from there. We have a school-wide focus, and then, if
we’re working on certain objectives, we see what’s happening with those
objectives; and if those targeted students are [showing] a lack of improvement,
then maybe we need to change what we started out doling.
Principal Coltrane offered additional information in support of these team meetings:
“Those common assessments are given, and then teachers meet around that to have
discussions about where the students are and what the trends are as far as the particular
strands that are expected of them.”
Teachers at Hampton Elementary School also shared assessment information
regularly with students and parents so that they were aware of the growth made
throughout the school year. Ms. Barbieri, the librarian, discussed the manner in which
students keep track of their progress:
They have a chart that shows the personal growth…so they can see physically
where they are. Principal Coltrane encourages the teachers to really show the
students just where they are academically on a grade-point level so they know
where they are and what they need to do to grow.
152
Key Finding: Intervention Program Supports Student Success
In addition to providing teachers with data to assist them in more accurately
identifying areas of instructional needs for their students in the classroom, the common
assessments helped identify students who needed additional intervention in reading and
writing. “Those students that need a deeper level of intervention are asked to come after
school for…tutoring, and then we have Saturday school,” stated Principal Coltrane. The
tutoring program allowed students to receive “extra interventions for skills that we’re
dealing with,” mentioned Ms. Monk, the 5
th
-grade teacher.
The Saturday program also provided students with additional assistance in key
areas of reading and writing. Students for this program were assigned based on areas of
need and also through teacher recommendation. Parents were notified of their child’s
pending participation in the program, and more often then not, commited to their child’s
attendance on Saturdays. As with the after school program, teachers “look at where
they’re weak and then they’re placed.” Ms. Barbieri continued, “I will say that there is a
teacher from every grade level that‘s usually here, two or three from each grade level,
and the students are assigned to those teachers.”
Even though both programs proved effective in supporting struggling students,
some teachers felt that the number of students participating in the afterschool program
was sometimes overwhelming. Ms. Monk, the 5
th
-grade teacher offered this
observation,” The after school program is effective, but sometimes you get overwhelmed
with the fact that you have so many students in the class, it’s like a regular classroom
setting versus a tutoring program.” Of course, that teachers partner up in the afterschool
153
program helped. Ms. Monk continued, “It’s effective for me because I have another
teacher that works with me in the after school program, so that helps. And then we do
different things…we do a lot more hands-on.”
The Saturday program offered a different experience for students and teachers, as
there was a low student-to-teacher ratio. As Ms. Monk observed, “That’s always a
benefit, especially for that slow learner. They’re there for three hours, so they get about
an hour in each area of concern, especially for science, math, and reading.”
Teachers were committed to helping their students improve their academic skills,
not only during the afterschool tutoring sessions. Ms. Barbieri, the librarian, stated,
“There is one teacher, the science teacher, he is religiously here before school almost
everyday and invites the students to come in, and he just goes over concepts and
vocabulary, what ever they need.” The intervention sessions also served to build more of
a “team concept,” according to Principal Coltrane, “because all of the teachers at grade
level are working with all of the students.”
Analysis of Findings/Conclusions
In attempting to build the leadership capacity of teachers, principals must take
active roles in the decision-making process as it pertains to instruction and student
achievement. At Hampton Elementary School, teachers worked as a team to reach the
school goal of increased student achievement and academic success. As illustrated by the
various support structures in place, evidence indicated that the school was on the right
path. As discussed by DuFour et al. (2004), “A school that focuses exclusively on
154
responding to students who are having difficulty without also developing the capacity of
every administrator and teacher to become more effective will fail” (p. 37).
The programs highlighted above provided students at Hampton Elementary
school an opportunity for success. Again, DuFour et al. (2004) commented,
“Implementing procedures to monitor each student’s learning on a timely basis and
creating systems of intervention to assist students who need additional time and support
are necessary”(p. 37). The afterschool tutoring and Saturday school programs, which are
based on benchmarks provided by the common assessments, provided additional avenues
for students to achieve academic success. Also important, though, was the behavior
support structures in place to assure that all emotional and social needs were being met as
well.
Importantly, built into various structures was the opportunity for teachers to work
collaboratively in reaching common goals. Marzano et al. (2005) outlined the operating
principles that prove to be “particularly powerful” for collaborative teams: significance,
quality, responsibility, integrity, ethics, and openness. These qualities extend to the
manner in which teachers and staff work collectively toward a common vision with their
participation on the Student Success Team, and their collaborative work following
common assessments. Evidence provided by staff at Hampton Elementary School
indicated that the collaborative spirit was alive and thriving on this Southwest campus.
Hampton Elementary School, with its culture of collaboration, seemed to embrace
the tenets of a professional learning community, as discussed by DuFour et al. (2004),
who explained that professionals at school sites should “build a collaborative culture,
155
engage in collective inquiry regarding matters that impact student learning, participate in
action research, create continuous improvement processes, and help each other monitor
and improve upon results” (p. 37). In building this belief, though, “They will identify
and honor collective commitments clarifying what they are prepared to do to move their
school toward that vision” (DuFour et al., 2004, p. 37).
Question #4
Hampton Elementary School Research Question #4: What leadership support structures
enable leader practice?
The study’s fourth question addresses the various leadership support structures
that enabled leader practice, including district, school, and teacher-level structures. The
primary data collection instruments used to address this research question were the pre
and post principal interviews, the pre and post teacher interviews, document analysis, and
the VAL-ED survey. Following discussion of the results, theoretical and analytical
frameworks from Davis et al. (2005), Neufeld and Roper (2003), and the Southern
Regional Education Board (2007) were utilized as critical sources to determine patterns
and themes across the various data sets.
Key Finding: Campus Instructional Leadership Team Informs Practice
The Campus Instructional Leadership Team (CILT), composed of the principal,
the academic coordinator, teachers, and the counselor, played an important role in setting
the instructional course at Hampton Elementary School. Additionally, it provided
support to Principal Coltrane in addressing the instructional goals of Hampton
Elementary School. As discussed by Ms. Monk, the 5
th
-grade teacher, the CILT:
156
plays an important role in what happens on the campus because they set the
foundation. They set the motivation to gear up students, to gear everyone up as to
what’s going to go on in the workplace here at school.
In addition to working closely with the principal to build an effective
instructional program, the CILT provided training based on teacher participation in
various instructional workshops held to inform classroom practices.
Even though the principal played an important leadership role on the campus, as a
member of the CILT, she worked closely with its members to arrive at mutual decisions
that benefited students and teachers, alike. Ms. Monk, who was a member of the CILT,
discussed this aspect of Principal Coltrane’s leadership ability, “She’s the leader, but
generally she’s talking directly with the CILT. She really puts a lot of emphasis on the
CILT making decisions because we’re right in there with the students.”
Key Finding: Counselor/Student Support Team Promotes Positive Behavior
So as to assure that students and staff worked in an environment conducive to
academic success, a number of support structures were in place at Hampton Elementary
School to address safety and problematic student behavior. A safety coordinator, the
Student Support Team, and the CHAMPS program provided the necessary support and
interventions to promote a safe and problem-free learning atmosphere for students and
teachers alike.
The safety coordinator at Hampton Elementary School, Ms. Tjader, worked
closely with teachers to assure that they were aware of the various programs in place to
address school safety. She also worked closely with the discipline committee to ensure
that areas of concern were discussed regularly, and to promote safe practices on the part
157
of students and staff. Banners placed throughout the campus, with the assistance of Ms.
Tjader, reminded students of their expected behavior while on the campus of Hampton
Elementary School.
The Student Support Team, composed of teachers and a counselor, provided
teachers with a mechanism whereby they could refer students exhibiting untoward
behaviors. A plan of support was then developed that offered teachers best practices in
working with problem students; teachers on the Student Support Team also checked in
regularly with the referred students to ensure that they were working towards their
behavioral goals. Teachers were also provided with advice and counsel by team
members to assist them in implementing behavior support plans. Ms. Mulligan, the
counselor who worked closely with the Student Support Team and with teachers, also
communicated to parents any concerns regarding their child’s behavior. She also
addressed issues of motivation and lack of effort, in addition to behavior concerns.
Ms. Monk, the 5
th
-grade teacher, also spoke about the Academic and Behavior
program that served to improve student behavior by providing them the opportunity to
work with others. She explained:
Because normally, the students that are having the behavior issues are those that
are low in certain [academic] areas, they act out. So [we] try to get them actively
involved, getting them to peer with someone else, to tell them that they’re a helper
for someone else, and giving them responsibility, as far as that goes. My thing is
a lot of times you’ve got to kind of talk to these kids, because they’re going
through so many things, so many challenges in their life before they even get to
school, in their home life. So I…try to encourage them and get their minds in the
right direction.
The counselor, Ms. Mulligan, also played an important role in this program by providing
emotional and instructional support to students participating in Academics and Behavior.
158
The CHAMPs program, which provided a discipline management system for
teachers and staff at Hampton Elementary School, was another level of support to address
behavior concerns from a proactive stance. An acronym for Communication, Help,
Activity, Material, and Participation, the CHAMPs program offered various incentives
for students to model good behavior on the campus. Ms. Clemons, the 1
st
-grade teacher,
felt that the program was successful, “I think it works; each teacher has their own reward
system” whereby they are given incentives for positive behavior.
Murphy et al. (2007b), in looking at this aspect of leadership through the lens of
the VAL-ED survey, stated, “Leaders create enabling conditions; they secure and use the
financial, political, technological, and human resources necessary to promote academic
and social learning” (p. 16). Even though results of both the fall and spring VAL-ED
survey showed that Principal Coltrane scored “below basic’ in the area of Culture of
Learning and Professional Behavior, which measures this area of leadership, evidence
indicated that she was performing to the satisfaction of teachers and staff in addressing
the myriad issues associated with a safe school environment.
Analysis of Findings/Conclusion
At Hampton Elementary School, the Campus Instructional Leadership Team
(CILT) was composed of various instructional leaders commited to quality instruction
and increased student achievement. As such, they provided Principal Coltrane a means
by which to address the academic and instructional goals of Hampton Elementary School.
Marzano et al. (2005) have defined the members of a school’s leadership team as a
159
“group of individuals highly committed to the general well-being of a school” (p. 104).
As such, they share a “culture of commitment” to the school.
The leadership team should also exhibit principles that serve to guide its manner
of working cohesively as a group and that “ensure that the way team works together is
productive, not destructive.” As discussed by Marzano et al. (2005), these principles
include significance, quality, responsibility, integrity, ethics, and openness. The team
must also formalize agreements among themselves to make the principles operational. At
Hampton Elementary School, evidence indicated that the Campus Instructional
Leadership Team operated at a level that addressed these various principles.
As discussed by Marzano et al. (2005), “A school that has a safe and orderly
environment is one in which students and teachers alike are safe and perceive that they
are safe from both physical and psychological harm”(p.88). Moreover, Marzano et al.
(2005) discussed the actions a school should take to promote this environment, including
establishing school-wide rules and procedures for general behavior, establishing and
enforcing appropriate consequences for violations of rules and procedures, and
establishing a program that teaches self-discipline and responsibility to students.
Hampton Elementary School provided just such an environment, one conducive to
learning, by implementing support structures to address these issues.
Principal Coltrane, in providing leadership to the students and staff at Hampton
Elementary School, established structures that supported the attainment of instructional
goals. As such, she demonstrated skills associated with an effective leader. Leithwood et
al. (2004) found that in terms of its impact on student learning and outcomes, effective
160
school leadership is second only to teaching. As discussed by Hallinger and Heck
(1996), the ability of effective principals to impact student achievement positively is tied
to the organizational structures they establish at their schools, and the interactions they
have with their teachers and staff. Evidence indicated that Principal Waters demonstrated
the characteristics associated with an effective leader.
Question #5
Hampton Elementary School Research Question #5: How can the Val-Ed instrument
serve as a coaching tool to assist principals to become effective instructional leaders?
The study’s final research question seeks to address how the Vanderbilt
Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) can serve as a coaching tool in aiding
principals in their progress toward becoming effective instructional leaders. Data to be
used in answering this research question were gathered from the results of the pre and
post intervention survey, which was administered in fall (2009) and spring (2010). The
data will be analyzed from the perspective of learning-centered leadership theory and
frameworks (Murphy et al., 2006; Murphy et al., 2007; Porter et al., 2006).
Purpose of the Assessment
The VAL-ED Survey is designed to provide a summary of the effectiveness of a
principal’s learning-centered leadership behaviors during the current school year. It also
presents a comprehensive picture of the principal, which is arrived at through input from
teachers, the principal’s supervisor, and his or her own self-report. Survey respondents
are asked how effective the principal is at ensuring that the school carries out specific
actions that affect core components of learning-centered leadership. The effectiveness
161
ratings, based on evidence, range from 1 (ineffective) to 5 (outstandingly effective) for
each of 72 leadership behaviors. The results are then interpreted against both norm-
referenced and standards-referenced criteria that highlight areas of strength and possible
areas for improvement. (See Appendices N and O for results of the survey and
recommended suggestions for improvement).
Key Finding: Respondents, Sources of Evidence, and Overall Score
So as to allow substantial time for teachers at Hampton Elementary School to
complete the VAL-ED survey, time was allocated during one of the collaboration periods
in fall (2009) and spring (2010). For the fall assessment, 53% of the possible respondents
(20 of 38) completed the survey. For the spring assessment, 55% of the possible
respondents (21 of 38) completed the survey. As determined by the VAL-ED survey, a
response rate of 50% to 74% is considered moderate. Principal Coltrane and her
supervisor also completed the survey during its fall and spring administration.
In providing responses to the 72-item survey, respondents are asked to indicate a
“source of evidence.” Possible sources of evidence include reports from others, personal
observations, school documents, school projects or activities, and other sources. For the
fall survey, teachers cited personal observations (55%), school documents (36%), and
reports from others (31%) as their top three evidence sources. The spring survey yielded
the same results, albeit with different percentages: personal observations, 44%; school
documents, 42%; and reports from others, 21%. Principal Coltrane’s sources of evidence
cited in the fall included personal observations (55%), school documents (36%), and
reports from others (31%). Spring sources of evidence for Principal Coltrane included
162
personal observations (61%), and an equal percentage of school documents and school
projects or activities (56%). Her supervisor cited personal observations (97%) and school
documents (97%) as sources of evidence in the fall, whereas the spring responses were
completely based on personal observations (100%).
Key Finding: Results of the Assessment
In the fall administration of the VAL-ED Survey, Principal Coltrane showed an
overall effectiveness score of “below basic” with a mean score of 2.95 (5-point
effectiveness scale: 1=ineffective to 5=outstandingly effective) and a percentile rank of
3.6 based on the average ratings of all respondents. As defined in the VAL-ED Survey
Principal Report, “a leader at the below basic level of proficiency exhibits learning-
centered leadership behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are unlikely to influence
teachers positively nor result in acceptable value-added to student achievement and social
learning for students.” The spring administration of the VAL-ED Survey yielded similar
results for Principal Coltrane. Her overall effectiveness score again showed a
performance level of “below basic” with a mean score of 3.23 and a percentile rank of
13.6 based on the average ratings of all respondents.
An examination of the fall survey scores for Principal Coltrane in the Core
Components, which represent the focus of effective learning-centered instructional
leadership (Murphy et al., 2007), reveal the following: mean item ratings ranged from a
low of 2.67 for Connections to External Communities to a high of 3.13 for both Quality
Instruction and Performance Accountability. Spring survey results yielded the following
results: a low of 3.15 for Connections to External Communities to a high of 3.29 for
163
Quality Instruction. Overall, in the Core Components, Principal Coltrane scored “below
basic” in all six areas measured during the fall survey. She improved slightly to “basic”
in two of the six areas measured, while the other four areas remained at “below basic.”
In the summary of Key Processes scores for the fall survey, Principal Coltrane’s
mean item ratings ranged from a low of 2.79 for Implementing to a high of 3.10 for
Supporting. Overall, she scored “below basic” in all six areas. The spring survey results
showed a slight improvement in the area of Key Processes. The mean item ratings
ranged from a low of 3.11 for Planning to a high of 3.38 for both Supporting and
Communicating. Her overall results showed her as “basic” in two of the six Key
Processes, and “below basic” in three of the six.
Key Finding: Assessment Profile and Respondent Comparison
In the Assessment Profile and Respondent Comparisons provided in the Val-Ed
Survey Principal Report, the principal’s relative strengths and areas for development can
be determined by comparing scores for each of the six Core Components and six Key
Processes across different respondent groups. In terms of Total Effectiveness across
Core Components, Principal Coltrane rated herself 2.93 in the fall survey and 3.35 in the
spring survey. Teachers rated her 2.70 in the fall and 3.37 in the spring, whereas her
supervisor rated her 3.21 in the fall and 2.96 in the spring. As for Total Effectiveness in
the area of Key Processes, Principal Coltrane rated herself 2.93 in the fall whereas she
rated herself 3.35 in the spring. Teachers found her total effectiveness rating in the Key
Processes to be 2.70 in the fall, whereas the spring survey yielded a somewhat higher
164
rating (3.37). Her supervisor rated her higher in the fall (3.21) than did her teachers,
while the rating dropped in the spring (2.96).
A review of the mean effectiveness ratings across the Core Components found
that Principal Coltrane rated herself higher than did her teachers in five of the six areas
during the fall survey: Rigorous Curriculum, Quality Instruction, Culture of Learning
and Professional Behavior, Connections to External Communities, and Performance
Accountability. Teachers rated her higher in just one area, High Standards for Student
Learning. Principal Coltrane’s supervisor rated her from 3.00 to 3.42 in the Core
Components, with Rigorous Curriculum the lowest, and Performance Accountability the
highest.
A review of the mean effectiveness ratings across the Core Components for the
spring survey found Principal Coltrane rating herself higher in four of the six areas
whereas her teachers rated her higher in Connections to External Communities and
Performance Accountability. Her supervisor rated her lower in all Core Components
than did Principal Coltrane and her teachers with the exception of Connections to
External Communities.
An examination of the mean ratings across Key Processes in the fall survey found
that the Principal Coltrane rated herself higher in four of the six areas than did her
teachers; the two exceptions were “communicating” (Principal=2.75, Teachers=2.76) and
“monitoring” (2.70, 2.76). The principal’s supervisor rated her higher in all areas than
she or her teachers did, with the exception of “planning.”
165
Key Finding: Using Results for Professional Growth
The VAL-ED Survey Principal Report provides a matrix that gives an integrated
summary of the principal’s relative strengths and areas for growth based on the mean
item scores for the intersection of Core Components by Key Processes across the three
respondent groups. According to the matrix for fall results of the VAL-ED Survey,
Principal Coltrane scored “proficient” in one area, Supporting Quality Instruction. She
scored “below basic” in 33 of 36 areas, and “basic” in 2 of 36 areas. Spring survey
results of the VAL-ED were slightly better with Principal Coltrane receiving a rating of
“proficient” in 3 of the 36 areas, “basic” in 8 of the 36 areas, and “below basic” in 25 of
the 36 areas.
Key Finding: Leadership Behaviors for Possible Improvement
The VAL-ED Survey offers a list of leadership behaviors that may need possible
improvement based on the results of the assessment. As noted in the Principal Report,
“the leadership behaviors listed in each cluster are representative of the lowest rated core
component by key process areas of behavior.” For Principal Coltrane, possible areas for
improvement, as identified in the fall survey, included Communicating Connections to
External Communities, Monitoring Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior,
Monitoring Quality Instruction, Implementing High Standards for Student Learning,
Implementing Rigorous Curriculum, and Supporting Connections to External
Communities.
Spring survey results found Principal Coltrane possibly needing improvement in
the following areas: Monitoring, Advocating and Planning Connections to External
166
Communities, Planning Performance Accountability, Implementing Rigorous
Curriculum, and Monitoring Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior.
Analysis of Findings/Conclusion
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) focuses
“100%” on topics related to instructional leadership, and clearly defines and measures
those leader behaviors that can improve learning (Murphy et al., 2007b). As used by the
Southwest Independent School District, VAL-ED can serve to improve organizational
performance and to address those leadership areas that may require additional support.
A review of the fall and spring Principal Reports generated following completion
of the survey by the principal, teachers, and the principal’s supervisor, indicated Principal
Coltrane showing some improvement in her effectiveness as a leader. As indicated by
Murphy et al. (2007), “responding to the assessment system and reporting on the results
[can] be an educative experience for leaders and leadership teams and will serve as an
excellent starting point for subsequent professional development” (p. 26). The
assessment results for Principal Coltrane can serve as a guide for her leadership coach to
address those areas needing more focused support.
As developed by its authors, the VAL-ED “focuses on leadership behaviors
defined by the intersection of six core components of school performance and six key
processes which together make up [the] conception of principal and team school
leadership” (Porter et al., 2006, p. 2). In its use as a comprehensive tool to measure
effective leadership, the VAL-ED will serve to inform the direction of professional
167
development and support for principals participating in the Southwest Principal Coaching
Initiative.
168
Chapter Five
Summary, Discussion, and Recommendations
Chapter Five Introduction
This chapter provides a summary of the study, the key research questions, and the
methodology utilized in this investigation. Additionally, it provides a summary of the
research findings and pertinent implications for policy and practice constructs. Finally, it
offers recommendations and suggestions for further research in the area of educational
leadership.
Statement of the Problem
Many problems await the administrator who assumes a position of leadership in
one of our many impacted schools nationwide. High administrator and teacher turnover,
a lack of quality teachers, low-performing students, poor student attendance, high drop-
out rates, non-English learners, and a large number of identified special education
students are the realities an administrator faces upon entering his/her school. Of course,
these conditions reflect the communities in which these impacted schools are located
(Cooke, 2007). So as to properly address the inequities that plague urban schools,
preparation programs for educational leaders must address the many issues and
conditions that confront principals who choose to bring about change to these troubled
schools.
169
Preparation programs for school leaders have traditionally focused on evaluation,
supervision, and management practices, with the principal’s role seen as that of a
manager of the environment in which learning and teaching take place (Houle, 2006).
Rather than developing skills and knowledge that allow them to create a nurturing,
caring, and supportive learning environment supportive of student academic
achievement, traditional leadership programs have developed curriculum around concepts
associated with management: planning, organizing, financing, supervising, budgeting,
and scheduling (Grogan & Andrews, 2002). Because many of our urban school leaders
require a model that addresses the ever-changing conditions of their schools, this
traditional approach to leadership has proven to be mostly ineffective (Grogan &
Andrews, 2002).
As discussed by Leithwood et al. (2004), effective school leadership, especially in
an urban setting, requires that school leaders possess specific leadership practices and
behaviors that allow for lasting improvement in student learning. These practices include
fostering a clear vision, and providing professional development and instructional
expertise (Hallinger, 2003). Preparation programs must provide leaders with the skills
necessary to meet the challenges engendered by the urban environment, and that will be
sufficient to address the needs of the diverse student population who populate this urban
landscape.
These leadership programs must provide school leaders with the skills to lead
within a context-specific model. This type of leadership, which suits the context of the
urban school, requires that the principal be knowledgeable about the school, the
170
community in which it is located, certificated and classified staff, the student population,
and the relationship between the school and the central office (Reyes & Wagstaff, 2005).
Only with these skills and knowledge will the urban school leader be prepared to
challenge and change the status quo successfully.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research study was to contribute to the knowledge base about
the conditions in which effective components of leadership can be realized and sustained
in an urban school context through involvement in a leadership capacity-building
program. Specifically, the study sought to identify features and attributes of the
Southwest Independent School District’s Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI), and how
the various components of the program processed leaders’ knowledge, beliefs, and
behaviors in ways that positively impacted teacher professional practice which, in turn,
improved learning and achievement at their urban schools over time. The study also
proposed to investigate the ways that participation in the SPCI influenced leadership
practices, especially given the challenges that leaders encounter in urban schools.
The study also sought to uncover the impact that an executive leadership program
had on a participant’s ability to lead low-performing urban schools successfully.
Additionally, the study looked at the leadership practices that were developed following
participation in these programs. Organizational structures that effective school leaders
implement to help them effectively sustain and maintain effective instructional practices,
171
and that improve student academic achievement were also examined, as were coaching
and mentoring, leadership support structures included in the SPCI model.
Research Questions
The study was designed to answer the following research questions:
1. How does participation in the Southwest ISD Principal Coaching Initiative
(SPCI) prepare principals to become effective leaders?
2. How does the SPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs, and leadership practices
of urban school principals?
3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and improve
student outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
5. How can the Val Ed instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist principals to
become effective instructional leaders?
Methodology
The unit of analysis for this study was urban school leadership practice.
Nonprobability sampling, specifically, purposeful sampling (Patton, 1990), was the
strategy used to identify participants for this study. This strategy was appropriate
because the intent was to discover and gain a better understanding of the nature of
172
leadership practice. Therefore, identifying a sample from which the most could be
learned was important.
For this multicase, comparative, qualitative study, the first level of sampling
involved selection of the “case.” Schools that met predetermined criteria were identified
for participation in the study. The intent was to explore variation between schools where
principals were in their first year of participation in the Southwest ISD Principal
Coaching Initiative (SPCI).
Participants in this study were recruited from K-12 urban public schools in the
Southwest Independent School District (SISD), which serves an ethnically diverse
student population and substantial numbers of low-income families. To strengthen the
validity of the study, teacher participants identified for the within-case sampling were
randomly identified. Each participant, principals and their teachers, was asked to
participate in preintervention and postintervention interview and observation data-
collection activities. A minimum of six teachers of high stakes accountability subjects—
reading, math, and/or science— were identified for this level of sampling.
Data Collection and Analysis
In case study research, data collection usually “involves all three strategies of
interviewing, observing, and analyzing documents” (Merriam, 1998, p.136). Patton
(2002) contended that multiple sources of information are sought and used because no
single source of information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive perspective. By
173
using a combination of observations, interviews, and document analysis, the researcher
can draw upon different data sources to validate and cross-check findings.
Multiple sources of data were collected for analysis in this study. For both case
studies, the following sources were used to gather descriptive data: pre and post
intervention interviews with each principal and a subset of their teachers; pre and post
intervention observations of the principal interacting with teachers; classroom
observations of teachers interacting with their students; and observations of classroom
teachers interacting with other teachers. Additionally, a collection of documents and
artifacts relevant to the study were collected for analysis. Pre and postintervention data
was also collected from the administration of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in
Education (VAL-ED) survey for each principal and all of their teachers.
By engaging a number of participants, the researcher received multiple
perspectives and sources of data that served to identify emergent themes, thus
establishing a basis for triangulation (Patton, 2002). Principals and teachers were asked
questions from the interview protocol document, which was associated with their position
as either a principal or teacher, in a person-to-person format. All interviews were
recorded and transcribed for analytical purposes.
Observations of the principal and teachers were conducted at both case study
schools; this step included professional development and classroom observations, which
provided the researcher with the opportunity to view interactions between the principal
and her staff, and between the teachers and students in their classrooms. Field notes were
174
compiled during these activities and were used to substantiate data obtained from the
interviews.
Document analysis was another means of exploring each of the five research
questions. Documents used for analysis included the school plan for student
achievement, the school accountability report card, archival student achievement data,
current district benchmark data, professional development agendas, the school master
schedule, the Southwest Leadership Development Initiatives Executive Summary, the
Southwest Independent School District Principal Coaching Initiative Research Study
Proposal, and the Southwest Independent School District’s Plan for Student
Achievement.
The collected data was then analyzed using the following steps. First, the
recorded interviews were transcribed to ease analysis and data collection. The
transcribed interviews were then analyzed to find general ideas and emergent themes.
The emergent themes were then analyzed using the other data collection instruments; this
step enabled the researcher to triangulate the findings. Triangulation assists the
researcher in checking the accuracy of the findings by using the various data-collection
instruments; the multiple sources of data also allowed the researcher to build a coherent
justification for emergent themes. The data was then organized into tables and/or charts
to aid in the analysis process. Finally, a narrative was used to convey the findings of the
research.
175
Summary of Findings and Theoretical Implications
Research Question # 1
How does participation in the Southwest ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI)
prepare principals to become effective Instructional leaders?
In striving to become the best urban school district in the United States, the
Southwest Independent School District, through its Principal Coaching Initiative,
provides principals with programs to build their instructional leadership capacity through
differentiated, engaging, and rigorous professional development focused on specific
academic goals and student achievement. To this end, the district has also committed to
partnering its principal participants with knowledgeable former principals who can
support them in achieving the desired results at their school sites.
Through its collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh’s Institute for
Learning, the district has developed a program that provides tiered, differentiated
professional development to its principal participants. Davis et al. (2005) suggested that
certain program features are essential to developing effective school leaders: they should
be research-based, have curricular coherence, provide experience in authentic contexts,
use cohort groupings and mentors, and be structured to enable collaborative activity
between the program and area schools (Davis et al., 2005).
The Southwest Independent School District’s Principal Coaching Initiative
provides its principals with an opportunity to better their leadership skills through a well-
informed program of professional development. Topics include best practices in teaching
and learning, school and district operations updates, and administrator leadership
176
principles. Additionally, the inclusion of leadership coaches allows principals to work
closely with experienced administrators who can offer support and guidance in all areas.
As partners with their principals, leadership coaches meet with them on a regular basis,
participate with them in school-site meetings and professional development, and help
with the implementation of district initiatives.
Whether or not as a result of their participation in the Southwest Principal
Coaching Initiative, data collected from both case study schools, which included
participant interviews and document analysis, indicate that both Principal Waters and
Principal Coltrane have shown improvement in their leadership abilities through the
benefit of two support structures that have enhanced their professional practice. As the
SPCI offers structured support to its principal participants through professional
development and elbow-to-elbow sessions with leadership coaches, participation in the
program appears to have informed their effectiveness. As discussed by Davis et al.
(2005), “A well defined and coherent program is one that links goals, learning activities,
and candidate assessments around a set of shared values, beliefs, and knowledge about
effective administrative practices” (p. 8).
Evidence collected from Ledbetter Elementary School and Hampton Elementary
School suggests that the participation of Principal Waters and Principal Coltrane in the
Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI) has prepared them to become effective
instructional leaders. With the support of their leadership coaches, and their participation
in the professional development conducted as part of the SPCI, both principals have
benefitted from their involvement in the SPCI.
177
Principal Waters and Principal Coltrane acknowledged that their partnership in
the SPCI has been beneficial. For Principal Waters, the relationship with her leadership
coach has been rewarding. She described her leadership coach as being “very non-
threatening,” creating “a very trusting environment.” She added, “I can talk to her about
anything and I don’t feel I have to hold anything back.” Principal Coltrane also found the
relationship with her leadership coach beneficial, explaining, “She helps to facilitate my
reflection.” Allowing time for principals to share various concerns in these elbow-to-
elbow reflective or conferring sessions, the leadership coaches also provide guidance and
support for the everyday instructional and operational issues that face the principal
As stated by Neufeld and Roper (2003), “The coaches’ influence cuts across
content areas and grade levels to bring a whole-school focus to the work of improving
teaching and learning.” Both Principal Waters and Principal Coltrane provided examples
of this influence at their respective schools. Ms. Wolf, Principal Waters’s leadership
coach at Ledbetter Elementary School, often walked the building with her, joined in her
classroom observations, assisted her in providing effective feedback to teachers following
their visits, and met alongside her teachers. She also played an active role in the
professional development at Ledbetter Elementary School. Principal Coltrane shared
similar examples about Ms. Turrentine, her leadership coach at Hampton Elementary
School. She was often on campus during grade-level meetings and during planning
sessions. She also participated in classroom observations, and provided another
perspective in delivering feedback to teachers.
178
The Southwest Independent School District, in its establishment of the Southwest
Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI), has rightly included this coaching and mentoring
component so as to inform the leadership effectiveness of its participants. The Southern
Regional Education Board (2007) found that effective principals do not emerge from
traditional graduate programs in school administration prepared to lead, more likely,
“they have been rigorously prepared and deliberately mentored” (p. 5). Davis et al.
(2005) also support the notion of mentoring as crucial to a principal’s success. High
standards and performance expectations lead to improved student achievement and
produce leaders with the ability and knowledge to support teachers, manage curriculum,
and transform schools into more effective organizations that foster powerful teaching and
learning (Davis et al., 2005).
Effective mentoring begins with collaborative planning between preparation
program officials and school districts. In the case of the Southwest Principal Coaching
Initiative, the collaboration between the Southwest Independent School District and the
University of Pittsburgh’s Institute for Learning, a principal leadership program has been
established that seeks to prepare principals to be effective instructional leaders. As the
vision of the district is “to be the best urban district in the United States,” the
implementation of this program would bode well for its participants, their students, and
the schools that comprise the Southwest Independent School District.
Research Question #2
How does the SPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs, and leadership practices of urban
school principals?
179
Davis et al. (2005), in discussing effective school principals, identify three aspects
of the principal’s job that serve in influencing student achievement: (a) developing a
deep understanding of how to support teachers, (b) managing the curriculum in ways that
promote student learning, and (c) developing the ability to transform schools into more
effective organizations that foster powerful teaching and learning for all students. Based
on the evidence collected, both Principal Waters and Principal Coltrane appear to have
embraced tenets that define an effective instructional leader via their participation in the
Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI).
Both principals also have as their focus one thing: improving the academic
success of their students. As such, they both embody components of an effective
instructional leader, as defined by Hallinger (2005), which include creating a shared
sense of purpose in the school, fostering continuous school improvement through cyclical
school development planning, developing a climate of high expectations, coordinating the
curriculum and monitoring student learning outcomes, and being a visible presence in the
school. Their day-to-day activities, which seek to improve student academic success and
performance, reflect the components discussed by Hallinger (2005) that define effective
instructional leaders.
The various dimensions of a learning-centered leader are also exhibited by both
Principal Waters and Principal Coltrane. These include a vision for learning; knowledge
of and involvement in instructional, curricular, and assessment programs; establishing
communities of learning; resource acquisition and use; an organizational structure; and
180
social advocacy (Murphy et al., 2007a). According to Murphy et al., learning-centered
leadership
include(s) the ability of the leader to stay consistently focused on the right stuff –
the core technology of schooling, or learning, teaching, curriculum, and
assessment; and to make all the other dimensions of schooling (e.g.,
administration, organization, finance) work in the service of a more robust core
technology and improved student learning. (2007a)
Leithwood et al. (2004) have found that in terms of its impact on student learning
and outcomes, effective school leadership is second only to teaching. They also found
that effective school leadership has a greater impact on schools facing greater difficulties.
Evidence indicated that the participation of both Principal Waters and Principal Coltrane
in the Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative influenced their effectiveness as
instructional leaders.
Research Question #3
How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational structures and
processes that promote effective teacher practice and improve student outcomes?
In discussing leadership, Heck et al. (1990) identify three domains of a principal’s
instructional leadership that have a direct influence on student achievement: school
governance, instructional organization, and school climate. Additionally, they found that
principals:
impact teaching and classroom practices through such school decisions as
formulating school goals, setting high achievement expectations, organizing
classrooms for instruction, allocating necessary resources, supervising teachers’
performance, monitoring student progress, and promoting a positive, orderly
environment for learning. (Heck et al., 1990, p. 95)
181
As evidenced at Ledbetter Elementary School and Hampton Elementary School,
the various organizational structures and processes put in place by Principal Waters and
Principal Coltrane have provided staff instructional support, which in turn may lead to
increased student achievement.
The collaborative nature of the organizational structures and processes at both
schools have allowed teachers to work toward a common goal, that of improving student
achievement and performance. Also, the structures and processes at both schools enable
teachers and other staff to do their jobs effectively; allow them to develop shared goals,
monitor organizational performance, and promote effective communication; and support
them in creating a productive school culture (Davis et al., 2005). There is some evidence
from both Ledbetter Elementary School and Hampton Elementary School that indicate
that the various organizational structures and processes put in place by Principal Waters
and Principal Coltrane have proven effective in addressing student performance and
academic achievement.
Research Question #4
What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
As discussed by Leithwood et al., (2004), the impact of leadership is indirect in
being mediated by school factors and instructional activities. As such, principals play a
critical role in the success of students through their influence on other people or
operations at the school (Leithwood et al., 2004; Marzano et al., 2005; Murphy et al.,
2006). The many structures and processes existing at both Ledbetter Elementary School
and Hampton Elementary School, which include academic coordinators and instructional
182
coaches, common assessments, counselors, the Campus Instructional Leadership Teams,
and student support teams have as their purpose the improvement of student achievement
and the attainment of instructional goals. More importantly, though, they support
Principal Waters and Principal Coltrane in their effort to better serve the needs of their
respective schools.
Research Question #5
How can the VAL-ED instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist principals to become
effective instructional leaders?
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) is designed to
provide a summary of the effectiveness of a principal’s learning-centered leadership
behaviors. Following completion of the survey, a comprehensive picture of the principal
emerges and is reported with input from teachers, the principal’s supervisor, and his or
her own self-report (Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education Principal
Report).
In utilizing the VAL-ED, the Southwest Independent School District sought to
gain information regarding the performance of their principals participating in the
Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI). VAL-ED was developed as an
assessment “for measuring critical leadership behaviors of individual educators especially
in urban settings” (Porter et al., 2006, p.1), thus the results of the survey would inform
the district of the leadership behaviors of its principal participants in the SPCI.
In reviewing the fall and spring survey results of both Principal Waters and
Principal Coltrane, this research found evidence indicating a change in the effectiveness
183
of one of the principals, whereas the other maintained a similar effectiveness rating.
Principal Waters, whose overall effectiveness rating went from “below basic” (3.21) to
“basic” (3.54), showed improvement in most areas of the VAL-ED survey based on the
results of the spring and fall assessments. Principal Coltrane, on the other hand,
maintained an effectiveness rating of “below basic” based on the fall and spring
assessments (2.95, 3.22).
As the intention of its authors was to develop an assessment tool that would “yield
valid performance information” to “facilitate both formative and summative evaluation of
leaders and leadership teams” (Porter et al., 2006), the assessment results of both
Principal Waters and Principal Coltrane can serve as a guide for their supervisors and
leadership coaches to make informed decisions regarding their leadership practices.
Notably, survey results aside, data collected through interviews and observations provide
a much more detailed account of the leadership effectiveness of both Principal Waters
and Principal Coltrane.
Implications for Practice
As our nation’s schools and communities continue to struggle with staggering
student drop-out rates, which contribute to delinquency, violence, and the decline of our
urban neighborhoods, it is of utmost urgency that leadership preparation programs
properly prepare principals to provide effective leadership in our urban schools. It is also
important that leadership preparation programs include curriculum components that
184
speak to the various issues existing in the urban context as well as the knowledge, skills,
and behaviors for school leaders to deal with these issues.
A focus on accountability, especially as it pertains to academic improvement for
all children, requires that leadership preparation programs address areas in which leaders
must become knowledgeable. Leaders must have new knowledge about teaching,
learning, and school organization, especially the leadership competencies and practices
that lead to increased performance and effectiveness (Firestone & Riehl, 2005).
Leadership is especially important in schools serving a diverse student population in an
urban context, where it must be practiced differently (Firestone & Riehl, 2005).
As traditional preparation programs focus on training around evaluation,
supervision, and management practices, new preparation programs for educational
leaders must provide the knowledge and skills necessary to lead within the urban context.
These programs should also provide new leaders with the tools to help them create a
sense of social justice. As discussed by Capper et al. (2006), preparation programs must
attend to critical consciousness, knowledge, and practical skills, with a focus on a social
justice framework. Brown (2006) also addresses the lack of preparation of future leaders,
especially as it pertains to leading in an urban context: “If…future educational leaders are
expected to foster successful, equitable, and socially responsible learning and
accountability practices for all students, then substantive changes in educational
leadership preparation…programs are required” (p.705).
The findings of this study would seem to support the Southwest Principal
Coaching Initiative’s (SPCI) effectiveness in preparing principals to become better
185
instructional leaders, especially as it pertains to the urban context. Its ability to provide
participants with a well-defined and structured professional development program, as
well as the support of a coach/mentor, align it with the components of an effective
leadership preparation program as defined by Davis et al. (2005).
Implications for Future Research
The findings of this study suggested that the Southwest Principal Coaching
Initiative (SPCI) is engaged in promising practices for supporting the development of
urban school leaders whose participation in the program prepares them to impact
instructional practices effectively, which in turn impact student outcomes. Based on the
data collected, which included participant interviews, pertinent documents, and other
artifacts, some benefit was gained from the principals’ participation in the SPCI.
It was hoped that practitioners, policymakers, and developers of leadership
preparation and support programs would gain new knowledge of specific program
components that proved to be effective in building and sustaining leaders’ capacity to
reshape the instructional environment in our urban schools. As the study did not provide
an opportunity to view the various components of the SPCI in action, the future
researcher would benefit from sustained time for observation; thus, a more
comprehensive picture could be arrived at, which would better inform the study.
However, the few components the researcher did observe substantiated the hoped for
results of the findings.
186
This study presented findings that sought to determine the impact of a principal’s
leadership effectiveness by his/her participation in a preparation program. Even though
the evidence would indicate an impact on the effectiveness of the principals’ leadership
practice, a much more extensive study would inform the many ways in which the
professional development and support structures of the SPCI, or any other such program,
directly influence skills and knowledge.
Implications for Policy
The study undertaken of the Southwest Independent School District’s Principal
Coaching Initiative has many implications for policy in leadership preparation programs.
The success of this initiative is based on the district’s collaboration with the University of
Pittsburgh’s Institute for Learning; as such, it is important for developers of future
leadership preparation programs to consider enlisting the support of local universities in
designing, implementing, and assessing effective principal preparation programs.
According to Davis et al., “Close collaboration enhances program consistency and helps
to develop a sense of shared purpose and a common vocabulary between districts and
local colleges of education” (2005, p. 11).
In developing leadership programs, district leaders must look at creating various
support structures that provide educational leaders the opportunity to enhance skills and
knowledge related to effective leadership. This support would take the form of
professional development to enhance the skills and expertise of principals, and a
coaching/mentoring component to provide the principal with an experienced and
187
knowledgeable administrator. As the Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative has seen
some success with this model, newly created programs would be wise to consider using
this proven formula.
Limitations
Even though the two case study schools participating in this study provided useful
information about the effectiveness of the Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative on
principal leadership behaviors, some factors limited the study’s ability to gain a more
thorough and comprehensive picture. One of the most restrictive limitations was the time
constraint imposed. That the window to collect data was only six months limited the
researcher’s ability to determine the impact of leader practice on teacher practice over
time. This time constraint also meant that observations and interviews of participants in
the study all took place within this narrow window.
Another limitation was the size of the sample population participating in the
study. Only three teachers from each school were interviewed; this number from a pool
of 36 teachers at Ledbetter Elementary School, and 38 at Hampton Elementary School.
The opportunity to observe the principals and their leadership coaches was also
unavailable due to lack of sufficient time to arrange a “sit-down” with both participants.
An important aspect of this study was also unavailable for review by the
researcher: the community in which the school was located. As stated in Chapter Two of
this study, all aspects of the problems facing urban school principals must be examined,
including the neighborhoods in which their schools are located. This aspect of study,
unfortunately, was not possible.
188
Regardless of the limitations faced by the researcher, the findings regarding
effective leadership preparation programs are substantial. It is hoped that future research
endeavors on this particular program take into account the recommendations for a more
exhaustive study.
Chapter Five Conclusion
The wealth of research existing on educational leadership has provided
policymakers, educators, and practitioners with a more defined picture of effective
leadership, particularly as it applies to particular settings and its impact on student
achievement. Although the research has given us broader descriptions of effective
leadership practices and behavior, an understanding of how these practices and behaviors
are developed and nurtured is lacking, especially in an urban context.
The purpose of this investigation was to examine changes in leadership behavior
of principals participating in an executive leadership development program through the
Southwest Independent School District’s Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI). The study
found that the leadership practice of the two case study school principals was impacted
over the course of their participation in the SPCI. The findings of this study carry
significant implications for the future of leadership preparation programs and the ongoing
support of educational leaders throughout their tenure as school-based administrators.
Because the findings showed an increased level of effectiveness of principal-
participants involved in the program, developing similar leadership support programs is
worth considering, especially in schools located in an urban environment. It is hoped that
189
the information collected and analyzed will prove useful for educational policymakers as
they implement leadership programs to support principals in their quest for effective
school leadership.
190
References
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Borman, G.D., Rachuba, L., Datnow, A., Alberg, M., MacIver, M., Stringfield, S., &
Ross, S. (2000). Four models of school improvement: Successes and challenges in
reforming low-performing, high-poverty Title I schools. John Hopkins University
and Howard University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed
at Risk.
Brown, K. M. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformative
framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 77-108.
Brown, K. M. (2006). Leadership for social justice and equity: Evaluating a
transformative framework and andragogy. Educational Administration Quarterly,
42(5), 700-745.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Capper, C., Theoharis, G., & Sebastian, J. (2006). Toward a framework for preparing
leaders for social justice. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(3), 209-224.
Cooke, G. J. (2007). Keys to success for urban school principals. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crosby, E. A. (1999). Urban schools: Forced to fail. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(4), 298-303.
Cuban, L. (2001). Leadership for student learning: Urban school leadership-different in
kind and degree. Institute for Educational Leadership. Washington, D.C.
Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr, M.T., & Cohen, C. (2007).
Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary
Leadership development programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School
leadership study: Developing successful principals. Stanford, CA: SELI.
Donaldson, G. (2006). Cultivating leadership in schools: Connecting people, purpose,
and practice (2
nd
ed.). NY, NY: Teachers College Press.
191
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How
professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington,
IN: National Educational Service.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable leadership. Essays. The Educational Forum. 69(2),
134-142.
Elmore, R. F. (2006). Breaking the cartel. Phi Delta Kappan. 87(7), 517-518.
Evans, A. E. (2007). School leaders and their sensemaking about race and demographic
change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 159-188.
Fink, D. (2000). Good schools/real schools: Why school reform doesn't last. The series
on school reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Firestone, W. A., Riehl, C. (Eds.). (2005). A new agenda for research in educational
leadership. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (1998). Leadership for the 21
st
century: Breaking the bonds of dependency.
Educational Leadership, 55(7), 6-10.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.
Giles, C. (2007). Capacity building: Sustaining urban secondary schools as resilient self-
renewing organizations in the face of standardized educational reform. Urban
Review: Issues and Ideas in Public Education, 40(2), 137-163.
Gooden, M.A. (2002). Stewardship and critical leaders. Education and Urban Society,
35(1), 133-143.
Grogan, M., & Andrews, R. (2002). Defining preparation and professional development
for the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 233-56.
Hallinger, Philip. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to
instructional to transformational leaders. Journal of Educational Administration.
30(3), 35-48.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of
instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education,
33(3), 329-351.
192
Hallinger, Philip. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing
fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221-239.
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership, and
student reading achievement. Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 527-549.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). The principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review
of methodological progress, 1980-1995. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson,
P. Hallinger, & A. Weaver-Hart (Eds.), The international handbook on
educational leadership and administration. New York: Kluwer Press.
Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1998). Unseen forces: The impact of social culture on
leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(2), 126-151.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional leadership behavior of
principals. Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-248.
Heck, R.H., Larsen, T.J., & Marcoulides, G. (1990). Instructional leadership and school
achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 26, 94-125.
Houle, J. C. (2006). Professional development for urban principals in underperforming
schools. Education & Urban Society, 38(2), 142-159.
Leithwood, K., Begley, P., & Cousins, B, (1990). The nature, causes, and consequences
of principals’ practices: An agenda for future research. Journal of Educational
Administration, 28, 5-31.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing
times. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on
organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of
Educational Administration, 38(2), 112-129.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning. Center for Applied Research and Educational
Improvement: University of Minnesota.
Leithwood, K. & Riehl, C. (2005). What we already know about successful school
leadership. In W. A. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda: directions for
research on educational leadership. New York: Teachers College Press.
193
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Education
Administration Quarterly, 39, 370.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Matsuda, M. (1991). Voices of America: Accent, antidiscrimination law, and
jurisprudence for the last reconstruction. Yale Law Journal, 100.
McKenzie, K. B., Christman, D. E., Hernandez, F., Fierro, E., Capper, C. A., Dantley,
M., Gonzalez, M. L., Cambron-McCabe, N., & Scheurich, J. J. (2008). From the
field: A proposal for educating leaders for social justice. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(1), 111-138.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education
(Rev. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Murphy, J. (2002). Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 176-91.
Murphy, J. (2005). Unpacking the foundations of ISLLC standards and addressing
concerns in the academic community. Educational Administration Quarterly,
41(1), 154-191.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2006). Learning Centered
Leadership: A conceptual foundation. Vanderbilt University: The Wallace
Foundation.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2007a). Leadership for learning:
a research-based model and taxonomy of behaviors. School Leadership &
Management, 27(2), 179-201.
Murphy, J., Goldring, E., Cravens, X., Elliott, S., & Porter, A. (2007b). The Vanderbilt
assessment of leadership in education: Measuring learning-centered leadership.
East China Normal University Journal.
Murphy, J., & Meyers, C. V. (2009). Rebuilding organizational capacity in turnaround
schools: Insights from the corporate, government, and non-profit sectors.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(1), 9-27.
194
Nevarez, C., & Wood, J. L. (2007). Developing urban school leaders: Building on
solutions 15 years after the Los Angeles riots. Educational Studies: Journal of
theAmerican Educational Studies Association, 42(3), 266-280.
Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A Strategy for developing instructional
capacity. The Aspen Institute Program on Education, the Annenberg Institute for
Social Reform.
No Child Left Behind. (2001).
Noguera, P. (1996). Confronting the urban in urban school reform. The Urban Review.
28(1),.
Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Orr, M. T., Byrne-Jimenez, M., McFarlane, P., & Brown, B. (2005). Leading out from
low-performing schools: The urban principal experience. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 4(1), 23-54.
Ovando, M. (2006). Building instructional leaders’ capacity to deliver constructive
feedback to teachers. Springer Science + Business Media, LLC.
Patterson, J. (1993). Leadership for tomorrow’s schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2
nd
ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pepper, K., & Thomas, L. H. (2002). Making a change: The effects of the leadership role
on school climate. Learning Environments Research, 5(2), 155-66.
Porter, A., Goldring, E., Murphy, J., Elliott, S., & Cravens, X. (2006). A framework for
the assessment of learning-centered leadership. Vanderbilt University: the
Wallace Foundation.
Porter, A. C., Murphy, J., Goldring, E., Elliott, S. N., Polikoff, M. S., & May, H. (2008).
Vanderbilt assessment of leadership in education technical manual. New
York: Wallace Foundation.
195
Reyes, P., & Wagstaff, L. (2005). How does leadership promote successful teaching and
learning for diverse students? In W. Firestone and C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda
for research in educational leadership. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2007) Rethinking leadership: A collection of articles. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Silins, H. (1994). The relationship between school leadership and school improvement
outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5, 272-298.
Solorzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2001). From racial stereotyping and deficit discourse.
Multicultural Education, 9(1).
Southern Regional Education Board. (2007). Good principals aren’t born – they’re
mentored: Are we investing enough to get the school leaders we need? Atlanta,
GA: Author.
Southwest Independent School District. (2006). Plan for student achievement:
educational theory of action and summary of initiatives and strategies.
Southwest Independent School District. (2009). Leadership development initiatives’
executive summary.
Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership
practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3-34.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Standerfer, L. (2005). Subgroups are not just testing groups. Newsleader, 53(4), 4.
Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory
of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221-
258.
Theoharis, G. (2008). Woven in deeply: Identity and leadership of urban social justice
principals. Education and Urban Society, 41(1), 3-25.
Villani, S. (2006). Mentoring and Induction programs that support new principals.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
196
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.) Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
197
Appendix A
Informed Consent Letter
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMED CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
**********************************************************************
Independent School District Principal Coaching Initiative
You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by graduate student
researchers under the supervision of Margaret Reed, Ph.D. (faculty advisor) from the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. You have been
invited to volunteer for this study because of your participation in the Independent
School District Principal Coaching Initiative. The results of this study will contribute
to the completion of graduate student dissertations. You must be at least18 years of age to
participate. You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you
do not understand before deciding whether or not to participate. Please take as much time
as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss it with your family
or friends. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of participation in the Principal
Coaching Initiative on principals’ ability to adopt and implement research based
leadership practices associated with the Independent School District Principal
Coaching Initiative. Over time, the study anticipates assessing the effects of leadership
practice on teacher practice and student outcomes.
PROCEDURES
All principals and all of their teachers will be asked to take an on-line leadership survey
(approximately 30 minutes) in the fall and spring and to participate as case study schools.
You will be asked to provide researchers with school documents (i.e., school
improvement plan) for review and to participate in a 45 minute interview in fall 2009 and
one follow up interview in spring 2010. A researcher will shadow you for approximately
two hours once in the fall and once in the spring. And finally, please provide us with a
list of your teachers to facilitate the identification of a teacher leader to distribute survey
198
access codes among teachers and to facilitate the identification of a select group of
teachers (about 6) to participate in similar interview, observation, and survey activities.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no substantial risks to you should you decide to participate in this study.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS/RISKS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Your participation in this study will significantly contribute to the field of educational
leadership as it will provide insights about the phenomenon of leadership. With a greater
understanding of how educational leaders lead, the training and preparation of such
leaders can be tailored to better meet the needs of new administrators entering the field.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
There is no monetary compensation for participation. However, all principals will have
access to a copy of the results of their leadership survey. This information can be used to
identify strengths and weaknesses in a leader’s current practice of learning centered
leadership behaviors and to plan future professional development activities. The results
can be interpreted based upon performance levels across the standards based components
and in comparison to the norm group.
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
There are no potential conflicts of interest.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as
required by law.
Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this
study. All data from interviews will be transcribed. All data from observations,
interviews and document analysis will be stored in a secured data analysis program to
which only the investigator has access. You name and that of the school to which you are
affiliated will not be used in the reporting of research findings. Pseudonyms will be used
to protect your confidentiality. No personally identifiable information will be included in
this study. The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and
then destroyed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. If photographs, videos, or
audio-tape recordings of you will be used for educational purposes, your identity will be
protected or disguised.
199
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse
to answer any questions you do not want to answer and still remain in the study. Though
not anticipated, the investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances
arise which warrant doing so.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You
are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research
study. If you have any questions about your rights as a study subject or you would like to speak
with someone independent of the research team to obtain answers to questions about the research,
or in the event the research staff can not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB,
Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles,
CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Dr. Margaret
Reed, Faculty Advisor. Margaret Reed: margarcr@usc.edu
EMERGENCY CARE AND COMPENSATION FOR INJURY
If you are injured as a direct result of research procedures not done primarily for your own
benefit, you will receive medical treatment; however, you or your insurance will be responsible
for the cost. The University of Southern California does not provide any other form of
compensation for injury.
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT
I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have been
given a chance to ask questions. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction,
and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.
□ I agree to be audio-taped
□ I do not want to be audio-taped
Name of Subject
Signature of Subject Date
200
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the subject and answered all of his/her questions. I
believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely
consents to participate.
Name of Investigator
Signature of Investigator Date
201
Appendix B
Principal Invitation Letter
September 21, 2009
Dear Principal __________,
The Principal Coaching Initiative is well under way. This initiative is a powerful
leverage for the District to provide research-based structures that hold promise for
building the capacity of principals to meet adaptive challenges that present barriers to
closing achievement gaps, creating quality teaching and learning environments, and
preparing all students with 21
st
century skills.
This letter is a follow up to last week’s orientation, led by my Faculty Advisor, Dr. Reed,
regarding the study. As a case study school participant, your active role in the research
component of the initiative is critical to the advancement of the project. The study will
seek to investigate the efficacy of the coaching model for preparing and supporting
principals to significantly impact leader practice and outcomes for professional practice.
In the upcoming weeks, with your assistance, data will be collected from the following
sources:
• Administration of the VAL ED Survey (to principal, supervisor, and all teachers)
• Observation of the principal leading a professional learning session
• Classroom observations (20-30 minutes with 3 teachers)
• Interviews (30-45 minutes with the principal; and 3 teachers)
• School improvement plan
I will be on your campus on Monday and/or Tuesday, September 28 and 29 to begin the
data collection process. To schedule these data collection opportunities, discuss next
steps, and answer any questions which you might have about participation in the research
component, I will be contacting you by phone no later than Wednesday, September 23.
To facilitate this conversation, please send me, via email, a copy of your agenda for the
September 28 professional learning day. Also, please let me know what might be a good
day and time for me to contact you over the next 2 days (September 22-23).
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your participation. I look forward to
working with you and your staff on this exciting project.
Sincerely,
Chuck
Flores
USC
Co-‐Investigator,
SPCI
500-‐5000
charleaf@usc.edu
202
Appendix C
Letter of Support
203
Appendix D
Outcomes Chart
Core State-wide
Leadership Standards
Addressed
Leadership Development Curriculum
(IFL) & Leadership Institutes
Murphy’s Learning-Centered
Framework
(8 Dimensions)
Standard #1
The leader has the
knowledge and skills to
think and plan strategically
creating an organizational
vision around personalized
student success.
Transforming Our Public Schools (TOPS)
Develop Vision and Goals
• Institute for Learning (IFL) Institutes &
IFL’s Leadership for Learning: A Theory
of Action for Urban School Districts*
• District design principles and theory of
change
• District Initiatives and Procedures
Vertical Learning Communities
• Learning Walk within and across feeder
patterns
• Book studies and article discussions
• Sharing artifacts that impact student
achievement
Standard #2
The leader is grounded in
standards-based systems of
theory and design and is
able to transfer that
knowledge to his/her job as
the architect of standards-
based reform in the school.
IFL’s Leadership for Learning:
A Theory of Action for Urban School Districts
• District design principles and theory of
change
• Foundation of Effective Learning: The
Principles of Learning
• Disciplinary Literacy/Academic Rigor
Standard # 3
The leader knows how to
access and use appropriate
data to inform decision-
making at all levels of the
system.
Leading for Results
• Learning Walks
• Focus on Data Analysis
• Nested Professional Learning Communities
• Leadership Instructional
Conferring/Coaching and Reflective
Practice Strategies
Vision for Learning
A. Developing vision
B. Articulating vision
C. Implementing vision
D. Stewarding vision
Instructional Program
A. Knowledge and involvement
B. Hiring and allocating staff
C. Supporting staff
D. Instructional time
Curricular Program
A. Knowledge and involvement
B. Expectations, standards
C. Opportunity to learn
D. Curriculum alignment
Assessment Program
A. Knowledge and involvement
B. Assessment procedures
C. Monitoring instruction and curriculum
D. Communication and use of data
Communities of Learning
A. Professional development
B. Communities of professional practice
C. Community-anchored schools
Resource Acquisition and Use
A. Acquiring resources
B. Allocating resources
C. Using resources
Organizational Culture
A. Production emphasis
B. Accountability
C. Learning environment
D. Personalized environment
E. Continuous improvement
Social Advocacy
A. Stakeholder engagement
B. Diversity
C. Environmental context
D. Ethics
204
Appendix E
Pre-intervention Principal Interview
Research Question # 1
How does participation in the Southwest Principal Coaching Imitative (SPCI)
program prepare principals for the unique challenges of an urban context?
1. What are your expectations about how SPCI will support you in recognizing
professional practice of teachers addressing the unique challenges of an urban
context?
Research Question # 2
How does participation in Southwest Principal Coaching Imitative (SPCI) program
influence the knowledge and leadership practices of urban school principals?
1. What experiences and training have you had to prepare you for your current
position?
2. How do you see yourself as a leader in an urban school?
3. How does your leadership practice foster or help student learning?
4. How would you define the “gap” at your school? Please describe that gap and
ways in which you and your staff have decided to close the gap.
Research Question # 3
How does an urban school principal create organizational structures (climate) and
processes that promote effective teacher practices and improve student outcomes?
1. What organizational structures have you created or sustained that promote
effective teacher practices and improve student outcomes?
2. Does your school have a school wide vision? How was the school’s vision
developed and who was involved? Describe how it drives the instructional
program? How does it impact decision-making? (Provide examples)
3. How is the school’s vision aligned with the elements of a standards based
instructional program?
4. In what ways is the vision used at your school to achieve equitable student
results?
5. How often do you observe classroom instruction and how do you provide
feedback?
205
6. What are the classroom practices that support student learning? How did you
promote these practices? What new instructional strategies/ practices will teachers
implement to improve performance of low performing students? To maintain
performance of higher performing students?
7. From your perspective, what are the three most important instructional priorities
at your school and how do they support student achievement and impact teaching
and learning in core content areas?
8. What role does data disaggregated by student subgroup play in your school's
efforts to support student achievement?
9. What programs are in place to support students that are not meeting identified
state standards?
10. How are your teachers given opportunity to discuss core issues of practice?
Research Question # 4
What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
1. What systems are in place to support instruction and insure that the school is a
safe, clean, and orderly environment that is conducive to learning?
2. What are the roles of AP’s, Coaches, Coordinators and other staff?
3. How would you characterize the relationship between administrators and teachers
at this school – collaborative, competitive?
4. What resources, whether inside or outside the school, have been most important?
5. In what ways is your work supported at this school?
6. Where and to whom can you go if you need to try out an idea before moving
forward? Has this strategy worked for you in the past? If so why? If not, why
not?
7. What additional support do you need to realize results and achieve the goals of
your school wide vision?
206
Research Question # 5
How can the VAL ED instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist principals to
become effective instructional leaders?
[Concluding Remarks/Questions: Is there anything else that we haven't talked about that
is important for us to know about your school or your students? Thank them for their
cooperation and time. Inform them that I will share the study with them once it is done
and that I might need to contact them for follow-ups.
207
Appendix F
Post-intervention Principal Interview
Research Question # 1
How does participation in the Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI)
program prepare principals for the unique challenges of an urban context?
1. What have you learned about providing ongoing Professional Development to
teachers and staff?
2. What challenges does your school continue to face in spite of participation in
SPCI?
Research Question # 2
How does participation in the Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI)
program influence the knowledge and leadership practices of urban school
principals?
1. How has participation in the SPCI program influenced your knowledge and
leadership practices as an urban school principal?
2. Now that you have completed your coursework for this year, how has your
perception of leadership changed?
3. How does your leadership practice foster or help student learning?
4. What makes you school vision achievable and worth fighting for?
5. How do you ensure that the vision and its goals get implemented?
6. What evidence will you look for that improvement has occurred?
Research Question # 3
How does an urban school principal create organizational structures (climate) and
processes that promote effective teacher practices and improve student outcomes?
1. How has SPCI supported you in recognizing effective practice of teachers?
2. How has what you learned from the SPCI increased your ability to support
student learning?
3. How was the school’s vision developed and how does it drive the instructional
program? How does it impact decision-making? (Provide examples)
4. How often do you observe classroom instruction and how do you provide
feedback?
208
5. What are the classroom practices that support student learning? How did you
promote these practices?
6. From your perspective, what are the three most important things your school does
to support student achievement?
7. What instructional or curricular priorities have been most important?
8. What role does data disaggregated by student subgroup play in your school's
efforts to support student achievement?
Research Question # 4
What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
1. What systems are in place to support instruction? What are the roles of AP’s,
Coaches, Coordinators and other staff?
2. What systems are in place to ensure that the school is a safe, clean, and orderly
environment that is conducive to learning?
3. How would you characterize the relationship between administrators and teachers
at this school – collaborative, competitive?
4. What resources, whether inside or outside the school, have been most important?
Research Question # 5
How can the VAL ED instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist principals to
become effective instructional leaders?
[Concluding Remarks/Questions: Is there anything else that we haven't talked about that
is important for us to know about your school or your students? Thank them for their
cooperation and time. Inform them that I will share the study with them once it is done
and that I might need to contact them for follow-ups.]
209
Appendix G
Pre-intervention Teacher Interview
1. What is the school’s vision and how has it been communicated to the staff?
2. How is teaching and learning supported in your school?
3. What are the instructional priorities at your school? How do they impact teaching
and learning in your content areas?
4. How were these priorities determined?
5. Tell us about the Professional Development opportunities you’ve had.
6. How has PD impacted your instructional practice?
7. In what areas is your school focusing its improvement efforts for this year? Why?
Could you describe them for me?
8. Are all teachers working on these improvement areas? In what ways?
9. How often do administrator(s) visit your classroom? What kinds of feedback do
you receive?
10. How are teachers held accountable for implementing the improvement strategies?
11. How do you use data to improve teaching and learning?
12. What opportunities exist for you and other teachers to work in collaboration
around issues of practice?
13. How has collaboration impacted your instructional practice?
14. How often do come together and how do you spend your time?
15. How do you encourage parents to participate in their children’s learning process?
16. Is the school a safe, clean, and orderly place that is conducive to learning?
210
[Concluding Remarks/Questions: Is there anything else that we haven't talked about that
is important for us to know about your school or your students? Thank them for their
cooperation and time. Inform them that I will share the study with them once it is done
and that I might need to contact them for follow-ups.]
211
Appendix H
Post-intervention Teacher Interview
(Questions are created in alignment with the knowledge and dispositions of the ISLLC
standards as defined by the New Teacher Center at University of California Santa Cruz)
1. How do you think the coaching has influenced the principal’s practice?
2. How has it impacted your teaching?
3. What support does your principal have in identifying and implementing the
school improvement initiatives?
4. What has the principal done to promote the success of all students within the
larger cultural context?
• How has the principal communicated the school’s vision?
• What are some of the high expectations that your principal has
communicated to you and the faculty?
• How does your principal ensure continuous school improvement?
• How does your principal provide feedback with regard to meeting school
goals?
5. How has your principal encouraged growth for students?
• How have you been supported in providing high quality, rigorous
instruction?
• What new teaching strategies have you incorporated into daily lessons?
• What kinds of learning opportunities have you been provided with?
• How does the principal provide you with the support that you need to
ensure that your classroom teaching and learning activities meet the needs
of all students?
6. Which students/groups at your school are having the most success demonstrating
proficiency on school-wide measures? Why? Which students/groups at your
school are having the greatest difficulty demonstrating proficiency on school-
wide measures? Why?
• What programs are in place to support students that are not meeting
identified state standards?
7. From your perspective, is this working? Is so, why? If not, why not? What
evidence can you cite in support of your answer?
8. What are the organizational structures that your principal has in place that
promote a safe and efficient learning environment?
212
• How do you bring concerns in this area to your school leader?
• Do you feel you are included in high stakes decision-making and in what
ways?
• In what ways are families and the community incorporated into the
decision-making to ensure student success?
9. How have resources been distributed to facilitate achievement of the improvement
goals? Do you believe that these resources are sufficient to achieve the goals?
Why? Or Why not?
10. Does the school culture respect diversity?
• How is the value of education promoted as an opportunity for social
mobility?
• How is diversity celebrated at your school?
11. How are you held accountable for this work?
12. What evidence will you look for that improvement has occurred?
[Concluding Remarks/Questions: Is there anything else that we haven't talked about that
is important for us to know about your school or your students? Thank them for their
cooperation and time. Inform them that I will share the study with them once it is done
and that I might need to contact them for follow-ups.]
213
Appendix I
Pre/Post Intervention Observation Protocols
Pre: _____ Post:_____
Focus
Research Question #3 ~ How does an urban school principal create and sustain
organizational structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
Setting People
Type of Meeting:
Location of Meeting:
Duration of Meeting:
Frequency of Meeting:
Who attends the meeting? (e. g.,
certificated only, certificated &
classified, students, parents, etc.)
Who facilitates the meeting? (Principal,
assistant principal, facilitator,
department head, etc.)
Is there a particular committee,
department, group, or person that has
specific responsibilities, or reports out
during every meeting? Explain
Routines/Procedures Content/Focus
What seems to be some of the normal
procedures? (e. g., sign-in sheets,
announcements, celebrations, review of
minutes or agendas, seating arrangement,
etc.)
What are the goals of the meeting? Circle
all that apply
• Professional development/training
• Sit and get of information
• Collaboration among department or
grade level
• Combination of the above
• Other __________________
What is the focus of the meeting?
Circle all that apply.
• Curriculum and Instruction
• Analyzing Data
• District & Site Announcements
• Facilities and Management
• Discipline/Students
• Student Grades
• District Problems/Complaints
• Variety of Information
• Other ___________________
Who seems to be responsible for
preparing the content/focus of the
meeting?
214
Nonverbal Communication Additional Comments & Questions
What is the tone and attitude of the
participants? Circle all that apply
• Engaged/Interactive/Ask questions
• Complaining (Length of meeting,
students, parents, school issues, etc.)
• Off-task
behaviors/comments/questions
• Uncooperative/rude/disruptive
• Leaves early
• Other _______________________
What outside factors or school issues
seem interfere with the goal of the
meeting?
215
Appendix J
Document Analysis Protocols
Department Curriculum Maps
Research Questions:
1. How does participation in the Pennsylvania Inspired Leadership (PIL) program
prepare principals for the unique challenges of the urban context?
2. How does PIL influence the knowledge, beliefs, and leadership practices of urban
school principals?
3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational structures
and processes that promote effective teacher practice and improved student
outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
Unit Focus & Title
Unit Objectives
Essential Questions
Standards Met
Texts & Other Sources
Evidence of
differentiated
instruction/strategies
Formative Assessments
Summative
Assessments
216
Appendix K
Document Analysis Protocols (Continued)
Meeting Agendas and Minutes
Type of Meeting
(Faculty, Dept.,
PLC, SLC, Grade
Level, Special
Program, Etc.) &
Date
Attendance
Facilitator
Focus Areas of
Meeting
Decisions made
regarding or
impacting teacher
instruction and
practices
Decisions made
regarding or
impacting student
access and
achievement
Decisions made
regarding or
impacting the
school’s
organizational
structures
Decisions made
regarding or
impacting the
school’s
stakeholders
(parents, district
level personnel,
community,
students, etc)
217
Appendix L
Document Analysis Protocols (Continued)
Single Plan for Student Achievement
Comprehensive
Needs
Assessment
API Data
AYP Data
Standardized
test data
AMAO’s
District
Assessments
Other
Findings
Achievement
Goals for
Students
Reading/Writing:
Math:
Plan for
Student
Achievement
Measures 1 -
6
218
Appendix M
Document Analysis Protocols (Continued)
WASC Document Analysis Protocol
Chapter 1: School Profile
Chapter 2: Analysis of Data
Chapter 3: Progress Report
Chapter 4: Organization
Chapter 4: Curriculum
Chapter 4: Instruction
Chapter 4: Assessment and
Accountability
Chapter 4: Climate and Culture
Chapter 5: Action Plan
Appendix: Documents and
Reports
219
Appendix N
Classroom Observation Protocol
____pre ____post
Research Question #3: How does an urban school principal create (and sustain)
organizational structures (climate) and processes that promote effective teacher practices
and improve student outcomes?
1. Content: According to the teacher, the purpose of this lesson was. What is the
activity being observed? Who are the participants?
2. Strategies: How are the participants being observed
learning/participating/applying skills, knowledge and concepts? What are they
doing?
220
3. Alignment: Design of the lesson was reflective of best practices and consistent
with the Professional Development training that staff has received. The
instructional strategies and activities reflected attention to issues of access, equity,
and diversity for students.
Adapted from California Network of School Leadership Coaches 2007-2008 New
Teacher Center at University of California of Santa Cruz.
221
Appendix O
Fall VAL-ED Results: Ledbetter ES
222
223
224
225
226
Appendix P
Spring VAL-ED Results: Ledbetter ES
227
228
229
230
231
Appendix Q
Fall VAL-ED Results: Hampton ES
232
233
234
235
236
Appendix R
Spring VAL-ED Results: Hampton ES
237
238
239
240
241
Appendix S
Ledbetter ES: Staff Development Agenda
242
Appendix T
Ledbetter ES Organizational Chart
243
Appendix U
Ledbetter ES Mission and Vision Statement
244
Appendix V
Ledbetter ES Intervention Program
245
Appendix W
Ledbetter ES Student Achievement
246
Appendix X
Ledbetter ES Collaborative Instructional Focus
247
Appendix Y
Ledbetter ES Professional Learning Communities
248
Appendix Z
Institute for Learning Toolbox
249
Appendix AA
Principles of Learning
250
Appendix BB
Learning Walks
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this research study was to investigate the impact of participation in the Southwest Independent School District’s Principal Coaching Initiative on urban school principals’ leadership practice. The following research questions were the focus for this mixed methods research study: 1) How does participation in the Southwest ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI) prepare principals to become effective leaders?
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The leadership gap: preparing leaders for urban schools
PDF
A new era of leadership: preparing leaders for urban schools & the 21st century
PDF
An exploration of leadership capacity building and effective principal practices
PDF
Principal leadership practice: the achieving principal coaching initiative
PDF
Preparing leaders for the urban school context: a case study analysis for effective leadership
PDF
The effects of coaching on building and sustaining effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator
PDF
Building capacity for leadership in urban schools
PDF
Building and sustaining effective school leadership through principal mentoring in an urban school context
PDF
Systemic change and the system leader: a case study of superintendent action to improve student achievement in a large urban school district
PDF
Liberation through preparation: building capacity to lead America's urban schools
PDF
K-12 public school district principals in California: strategies for preparation, recruitment, and retention
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
Building capacity in urban schools by coaching principal practice toward greater student achievement
PDF
School leadership: preparation, recruitment, and retention of principals
PDF
Building leadership capacity to support principal succession
PDF
Influences on principals' leadership practice
PDF
Cultivating effective and resilient urban principals: empowering school leaders to create enduring success in the inner city
PDF
The effects of mentoring on building and sustaning effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator
PDF
An exploration of principal self-efficacy beliefs about transformational leadership behaviors
PDF
Building the next generation of leaders in K–6 institutions
Asset Metadata
Creator
Flores, Charles
(author)
Core Title
Preparing leaders for the challenges of the urban school
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
06/08/2010
Defense Date
04/08/2010
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
leadership preparation programs,OAI-PMH Harvest,principal leadership,Social Justice,teacher capacity-building,urban schools
Place Name
Southwest
(region),
USA
(countries)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Reed, Margaret (
committee chair
), Escalante, Michael F. (
committee member
), Marsh, David D. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
charleaf@usc.edu,charles.flores@lausd.net
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3120
Unique identifier
UC1120720
Identifier
etd-Flores-3746 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-335820 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3120 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Flores-3746.pdf
Dmrecord
335820
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Flores, Charles
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
Tags
leadership preparation programs
principal leadership
teacher capacity-building
urban schools