Using the gap analysis to examine Focus on Results districtwide reform implementation in Glendale USD: an alternative capstone project

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content

USING THE GAP ANALYSIS TO EXAMINE FOCUS ON RESULTS
DISTRICTWIDE REFORM IMPLEMENTATION IN GLENDALE USD:
AN ALTERNATIVE CAPSTONE PROJECT
by
Regina de la Cruz Zurbano

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

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Regina de la Cruz Zurbano

ii
DEDICATION
To my parents, my first teachers: everything I am, everything I value, and
everything I work toward in my life are because of you both and the unconditional love
and support you two have shown me. The sacrifices you made in order to provide me
with greater opportunities in life were never taken for granted nor were they made in
vain. Maraming salamat sa inyong dalawa. Mahal na mahal ko po ka’yo.
To my brother: I do not remember life without you. Thank you for teaching me
the value of considering a different perspective, how to grow from conflict, and how to
live life with passion and enthusiasm, always focusing on the positives that life brings.
You have grown into such an admirable person; I am proud to be your Ate.
To RBM—my best friend, thank you for your unwavering support of me in all
that I do and aspire to be. You are the wind beneath my wings. Mahal kita, forever.
To the many mentors that have come into my life: thank you for challenging the
ways I viewed the world while simultaneously helping me develop the tools I needed to
harness my potential, leading to the achievement of so many great successes in my life.
To my friends: thank you for enduring the journey of this dissertation with me.
Your friendships kept me humble, sane, & grounded. I am forever grateful for the
support you gave me these last three years. I am better for having known each of you.
Lastly, to my students, past, present, & future: never let what people think of you
predetermine the course of your life. You are your biggest supporter. Root yourself on!
Dream big, work hard, and realize that it’s not always about the product – the process you
went through can be just as important as the end result you reach.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my colleagues and inquiry teammates, Rosemary
Santos Aguilar and Debra L. Hill. Their individual expertise, deep insight, and
commitment to our work as a cohesive unit were invaluable in this alternative capstone
process. This dissertation would not be what it is today had it not been for their
partnership and dedication to the inquiry process. Members of the Class of 2011
Marsh/Rueda Thematic Dissertation Group are also acknowledged for their advice,
counsel, and support through this novel dissertation process. Lastly, I extend my most
sincere appreciation to the members of my dissertation committee: the thematic group
co-advisors, Dr. David Marsh and Dr. Robert Rueda, and to Dr. Rob Arias of the
Rowland Unified School District, for providing us with the insight, academic knowledge,
support, and encouragement to pursue this novel dissertation inquiry project.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION………………………………………………………………... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………………… iii
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………. vii
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………... viii
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………...... x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION………………………………………… 1
Background of the Problem………………………………………….. 1
Importance of the Problem………………………………………...…. 5
Analysis of the Problem……………………………………………… 6
Project Significance……...…………………………………………… 8

CHAPTER TWO: THE INQUIRY PROCESS & FINDINGS……………… 11

Review of the Literature…………………………………………… 11
Introduction………………………………………………………….. 11
Waves of Reform…………………………………………………….. 14
How Districts Provide Instructional Leadership……………………... 15
How Districts Reorient the Organization…………………………….. 23
How Districts Establish Policy Coherence…………………………… 26
How Districts Maintain an Equity Focus…………………………….. 29
Conclusion……………………………………………………………. 32

Methodology…………………………...……………………………….. 33
Introduction…………………………………………………………... 33
Inquiry Project Questions ………………………………...………….. 36
Analytical Framework: The Gap Analysis Process………………….. 36
Unit of Analysis………………………………………………………. 41
Sampling Strategies……………………..……………………………. 42
Data Collection……………………………………………………….. 45
Limitation to Data Collection……………………………………….... 49
Human Subjects Consideration………………………………………. 50
Alternative Capstone Inquiry – Team Structure……………………… 51
Inquiry Project………………………………………………………... 52
Project Overview……………………………………………... 52
Project Progression…………………………………………… 53
Fall 2009……………………………………………... 53
Spring 2010………………………………………….. 54

v
Summer 2010………………………………………... 55
Fall 2010……………………………………………... 56
Spring 2011………………………………………….. 61

Analysis of Root Causes of the Performance Gaps…………………………... 62
Introduction…………………………………………………………… 62
Background….……………………….………..……………………… 62
The Gap Analysis……………….……………………………………. 63
Analysis of Gaps in Motivation………………………………………. 65
Self-Efficacy………………………………………………….. 66
Active Choice………………………………………………… 66
Persistence……………….…………………………………… 69
Mental Effort…………………………………………………. 72
Analysis of Organizational Barriers…………….……………………. 76
Organizational Culture……………………………………….. 76
Establishing Organizational Goals……………………………. 77
Work Process and Procedures………………………………… 78
Resources……………………………………………………... 80
Analysis of Knowledge and Skill Gaps………………………………. 81
Communication……………………………………………….. 81
Intention of Reform Initiative………………………………… 81
Transparency………………..……….……..…………………. 83
Goal Structure………………………………………………… 86
Procedure……………………………………………………... 88
Experience…...…………...…………………………………... 90

CHAPTER THREE: PROPOSED SOLUTIONS……………………………. 93

Review of Literature Related to Solutions……………………………………. 93
Introduction…………………………………………………………… 93
District as a Unit of Reform…………………………………………... 94
Alignment of Organizational Goal Structure…………….…………… 97
Executing a Consistent Strategy Across the Organization…… 98
Knowledge/Skill Capacity of Role Groups…………………………... 101
Training Systems……………………………………………... 101
Formal Induction Systems For All New Personnel…………... 102
Support Personnel………………….……….……………….. 102
School Principals & Instructional Leadership Teams (ILTs)… 104
Instructional Walkthroughs……….……….…………………. 105
Principals as Instructional Leaders…………………………… 108
Sustainability…………………………………………………………. 110
Implementation and Sustainability…………………………… 111
Conclusion……………………………………………………………. 117

vi
Summary of Proposed Solutions………………………………… 118
Introduction…………………………………………………………… 118
Strengths of FoR Implementation……………………………………. 119
Summary of Performance Gaps……………………………………… 120
Recommendations to District………………………………………… 122
Recommendation 1: Ensure Alignment of Organizational
Goal Structure………………………….. 122
Recommendation 2: Build Knowledge/Skill Capacity of
GUSD Role Groups…………………… 125
Develop a Formal Induction System………………… 127
Support Personnel…………………………………… 128
Principals & ILTs……………………………………. 129
Instructional Walkthroughs………………………….. 130
Principals as Instructional Leaders………………….. 130
Recommendation 3: Stay the Course! Work to Sustain the
Reform ………………………………… 131
Human Capital……………………………………………….. 135

GLOSSARY OF TERMS…………………………………………………….. 136

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………….. 145

APPENDICES………………………………………………………………... 163
A: Inquiry Project Overview: Timeline……………………………….. 163
B: Interviewed Role Groups…….…………………………………….. 164
C: Scanning Interview Guide…….……………………………………. 165
D: Stages of Concern (SoC) Interview Guide…….………………….... 166
E: Triangulation ……………………...……………………………….. 167
F: Executive Summary ……………...……………………………..…. 168
G: Proposed Solutions Power Point Presentation…………………..…. 183
H: Focus on Results Implementation Plan Documents………………... 203
Glendale-Building Capacity …………………………………... 203
Expectations for Years 1-5 of GUSD Implementation………... 204
Indicators of Implementation………………………………….. 209
I: Focus on Results 2010-2011 Coaching Trios with Administrators… 218

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table A-1: Inquiry Project Timeline: Overview………………………………. 163
Table B-1: District-Level Personnel…………………………………………… 164
Table B-2: School-Site Personnel……………………………………………… 164
Table D-1: Typical Expressions of Concern about an Innovation……………... 166
Table E-1: Triangulation Methods……………………………………………... 167
Table F-1: Project Timeline……………………………………………………. 169
Table H-1: Plan for Building Capacity in Glendale USD……………………… 203
Table H-2: Focus on Results Implementation Rubric A……………………….. 209
Table H-3: Focus on Results Implementation Rubric B……………………….. 210
Table H-4: Focus on Results Implementation Rubric C……………………….. 211
Table H-5: Focus on Results Implementation Rubric D……………………….. 212
Table H-6: Focus on Results Implementation Rubric E……………………….. 213
Table H-7: Focus on Results Implementation Rubric F……………………….. 214
Table H-8: Focus on Results Implementation Rubric G……………………….. 215
Table H-9: Focus on Results Implementation Rubric H……………………….. 216
Table H-10: Focus on Results Implementation Rubric I………………………. 217
Table I-1: Coaching Support Triad Groupings in GUSD……………………… 218

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure G-1: Title Slide…………………………………………………………. 183
Figure G-2: Introduction Slide – Project Design………………………………. 183
Figure G-3: The Gap Analysis…………………………………………………. 184
Figure G-4: Inquiry Methods…………………………………………………... 184
Figure G-5: Project Timeline…………………………………………………... 185
Figure G-6: Group 1 – Presentation Introduction Slide………………………... 185
Figure G-7: Areas of Strength: Implementation Years 1-5……………………. 186
Figure G-8: Issues Uncovered in Inquiry Analysis…………………………….. 186
Figure G-9: Areas of Need: Implementation Years 6+………………………... 187
Figure G-10: Considerations: Area 1 – Alignment of Goal Structure………… 187
Figure G-11: Issues: Area 2 – Knowledge/Skill Capacity of Role Groups…… 188
Figure G-12: Considerations: Area 2 – Knowledge/Skill Capacity of Role
Groups…………………………………………………………… 188
Figure G-13: Issues: Area 3 – Sustainability………………………………….. 189
Figure G-14: Considerations: Area 3 – Sustainability………………………… 189
Figure G-15: Summary of Considerations…………………………………….. 190
Figure G-16: Group 1 – Presentation Conclusion Slide……………………….. 190
Figure G-17: Group 2 – Presentation Introduction Slide………………………. 191
Figure G-18: District Strengths………………………………………………… 191
Figure G-19: Issues Uncovered: Area 1 – Knowledge/Skill…………………... 192
Figure G-20: Recommendation 1: Area 1 – Knowledge/Skill………………… 192

ix
Figure G-21: Recommendation 2: Area 1 – Knowledge/Skill………………… 193
Figure G-22: Issues Uncovered: Area 2 – Motivation………………………… 193
Figure G-23: Recommendation: Area 2 – Motivation………………………… 194
Figure G-24: Issues Uncovered: Area 3 – Organizational Culture……………. 194
Figure G-25: Recommendation 1: Area 3 – Organizational Culture…………. 195
Figure G-26: Recommendation 2: Area 3 – Organizational Culture………….. 195
Figure G-27: Group 2 – Presentation Conclusion Slide……………………….. 196
Figure G-28: Group 3 – Presentation Introduction Slide………………………. 196
Figure G-29: Areas of Strength………………………………………………… 197
Figure G-30: Issues Uncovered in Inquiry Analysis…………………………… 197
Figure G-31: Areas for Consideration…………………………………………. 198
Figure G-32: Considerations: Area 1 – Create & Communicate Explicit
Growth…………………………………………………………..
.
198
Figure G-33: Equity Scorecard………………………………………………… 199
Figure G-34: The Typical Experience?………………………………………… 199
Figure G-35: Considerations: Area 2 – Increase Four-Year College Access…. 200
Figure G-36: Considerations: Area 3 – Maximize Success of Transfer
Students……………………………… 200
Figure G-37: Summary of Conclusions………………………………………... 201
Figure G-38: Group 3 – Presentation Conclusion Slide……………………….. 201
Figure G-39: Special Thanks…………………………………………………... 202

x
ABSTRACT
This alternative capstone dissertation inquiry project was a gap analysis of the
implementation of Focus on Results, a reform initiative, in the Glendale Unified School
District (GUSD). The Clark & Estes (2002) gap analysis process model was the
analytical framework used to conduct our inquiry. This alternative capstone project
developed from a partnership between the Rossier School of Education at the University
of Southern California (USC) and GUSD. At the request of GUSD, our inquiry focus
was to gain a better understanding of how and to what extent the FoR implementation
was implemented through the different levels of instruction offered in GUSD. The first
section will present an introduction of the role of the district office in educational reform
as it pertains to educational reform. A review of literature pertaining to the district and
its role in the reform process is then presented. Methods pertaining to our inquiry process
follow. We then present our inquiry findings, identifying and classifying the root causes
of the performance gaps through one of each of the three dimensions of the gap analysis
process model: knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational culture. Much of the
issues experienced by GUSD in its implementation of FoR were rooted in the
misalignment of organizational goal structure, the knowledge/skill capacity of its role
groups, and the lack of a defined plan for sustainability. The next section presents a
review of literature pertaining to these areas we believe can best impact the
implementation. Finally, in an effort to maximize the district’s opportunity to enhance
and sustain the reform initiative, we propose research-based recommendations to address
these root causes and mitigate the performance gaps identified in our inquiry analysis.

1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

Background of the Problem
The hallmark of modern industrialized societies is having an educated citizenry,
able to contribute positively to societal progress as opposed to functioning as burdens that
impede it. Having an educated citizenry allows for the industrialized society to
persevere, to stay viable, and, ultimately, to remain competitive in the global
environment. “As globalization advances, societies become more dependent on
information and knowledge. Knowledge societies rely on the production of knowledge,
its transmission through education and training, and dissemination through
communications technologies” (Nerad, 2005). To this end, advanced societies have tried
to improve access to an “adequate” education for its youth. The question of what
“adequate” entails has largely served as a point of debate for decades due to its subjective
nature (Rudalevige, 2005). Americans felt intuitively that the quality of this “adequate”
education received by its youth across the nation was neither equitable nor equal
(Rudalevige, 2005) but this was not officially confirmed until the passage of the No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2001, the latest reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 (EdSource, 2005).
NCLB brought to light these glaring disparities in what this “adequate” education
looked like and how it was being delivered to the nation’s youth (Spellings, 2007).
Examining results of specific subgroups—whether by gender, socioeconomic status,
race/ethnicity, geography, or English language proficiency—in closer detail revealed how

2
the inequalities in education ran deep. These disadvantaged subgroups have persistently
remained disadvantaged and, as a result, were often “lost in the shuffle”. The two-
pronged approach of NCLB – to demand academic improvement through content
standardization and accountability – helped bring educational equity to the national
forefront (Rudalevige, 2005). No longer could compromises be made to the quality of
this “adequate” education that people in the United States have come to expect for all of
these students, the future of the nation. No longer could the failures of disadvantaged
subgroups be hidden amongst the successes of specific advantaged subgroups. No longer
was it tolerable to do nothing about the grave disparities that persisted in American public
education.
Not only does California have the largest economy of any state in the United
States, accounting for “over thirteen percent of the [United States’] output,” but its
economy also ranks in the top ten of the entire world (CA Legislative Analyst’s Office,
2006). Its citizens and their contributions have a profound impact on the global
economy. Offering an adequate education for California’s children has been a daunting
challenge because many of the disparities brought to light by NCLB are commonplace in
California. Though it was one among the pioneering states in the development of
learning standards for its English Language Learners, the California Department of
Education (CDE) wanted to make a significant impact on closing the gaps in achievement
for its disadvantaged subgroups. The passage of the California Public Schools
Accountability Act (PSSA, CA Senate Bill 1X) in 1999 was the first major step the state
took to expand its previously limited scope of accountability from mainly

3
finance/budgetary concerns to include academics (CDE, 2009). The intent of PSSA was
echoed at the federal level with the passage of NCLB (2001).
California had in place a unique way to demonstrate NCLB compliance: it
implemented a dual accountability system. Prior to the authorization of NCLB, the CDE
had already designed its own growth-based accountability system—the Academic
Performance Index (API). Borne from PSSA (1999), the design of API was unsuccessful
in convincing the federal government to accept it over the status-based Annual Yearly
Progress (AYP) model. As a result, the API is one of the indices used to evaluate AYP
for a school or district in California. The AYP of a school or district is sensitive to the
population it serves: the more statistically significant subgroups a school or district has
to serve, the more vital it becomes for these subgroups to meet their academic
performance targets by reaching proficiency levels on standardized tests. California has
allowed any person the access to data gathered on a multitude of areas that impact
schools and districts across the state through DataQuest, EdSource, the Data Resource
Guide, and Longitudinal Educational Data Systems (CDE, 2009). In order to meet the
target of 100% proficiency by 2014 in English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics
the state imposed a graduated scale of proficiency targets that increased each year to
ensure time for schools and districts to show continued improvement in the academic
proficiency of the students they served (CDE, 2009).
California’s focus on meeting NCLB guidelines through content standardization
(through the adoption of the state academic and performance standards) and
accountability (through both AYP and API) has in turn caused local districts to focus on

4
improving academic results. Meeting districtwide proficiency targets were no longer
enough. The pressure to meet the ever-increasing academic proficiency targets is a heavy
burden felt by much of the educational system. As the federal Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) targets increased, however, an increasing number of schools and districts had to
look critically at the achievement gaps amongst the student populations they serve.
The increase in transparency fostered by these accountability measures has helped
schools and districts to monitor its progress in improving the quality of education being
offered to all its students, including those in otherwise disadvantaged subgroups. As a
result, districtwide reform movements have materialized across the state in an effort to
meet NCLB guidelines and help improve the quality of the education provided to
California’s youth. Rorrer, Sklar, & Scheurich (2008) asserted that districts, as
institutional agents that make up an “organized collective” (p. 333), must maintain four
essential roles when leading reform initiatives. First, they must provide instructional
leadership by generating will and building the capacity to do so (p. 315). Second,
districts must reorient their organizations to support improved teaching and learning by
refining and aligning organizational structure and processes and changing the district
culture (p. 318). Third, districts must establish policy coherence by mediating local,
state, and federal policy in order to balance the external demands (from those
aforementioned levels) and the internally generated demands that result from the reform
initiative (p. 324). Districts can establish policy coherence by aligning resources as a
sign of commitment to their reform initiatives (p. 327). Lastly, districts must maintain
an equity focus by acknowledging and taking ownership of past inequities (p. 329) and

5
foregrounding or giving emphasis to the need for equity that must be the goal of the
reform initiative, in the effort to keep the reform process transparent (p. 330). Equity, a
value commitment, can be better supported when the district—as the organized
collective—is able to exercise its institutional capacity and extend its roles to function
beyond the implementation phase “to extend and escalate” reform (p. 334).
Importance of the Problem
The states’ movement to meet the federal mandate of providing a common
“adequate” education across the nation is made more complex when having to consider
how this complex endeavor is to be financed, especially given the dire state of the global
economy. The United States is currently in the midst of its most challenging financial
crisis in history. This crisis is far-reaching, expanded from the state level all the way
down to their Local Educational Agencies (LEA) (Galuszka, 2008). Education has taken
severe hits as a result—especially in California—because it is by far the largest state
expenditure (O’Connell, 2009). Education Week reported in 2009 that California
continues to lose ground in per-pupil spending, ranking 47th in the nation, trailing the
national average by nearly $2,400 per student. Parallel to this is the 2014 deadline of the
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act—to have all students reach proficiency in English
Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics is drawing closer.
As academic proficiency targets for students increase, more districts face the
possibility of entering Program Improvement (PI) status—this occurs when a school (or
school district) fails to meet AYP criteria for two consecutive years in specific areas
(CDE, 2009). Schools that receive Title I, Part A, funds (to be used by school districts

6
and their schools to provide supplemental services to the high numbers of
socioeconomically disadvantaged children they serve “in order to help them meet
challenging state academic standards” (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) are
impacted greatly by the threat of entering PI. Fiscal challenges, persistent achievement
gaps among statistically significant subgroups, and increased state and federal
accountability measures have required educational leaders to take a critical look at
implemented reform strategies and initiatives to determine if the financial and human
resources allocated to sustain these strategies are yielding results. In other words, they
must determine the degree of the effectiveness of their reform initiatives. At a time when
resources are scarce, district leaders have an obligation to minimize losses and increase
productivity.
Analysis of the Problem
Glendale Unified School District (GUSD), in order to comply with state and
federal school accountability guidelines for student learning, chose to implement the
Focus on Results (FoR) comprehensive school reform model in the 2005-06 school year.
The Focus on Results framework for school-level improvement is rooted in the following
seven principles (Palumbo & Leight, 2007):
1) Identify schoolwide instructional focus based on assessment of student needs;
2) Develop an Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) that will become a guiding
coalition for the school;
3) Select three to five high-quality, research-based strategies that every teacher
should use consistently;

7
4) Provide targeted professional development on the strategies selected in
number four and ensure that all teachers use those three to five practices;
5) Realign everything in the school in support of the instructional focus;
6) Implement an internal accountability system using assessment measures that
benchmark progress in the focus area; and
7) The Principal becomes an instructional leader by supporting focus through
classroom visits, coaching, modeling, and allocating resources and support.
Making substantial improvement in the quality of learning for the children going
to school in the district required substantial changes to the ways in which GUSD schools
addressed teaching and learning. In 2005, GUSD schools were invited to participate in
the Focus on Results (FOR) reform initiative. From this invitation, twenty-two schools
formed Instructional Leadership Teams (ILTs) to spearhead the reform initiative for their
respective school sites. They were empowered by the district office and the site
administration to take the lead in addressing what was needed to help their individual
sites experience the growth they needed to make reform happen. GUSD district
leadership has focused on Principles 1 (schoolwide instructional focus), 2 (ILT
formation), and 7 (empowering the principal as instructional leader) of Focus on Results
(Seaton et al, 2008). The district office has continued to act as a support structure that the
site ILTs can turn to for guidance and resource help but remains committed to finding the
best ways to maximize opportunities for site staff to discuss issues that are focused on
learning and instruction – including “data and assessment, learning and instructional
strategies, and closing the achievement gap” (Seaton et al., 2008, p. 29).

8
The Clark & Estes (2002) gap analysis process model was the problem-solving
framework used to explore the process by which GUSD implemented the Focus on
Results reform initiative throughout its schools. The gap analysis framework provided a
systematic manner by which to better understand:
1) How the FoR reform initiative was implemented throughout GUSD;
2) The degree of FoR implementation at the different levels of instruction
offered in GUSD (i.e. elementary vs. middle vs. high school);
3) What performance gaps existed in the FoR implementation process that
needed to be addressed;
4) What were the root causes of these performance gaps; and
5) What research-based recommendations could be presented to address these
performance gaps and ultimately help GUSD enhance and sustain its reform
implementation.
Project Significance
As an alternative capstone project, many facets of this inquiry project are of great
significance to the development of the Ed.D dissertation in differentiating it from the
traditional dissertation model employed by various schools of education across the
nation. First, the project was borne from a partnership between GUSD and USC Rossier
School of Education. The former superintendent of GUSD is an alumnus of USC Rossier
as well as a current faculty member of the Ed.D program at USC Rossier. He is an
enthusiastic supporter of the thematic dissertation process and saw the potential for
having doctoral students explore real-world problems in his school district with a unique

9
perspective—by applying the gap analysis framework as the problem-solving
mechanism. This was the basis of the inquiry projects conducted by the Marsh/Rueda
Thematic Dissertation Group in Spring 2010.
Although the opportunity for doctoral students to work in dissertation teams with
a thematic commonality is the hallmark of the Ed.D Program at USC Rossier, the novel
structure and process of our alternative capstone inquiry should be noted. Students were
given the opportunity to work as cohesive mini-units and work together to explore the
problems beyond the survey & review of a broad body of literature and the subsequent
methodology development to conduct the inquiry project. The inquiry teams worked
together throughout the entire dissertation process to develop the tools of inquiry, to
conduct the inquiry, to code & analyze data, to develop findings, and to suggest research-
based solutions to present as recommendations to the district. The degree of interaction
and extensive collaboration among the inquiry team members was a unique attribute of
this alternative capstone project.
The consultancy model adopted by this alternative capstone project allowed for
the inquiry teams to step beyond the traditional role of doctoral students and become
deeply immersed in the district, its culture, and its expectations. Serving the district in a
style akin to private consultants working with their clients, the inquiry team engaged in
an ongoing dialogue with the district leadership team to better understand issues that are
unique to their district while at the same time applying a research-based, problem-solving
framework and other theoretical constructs in support of devising feasible solutions to
enhance the work of the district. The products developed by the doctoral students

10
extended beyond a research study report or a summary of findings. The documents
developed by the teams were tailored specifically for the purpose of helping the district
know exactly where they were coming from and what could be done to make the greatest
impact in moving their district forward.

11
CHAPTER TWO: THE INQUIRY PROCESS & FINDINGS
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Education reform is an enterprise of restructuring that has existed as long as there
has been an educational system in place. John Dewey (1916) was famous for his
criticisms of American schooling—and the need for systemic change to support the
learning of all students in ways that ensured that education, as an enterprise, would fully
support the democratic ideals of the United States. The Coleman Report (1966),
authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, was hailed as a
wake-up call for the American public education system. Researchers set out to 1) prove
that student success could not only be primarily determined by a child’s home
environment as well as 2) determine what could schools do better to diminish external
effects impacting student achievement that were out of a school’s control. A Nation at
Risk (1983) brought the need for education reform back to the national forefront:
disparities in education were growing more substantial for children—and persisted longer
throughout the nation’s schools, paralleling effects found among students segregated by
race/ethnicity, socioeconomic disadvantage, special needs, and geography. Various
education reform efforts through the 1990s placed focus on reform efforts at the school
level. Standardizing academic content nationwide was realized with GOALS2000 during
the Bush Administration (financed in the Clinton era). Passage of the federal No Child
Left Behind Act (2001) then caused a cataclysmic shift in the idea of accountability that
triggered the latest sweep of education reform through the nation, propelled by the dual

12
demands for standards-based accountability and data-driven decision making in order to
ensure the academic success of every student.
The current state of education today is defined by the need for improvement in
achievement for all students. Mangin (2009) defined this context in a very effective
manner (p. 760):
National education policies have increased accountability for student learning by
focusing greater attention on academic content standard, teacher quality, and
student assessments. In turn, state education policies increasingly include
sanctions for schools that fail to meet the federal requirement for annual yearly
progress on standardized academic outcome measures. State and national policies
emphasize the need for all students to learn, and in the process, they prioritize
instructional improvement as the primary pathway to increased student learning.
As a result, school and district leaders are pressured to find effective ways to
reform and improve instruction.

Effective school reform must take into account exactly who is in charge of the
classroom and what they are teaching to students. In a paper titled “Standards,
Accountability, and School Reform,” Darling-Hammond (2004) reported teacher quality
to be one of the most fundamentally important determinants of student achievement (p.
1056). Knowing that reform efforts must result in improvement in academic
achievement on student outcome measures, a sizeable effort must be made to transform
classroom instruction in ways that will maximize impact on student learning. Four
strategies presented by Darling-Hammond (2004, pp. 1061-1062) suggest improvement
in student achievement included: 1) the enhancement of “preparation and professional
development for teachers” to build their knowledge and skills to “teach a wider range of
students to meet the standards;” 2) a redesign of “school structures to support more
intensive learning (smaller units working with students for longer periods of time); 3)

13
employment of “schoolwide and classroom performance assessments that support more
coherent curriculum”; and 4) making sure “targeted supports and services are available
for students when they are needed.” Rather than being coordinated by individual schools,
these strategies were coordinated by Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) (also known as
the school districts).
Darling-Hammond (2004) reviewed the laser-like focus taken on by the state of
Connecticut in order to improve student achievement by funneling the vast majority of its
energies toward building the knowledge and skill capacity of its teaching staffs
throughout the state. The district offices involved reallocated and reprioritized their
efforts to support the instructional changes required of their teachers in order for student
achievement to improve. It was expected that by 2010, over 80% of all teachers
employed in Connecticut would have been involved in various aspects of teacher
education, among which include the following: being processed and developed through
intense teacher educator programs, passing rigorous tests to validate their content
proficiencies, and be provided the continuous level of support through mentoring by
experienced, highly competent veteran teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2004). The hope for
success in making effective changes to instruction cannot be coordinated effectively at
the state level; instead, it is left to the school districts and schools to make the necessary
changes demanded of reform. Examining exactly how the school district office facilitates
this is explored in this chapter.

14
Waves of Reform
Bolman & Deal (2003) describe the nature of restructuring as “…a challenging
process that consumes time and resources with no guarantee of success. Organizations
typically embark on that path when they feel compelled to respond to major problems or
opportunities” (p. 85). A dynamic organization recognizes when it must restructure itself
in order to sustain itself and eventually grow stronger. This notion is especially true for
educational organizations–the Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) or school districts that
define the organizational unit to which schools generally belong. Understanding the role
of the LEA when it must undergo systemic change is the subject of this literature review.
“Effective Schools” research in the 1970s first provided information on the role of
the central office in facilitating instructional improvement and increasing student
achievement (Levine & Lazotte, 1995; Mac Iver & Farley, 2003). Mac Iver & Farley
(2003), among other scholars, pointed out that much of the research at that time led to
school-based reform efforts, suggesting that the district office should have a reduced role
or be eliminated altogether. However, Mac Iver & Farley (2003) also concluded (p. 24):
“Despite the much-heralded success stories of individual schools, most (especially
among those serving low-income populations) cannot improve instruction and
achievement without some outside help, whether from the district office or some
other external partner (whole-school reform program, university school of
education, or other education-focused group). Neither charter schools nor school-
based management has proved to be a silver bullet.”
Rorrer, Skrla, & Scheurich (2008) utilized the report of Smith & O’Day (1991),
titled “Systemic School Reform”, to present a more contemporary context of education
reform. Three different waves of reform and their major areas of focus were identified by
Smith & O’Day (1991) (as cited by Rorrer et al., 2008):

15
• 1983-1986: improvement made through changes in educational inputs &
ensuring competency in basic skills; “top-down” initiatives;
• the latter half of the 1980s: decentralization, professionalization, and
“bottom-up” changes that focused on the process of change; and
• 1990s-present: development of a coherent systemic strategy to affect
substantial changes to instruction and student success across the nation.
Through all these waves of reform, however, Rorrer et al. (2008) discern the lack of
importance given to the central/district office in leading these reform efforts. They
conducted a comprehensive narrative synthesis on district roles in reform efforts (much
like the literature reviews on district roles in reform as earlier presented by Fullan (1993),
Marsh (2000), Hightower (2002), Lasky (2002), Mac Iver & Farley (2003), and S.
Anderson (2003)). Rorrer et al. (2008) identified four essential roles for districts in
education reform (pp. 313-314), of which provides the structure to this literature review:
1) providing instructional leadership; 2) reorienting the organization; 3) establishing
policy coherence; and 4) maintaining an equity focus.
How Districts Provide Instructional Leadership
Rorrer et al. (2008) define instructional leadership as having two interdependent
yet essential elements: having the ability to generate will and being able to build
capacity. “These two elements of the instructional leadership role – generating will to
reform and capacity to do so – helps districts bridge organizational development and
policy implementation” (Rorrer et al., 2008, p. 315).

16
Power, according to Northouse (2007), is “the capacity or potential to influence”
(p. 7). A reform or change initiative requires, on the part of the members in the
organization to be changed, substantial transformations in thought, process and
procedure, and vision for the future (Bennis & Nanus, 1985, cited by Northouse, 2007).
According to Bennis & Nanus (1985), leaders charged with these transformations must
have a clear vision of the future state of their organizations (as cited by Northouse, 2007).
“When an organization has a clear vision, it is easier for people within the organization to
learn how they fit in with the overall direction of the organization and even the society in
general. It empowers them because they feel they are a significant dimension of a
worthwhile enterprise” (Bennis & Nanus, 1985, pp. 90-91, as cited in Northouse, 2007, p.
187). District leaders, in turn, must define this vision for the role groups over which it
must exert control. “Whether the focus is districtwide or chosen by individual schools,
in either situation, the power continues to rest in the ability to focus” (Palumbo & Leight,
2007, p. 27).
Bolman & Deal (2003) assert that “[l]eadership is universally offered as a panacea
for almost any social problem” (p. 336). Leadership and authority are often assumed to
be the same; however, “leadership is distinct from authority: “People choose to obey
authority so long as they believe the authority is legitimate” (Weber, 1947, cited in
Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 337). However, Bolman & Deal (2003) explain leadership is
provided as a function of its context (pp. 338-339):
Leaders “both shape and are shaped by their constituents (Gardner, 1989; Simmel,
1950). Leaders often promote a new idea or initiative only after a large number of
their constituents already favor it” (Cleveland, 1985)…Administrators are leaders
only to the extent that others grant them cooperation and follow their lead.

17
Conversely, one can be a leader without a position of formal authority. Good
organizations encourage leadership from many quarters (Kanter, 1983; Barnes &
Kriger, 1986).
“Some of the contextual factors that can affect a district’s ability to serve as a
source of influence include the following: varying levels of human, social, and resource
capacity; district size; past performance; leadership; organization and governance;
political culture and reform history; the nature of the intended reform; and the level of
central control versus school autonomy (Marsh, 2002, as cited by Mangin, 2009, pp. 764-
765). These factors affect how a district approaches the development and
implementation of a reform strategy. Therefore, in order to minimize the effects of these
contextual factors as discussed by Marsh (2002), district leadership must use the results
from data disaggregation and analysis in a “productive” way (Mac Iver & Balfanz, 2000)
to drive its decision-making process (Armstrong & Anthes, 2001; Massell, 2000, 2001;
Snipes, Dolittle, & Herlihy, 2002; as cited in Mac Iver & Farley, 2003, p. 23).
As important as the ability to generate will can be on a reform effort, it is even
more fundamental for leaders to understand how to build the capacity required in its role
groups to carry out the changes required in a reform or change process. Thus the
majority of this section is devoted to building capacity of knowledge and skill throughout
a district as it engages in education reform.
Mac Iver & Farley (2003) provided a comprehensive survey of the literature
framing the roles and responsibilities of the central/district office in educational reform
efforts they undertake to ensure academic success of all its students. They found three
common themes about the role of the central office as found to be contributors to the

18
academic success of effective schools: 1) the importance of a focused message from the
central office about the importance of student achievement and its relationship to quality
instruction; 2) the ample amount of time provided for teaching staff devoted to regular
interaction with each other about instruction & receive professional development; and
3) the availability of specific personnel provided to support teacher learning about how to
improve instruction (Mac Iver & Farley, 2003).
In a review of the national project “Education Reform Policy: From Congress to
the Classroom,” Massell (2000) explores the effects of educational policy (designed at
federal, state, and local levels) on its ability to incite change, to strengthen the change
effort by aligning it throughout all levels of the local school districts, and on being able to
motivate role groups to accept and work for change. Building capacity in the system to
sustain changes in schools and classrooms is the crucial component explored by Massell
(2000) in her review. The project itself reviewed the activities of twenty-two different
school districts by researchers of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education
(CPRE) located in eight different states (California, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, and Texas) over a two-year period. Massell (2000)
summarizes the following four specific capacity-building activities as what the districts in
the study have committed significant amounts of time, personnel, and financial resources
toward: 1) “interpreting and using data”; 2) “building teacher knowledge and skill”; 3)
“aligning curriculum and instruction”; and 4) “targeting interventions on low-performing
students and/or schools” (p. 1).

19
Massell (2000) points out that even if these different activities are carried out with
different purposes, they do not work mutually exclusive of one another: “they can and do
overlap in districts in ways that are often reinforcing” of the overall organizational
objective – to improve student achievement (p. 1).
These four tasks are considerable challenges for any district to effectively sustain.
Continued budget cuts to school districts across the state has resulted in a significant loss
of personnel that were previously assigned to accommodate these tasks, both at the
district and site levels. The level of ancillary support formerly available to translate these
organizational goals to site-specific, teacher-specific work/performance goals has been
stripped to the bare bones, leaving the burden of the responsibility largely in the hands of
site administrators, already overwhelmed with the multitude of responsibilities with
which they must contend in running their own schools. It is imperative that the district
office prioritizes and reallocates their depleted yet available resources in order to ensure
the vision for the entire district is maintained. Along with this, the district office must
ensure all role groups know exactly what they must do (and what are responsible for) in
order to achieve the goals of the district as an institution of learning.
Data-driven decision-making was considered a capacity builder common to all
districts in the project (Massell, 2000). School improvement planning, according to
Massell (2000), was largely driven by this use of data by the vast majority of districts in
the project. The district offices tend to take “more active roles in focusing attention on
data and helping schools use them” (Massell, 2000, p. 2). Training teachers to how to
review outcome data results, what the results actually mean, and how progress can be

20
measured longitudinally are among the activities that district personnel provide in
trainings to make data use more effective. Developing this expertise at the school site
level is important in building the capacity of the individual schools to engage more
deeply with their data, to make sense of it, and to target the areas of improvement that
schools can then develop action plans around to target improvement in student
achievement.
Massell (2000) points to performance data as the primary mean by which to
center all conversations on school improvement. “When conversations about school
improvement are driven by performance data, educators and district staff press for more
and better data on student achievement” (p. 2). Having all role groups access, engage,
reflect, and plan from the data helps to bridge the gap between standardized student
performance assessments and classroom instruction. It is this focus on data that the
different school districts share as a capacity-building strength for their organizations.
The use of data to improve decision-making processes is regarded as a high priority for
districts but only highlights part of the issue (Massell, 2000, p. 6). Tying performance
results to the changes required to change teacher performance requires additional
information (Massell, 2000, p. 6)– thus linking to the second major capacity building
strategy articulated by Massell (2000): knowledge & skills of teachers.
Building the knowledge and skills of teachers within their districts is regarded as
“a crucial component of change” (Massell, 2000, p. 2). Massell (2000) reports that,
across the board, professional development is supported as a worthwhile enterprise by all
the districts in the CPRE study but that the actual district strategies “vary along a number

21
of dimensions including the time they allocate toward professional development, the
incentives and support they provide teachers and schools for these activities, and the
extent to which they focus professional development on a coherent philosophy of
teaching” (p. 3).
Strategies found to be common across all districts, according to Massell (2000),
are rooted in three forms: “school-based support, teacher leaders, and teacher
participation in development” (p. 3). School-based support for professional development
is like providing an instructional coach, facilitator, or other support personnel dedicated
to providing hands-on assistance at the school site level. They often can serve as
mentors or models of implementing teaching techniques, assist with individual unit
and/or lesson planning, or can help guide teams of teachers in vertical & horizontal
alignment of curriculum (Massell, 2000, pp. 3-4). Teacher leaders are often classroom
teachers, respected by their fellow peers and are designated “to provide information or
support to their colleagues on specific innovations” (Massell, 2000, p. 4). They often
serve as liaisons between the classroom teachers and site/district-level administrators.
Teacher participation in professional development goes beyond selection of teachers to
participate on committees that make limited decisions on campus. According to Massell
(2000), districts in the study use teachers “to develop performance-based assessments,
scoring rubrics, curriculum, and standards… These initiatives are seen not only as
strategies for building the knowledge and skills of the teaching staff, but as ways for
districts to expand their own capacity to accomplish major policy goals” (p. 4).

22
Any change in student achievement can happen only if change is made to what
students are learning and how they are learning it, hence the focus on curriculum and
instruction as a third capacity-building strategy identified as common amongst the
twenty-two districts in this CPRE study. Massell (2000) contends: “In today’s charged
atmosphere of accountability and standards-based reform, districts are seeking to align
their curriculum and instruction vertically to state policies and horizontally to other
elements of district and school practice” (p. 4). The strategies by which the different
districts seek to achieve this alignment in curriculum and instruction vary greatly and
require further study to determine their individual levels of effectiveness on building
district capacity. It is understood, though, that districts tend to maintain a high degree of
control over curriculum guidance and that schools tend to have more control over
instruction (Massell, 2000).
“[T]argeting additional resources and attention on poorly performing schools and
students” (p. 5) is the fourth capacity-building strategy identified by Massell (2000) in
her review. Extra staff and resources are made available to low-performing schools.
Some school districts, like one in California, provide additional personnel for support at
all levels in the organization – site administrators, teachers, and other relevant support
personnel – in the form of support teams with personnel from high-achieving schools
(Massell, 2000, p. 5). Again, the specific strategies are varied from district to district; it
is acknowledged, however, as a crucial activity that requires district-level commitment
and attention.

23
Mac Iver & Farley (2003, p. 9) were critical of Massell’s (2000) review – “the
relative effectiveness of different central office strategies in improving student
achievement” was not fully addressed. Though Massell (2000) acknowledges the need
for “coordinating professional development activities, making them coherent to reinforce
common goals, and ensuring their quality”, she does not specify what strategies can
maximize capacity building throughout a district.
How Districts Reorient the Organization
Structural and organizational changes are often made in reform efforts to align
district operations with improvement goals (Rorrer et al., 2008, p. 319). Often, these
changes affect instruction, curriculum, goal setting, principal selection & evaluation, and
funding – what Peterson et al. (1987) refer to as the “technical core” of a district’s
activities. Rorrer et al. (2008) also believes the attention to these specific “technical
core” activities underscores the “intentionality Honig (2003) associated with her
description of central office functions in reform” (p. 319). In all cases, the realignment
described in an organization “to support improved instruction, including changes in
decision-making authority, required shifts in control or at least in the nature of control”
(Rorrer et al., 2008, p. 320). The district office must be willing to distribute the
responsibility for improvement in the learning process to a greater number of role groups.
“When the structures implicit in a reform approach are inherently less rigid and are
implemented in an autonomy-supportive way, they are more likely to be successful in
facilitating effective teaching, learning, and educational outcomes such as improved
achievement and progress” (Deci, 2009, p. 246). Elmore (2002) contextualized the lack

24
of attention by most central office administrators to the instructional or technical “core”
within the theory of loose coupling (Meyer & Rowan, 1992; Weick, 1976). Loose
coupling is “weak links between individual classrooms and schools and central office
decision-making structures, resulting in teacher isolation” (Mac Iver & Farley, 2003, p.
22). As Elmore (2000, p. 6) summarized it:
The administrative superstructure of the organization—principals, board
members, and administrators—exists to ‘buffer’ the weak technical core of
teaching from outside inspection, interference, or disruption. Administration in
education, then, has come to mean not the management of instruction but the
management of the structures and process around instruction (as cited by Mac
Iver & Farley, 2003, pp. 4-5).
Palumbo & Leight (2007) go on to explain how Elmore (2002) believes that schools and
districts can overcome being ‘loosely coupled’ in the implementation of reform (p. 26):
As an organization, classrooms and schools can be seen as a part of the same
entity, yet distinctly individualistic in terms of focus, actions, and accountability
to the whole. Schools and districts that embrace the concept of an Instructional
Focus often make great strides at bringing the organization together into a more
focused whole.
Bringing an organization together to move forward with a reform effort requires the
district office to shift the organization to a new way of thinking about itself as an
“organized collective” (Rorrer et al., 2008) –and how its role groups regard its
significance as the district office in leading the reform effort.
According to Deci (2009), school reform efforts, on any scale, can be more
readily accepted when “…implementation of the reform, with the help of a change
agent… model[s] responsiveness and autonomy support by having the change agents be
responsive to administrators and teachers, thus allowing these school personnel to feel a
sense of volition, choice, and effectiveness in carrying out the reform” (p. 246). One of

25
the primary responsibilities of a school district or central office is to provide or make
readily available the tools necessary for the staff of a school district to grow both
individually and collectively as professionals, especially those charged with the daunting
task of improving student performance by the changes desired in reform efforts. “The
central office should act as a customer service agent to schools, helping them access
high-quality job-embedded staff development around evidence-based instructional
practices most aligned to the district’s Instructional Focus” (Palumbo & Leight, 2007, p.
26).
The district office, according to a study by the Educational Commission of the
States (Armstrong & Anthes, 2001) was found to foster a “service orientation” culture
focused on supporting principals and teachers to use student data for continuous
improvement, combined with structural mechanisms for training and assessments (cited
in Mac Iver & Farley, 2003, p. 6).
The district office also coordinates services that signify to various role groups
throughout the district that are crucial for strengthening the reform efforts supported by
the district office. The district values these efforts to such a high degree that they make it
readily available and is therefore strongly supported. Quellmalz, Shields, & Knapp
(1995) concur that districts should do the following to support school-based reforms:
“…provide professional development opportunities, find an appropriate balance between
setting and waiving particular requirements, manage forces and conditions outside the
school’s control (teachers’ unions, state requirements), and help schools to obtain
additional resources” (Mac Iver & Farley, 2003, p. 5).

26
According to Desimone et al. (2002), “district alignment, coordination,
continuous improvement efforts, and stakeholders’ (i.e. district, school, and teachers)
involvement in planning and development determined the success of professional
development in influencing reform implementation” (Rorrer et al., 2008, p. 321).
Meeting the challenge to prepare today’s students to meet 21
st
century expectations – and
their corresponding skills – requires a major rethinking in the fields of educational policy
and practice (Schlechty, 1990). This rethinking “must start not with top-down mandates
but with teachers and principals, who hold the key to classroom- and school-level
innovation” (Sofo, 2008, p. 392). To this end, districts must realign themselves as
organizations whose sole purpose is to ensure academic success for all their students,
irrespective of their current circumstances or their specialized needs. The ultimate goal
for all students is that they learn – fundamentally, this is the reason why schools exist.
How Districts Establish Policy Coherence
As districts work to translate their vision for producing highly competent and
independently minded students that are equipped with cutting-edge skills and reasoning
to become productive and competitive citizens of the 21
st
century, they must also serve as
the body to help schools understand just how educational policy will help their work at
the school level toward meeting this global vision. Districts “communicate what kinds
of improvements are important, how those improvements should be carried out, and the
level of district support for those improvements” (Mangin, 2009, p. 764).
Districts establish policy coherence by “mediating federal, state, and local policy”
and “aligning resources” with district needs (Rorrer et al., 2008, p. 323). The district

27
office does more than provide resources, align goals through the entire educational
organization, and assist with hiring the personnel required to make this organization
work. “District leaders are [also] involved in multiple dimensions of the policy process,
and they are responsible for linking policy to needs and desired outcomes” (Rorrer et al.,
2008, p. 323). As units of local governance in a federal system, Elmore (1993) explained
(p. 103):
One possible reason for the continued existence of local districts is that they
provide a means of mobilizing political support for public schools at a level where
their impact is immediate and a valuable buffer against precipitous shifts in state
and national policy that are inconsistent with local preferences (as cited in Rorrer
et al., 2008, p. 325).
In this capacity, the district office would interpret and translate for its schools how
exactly they would work to achieve policies set by state or federal agencies. By
providing that link, “policy coherence occurs as district leadership molds policies into
district-specific derivatives, which represent an amalgam of external policy and internal
goals and strategies” (Rorrer et al., 2008, p. 323). As a result, the district office acts as a
mediator or liaison between the state/federal level and the school site level. Firestone
(1989a) explained that district leaders should interpret the policies in a manner that
supports their long-range vision for the district (Rorrer et al., 2008, p. 324).
Research on the traits common to high performing districts with successful cases
of reform implementation (Ragland, Asera, & Johnson, 1999; Skrla, Scheurich, &
Johnson, 2000) echo the findings of Murphy & Hallinger (1988, cited in Mac Iver &
Farley, 2003, p. 6): 1) a climate of urgency concerning improved achievement of all
students; 2 that achievement was the primary responsibility of every staff member in the

28
district; 3) a shared sense of the central office as both a support & service organization
for their schools; 4) a primary focus established on improving instruction as well as
having a high level of resources devoted to coherent professional development directly
linked to research-based practices; 5) a high degree of focused attention on analysis and
alignment of curriculum, instructional practice, & assessment; and 6) available
professional development for principals in interpreting data to make good instructional
decisions.
These studies highlight the higher likelihood of success in student learning
experienced by the district as a whole when the district/central office has some degree of
control over the ways in which improvements for reform are implemented. The district
does not necessarily need to maintain absolute control over every stage of reform
implementation; rather, it is encouraged by many scholars that the district merely serve to
coordinate or provide a general structure from which schools can seek support but then
work autonomously to design and implement its own site-specific plans.
District-level leadership must endeavor to evoke a sense of urgency in order to
affect change in the teaching staff. The dire circumstances that schools find themselves
today hinge upon the desperate situation of schools across the nation. Schools are not
adequately preparing their students for academic success. If teachers do not recognize
this sense of urgency, schools will, unfortunately, be unable to move forward in the name
of academic progress (Deci, 2009).
Rorrer et al. (2008, p. 327) emphasize “…[t]he value of establishing coherence
between available supports and resources and instructional leadership (will and

29
establishing the vision, focus, and goals)” through the assertion made by Price, Ball, &
Luks (1995) regarding the influence of district leaders in aligning resource allocation
policy at the LEA level:
Administrators—the central office or in buildings—are in positions of power to
affect the marshalling of resources around particular agendas. They allocate
funds for materials, professional development, and staff. They influence teachers’
priorities, in the form of concern and time. Thus, what they care about and
understand can have crucial consequences for the development of any particular
reform agenda (p. 32).
How Districts Maintain an Equity Focus
“Equitable access, participation, and achievement in social institutions” define the
fourth cluster that comprises the body of research that defines multicultural education
(Bennett, 2001, p. 200). This research genre “envisions social action and reform to create
societal conditions of freedom, equality, and justice for all” (Bennett, 2001, p. 200). The
inequities perpetuated in the American public education system can be overcome with an
emphasis on multicultural education that both empowers and promotes societal change:
“empowerment and multicultural education are interwoven, and together suggest
powerful and far-reaching school reform” (Sleeter, 1991, p. 2, as cited in Bennett, 2001,
p. 200). “…[B]road societal change,” according to Bennett (2001), “is a necessary
ingredient for equity in educational access, participation, and achievement” (p. 200).
Districts must work as social agents in “…group efforts to bring about changes to
redress inequalities and injustices in home, school, community, state, national, or global
contexts” (Bennett, 2001, p. 203). Being sensitive to the ever-increasing minority
student populations that enroll in schools and districts across the nation requires a shift in
educator attitudes and views of what students know and how they learn. Cortes (2000)

30
argues, in his book The Children Are Watching: How the Media Teach About Diversity,
that mass media has a profound influence on the development of a multicultural
curriculum that pervades society in a way that may not necessarily be positively
construed: “When multiple perspectives on diversity are presented in the media, they are
muted by ‘severe imbalances in the power to disseminate ideas [according to] ideological
battlegrounds’ presented as multiculturalist, desegregationist, and Americanist” (p. 130,
as cited in Bennett, 2001, p. 203).
Rorrer et al. (2008) define two separate but related elements of the role that
districts play in maintaining equity through its reform efforts: “owning past inequity,
including highlighting inequities in system and culture” and “foregrounding equity,
including increasing availability and transparency of data” (p. 328). Educational equity,
according to Rorrer et al. (2008) is the ultimate goal behind the first three goals described
thus far in this review: providing instructional leadership, reorienting and aligning the
organizational structures and processes, and establishing policy coherence (p. 329).
It is important to note that the burden of education reform does not rest simply on
the shoulders of the district leaders alone nor does it rest on the shoulders of the
classroom teachers that directly interact with children. The “organized collective”
(Rorrer et al., 2008) shares full responsibility for the decisions made to improve
instruction and student achievement. “Systemic reform becomes dependent on how the
district as an organized collective (rather than relying solely on the efforts of the
superintendent) enacts the interrelated roles to achieve the desired outcomes” (Rorrer et
al., 2008, p. 339).

31
The ultimate goal of any and every reform initiative in American education has
been to ensure educational equity—that is, to ensure academic success for every single
child, regardless of gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, immigrant status, or
geography. Children, native to the United States or immigrant, now grow up in “… a
country that is economically, socially, and culturally unlike the country that absorbed –
however, ambivalently—previous waves of immigrants” (Garcia, 2002, p. 13).
Historically, American education has always been viewed as a privilege for the
few, for those capable of assimilating to mastering the English language, for those of the
“haves” rather than the “have-nots”, for those whose families have traditionally
experienced success in education. “Race and class negotiations and stratification in U.S.
high schools” do not serve the “increasingly diverse socioeconomic, racial, ethnic, and
immigrant student body” (Garcia, 2002, p. 19).
The multiculturalism that is the hallmark of today’s changing America has a
profound impact on the quality of education being offered to the children growing up in
this cultural diversity. The American system of public education has yet to wholly adapt
to the ever-increasing demands that the nation’s youth face in having to become
functioning, skillful citizens that contribute to a multicultural, 21
st
century American and
global society (Garcia, 2002). Garcia (2002) calls on local school districts to respond to
this challenge and take ownership of maintaining educational equity (p. 19):
Although it is not unreasonable to expect the federal government, the unit of
government that makes decisions about immigration policy, to bear the
responsibility for funding some, if not all, of the costs of educating immigrant
children, the implementation of adequate programs will remain the responsibility
of local school districts. Despite the immediate costs, the education of immigrant
youth is an investment in the future of our communities.

32
Conclusion
According to Deci (2009, p. 245), “[f]eelings of ownership of and commitment to
a reform are expected to occur when its structures were designed to support satisfaction
of the teachers’ and students’ basic psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and
relatedness” (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). In order for the
reform effort to be successful, it must first acknowledge how, in the past, the district or
school (as an organization) may not have fully addressed these needs for all role groups.
If educational equity is the ultimate goal of the district as an educational organization, the
district must make every effort to provide structures that augment every opportunity for
learning it provides to its district and site-level administrators, its teachers, its parents &
families, and most of all, its students. The plan it develops must be comprehensive with
attention to detail. Every decision made by the district office in its strategic plan is
deliberate and supported with evidence, not subject to whim, influence, or impulse. The
development of the reform plan and its subsequent implementation involves as many role
groups as possible, to promote the decision making process being owned by the
“organized collective” (Rorrer et al., 2008), respecting the various perspectives of all role
groups in the district affected by this change process. The district office must provide
teachers with the specific training (developing their knowledge/skill capacity) to
understand how to read student performance data in a productive, effective manner on a
regular basis. Educators (administrators & teachers) must then disaggregate data into its
statistically significant subgroups (i.e. race/ethnicity, socioeconomic disadvantage,
special needs, gender, level of English language proficiency) and then determine what

33
instructional practices must be enhanced to address the specific needs of those students in
order to result in improved learning for all students. Professional development must be
coordinated and provided by the district office on specific instructional strategies that
must then be presented, developed, and tested in the classrooms with ample instructional
support in order to increase the efficacy of teachers. Teachers need to be provided with
the time to coordinate with other teachers to promote coherence and alignment in
curriculum and pacing. Most of all, for the reform effort to be successful, the plan must
be implemented with fidelity and not be compromised for lack of time or patience by any
of the involved role groups in the organization.

The next section of the dissertation presents the methodology, or the processes by which
the alternative capstone inquiry project was conducted. This includes the situational
context, the inquiry project questions, the gap analysis process model, the structure of the
dissertation, data collection & limitations, and overall project progression.

METHODOLOGY
Authors: Rosemary Santos Aguilar, Debra L. Hill, & Regina D. Zurbano
Introduction
This alternative capstone project can be likened to a real-life application of action
research in its design and implementation. According to Patton (2002), “action research
aims at solving specific problems within a program, organization, or community” (p.
221). As consultants, the focus of our alternative capstone project was to become “part

34
of the change process by engaging the people in the program or organization in studying
their own problems in order to solve those problems” (Whyte, 1989, as cited in Patton,
2002, p. 221). The results derived from our capstone project, like those of action
research, cannot necessarily be generalized to all organizations for it is “quite specific to
the problem, people, and organization for which the research is undertaken” (Patton,
2002, p. 221). The timeframe in which the research is conducted can also impede how
much the results can be generalized to organizations other than the one participating in
the research (Patton, 2002).
We were not just observers but participants-as-consultants that applied the Clark
& Estes (2002) gap analysis as a systematic problem-solving model. This analysis
model is the instrument by which we chose to identify and examine the root causes
underlying the degree of Focus on Results (FoR) reform implementation.
According to Clark & Estes (2002), “it is essential that change result from
systematic analysis of the causes of performance gaps and be accompanied by necessary
knowledge and skill changes and accompanying motivational adjustments” (p. 4). The
gap analysis model devised by Clark & Estes (2002) was the framework of analysis
employed by our inquiry team to better understand what components of the FoR reform
initiative were successful in its five years of its implementation in GUSD. The gap
analysis model is a data analysis method specifically designed to systematically examine
gaps in an organization’s performance.
Clark & Estes (2002) state that making informed decisions, using the most current
research evidence, dramatically increases the chances that a chosen performance

35
improvement strategy will be effective. GUSD chose to implement the FoR
comprehensive school reform model to increase student achievement and close the
achievement gap.
The Focus on Results (FoR) Framework for school-level improvements is rooted
in the following seven principles:
1) Identify a schoolwide instructional focus based on student needs assessment;
2) Develop an Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) that will become a guiding
coalition for the school;
3) Select three to five high-quality, research-based strategies that every teacher
should use consistently;
4) Provide targeted professional development on the strategies selected in
number four and ensure that all teachers use those three to five practices;
5) Realign everything in the school in support of the instructional focus;
6) Implement an internal accountability system using assessment measures that
benchmark progress in the focus area; and
7) The Principal becomes an instructional leader by supporting the focus through
classroom visits, coaching, modeling, and allocating resources and support;
The gap analysis model is based on the achievement of organizational goals.
Clark & Estes (2002) contend that goals must be concrete, challenging, and current (C
3
).
These goals must be designed to be clear, easily understood and measureable. They must
be difficult yet practical. Challenging but achievable short-term goals are highly
motivating to employees.

36
Inquiry Project Questions
Clark & Estes (2002) propose that in order to achieve organizational goals, it is
necessary to assess the causes that prevent the achievement of the desired outcomes. For
GUSD, the desired outcome is the successful implementation of Focus on Results (FoR)
as a means to increase student achievement. The questions that guided our inquiry
process were:
1) How was the FoR reform initiative implemented throughout GUSD?
2) What was the degree of implementation of FoR at the different levels of
instruction offered in GUSD?
3) What performance gaps exist at this point in the FoR implementation process
that need to be addressed?
4) What are the root causes of these performance gaps?
5) What research-based recommendations can be offered to address the
performance gaps and help GUSD enhance and sustain its implementation of
FoR?
For this capstone project, data was collected at all levels of the organization to determine
the beliefs and perceptions of the FoR implementation in GUSD. Employees’ beliefs and
perceptions about their work are vital to the identification of 1) any performance gaps in
the implementation of FoR and 2) the main root causes of those gaps.
Analytical Framework: The Gap Analysis Process
According to Clark & Estes (2002), making informed decisions using the most
current research evidence dramatically increases the chance that a chosen performance

37
improvement strategy will be effective. Local Educational Agencies (LEAs), also known
as school districts, are working hard to identify and implement the “silver bullet” that will
result in academic achievement for all students. A significant number of popular
performance-improvement strategies are implemented yet rarely evaluated to determine
its effectiveness (Clark & Estes, 2002). The goal of this project is to evaluate the LEA’s
primary reform strategies and determine if they are producing solid, cost-beneficial
performance results in student achievement.
Clark & Estes (2002) propose that, in order to achieve the global organizational
goals, it is necessary to assess the causes that prevent the achievement of the desired
outcomes. Since the beliefs and perceptions of the people doing the work are essential to
redirecting performance to the goal, the project will identify individual and organizational
gaps in knowledge and/or skill, motivation, as well as any organizational barriers that
may be creating the organization’s performance gap(s) (Clark & Estes, 2002).
The first step in the gap analysis process is to identify the key organizational
goals. According to Bandura (1997), effective performance improvement must start with
clearly understood work/performance goals. A work/performance goal is a description of
task or objectives that individuals and teams must accomplished by a specific time or
criterion. The LEA must make the connection between the organizational goals and the
specific individual or team goals. Effective work/performance goals must directly
support the evolving organizational goals; they cascade from or follow the organizational
goal. Members should have a clear understanding of what their performance goal is, the
rationale for the goal, and whether or not they are achieving it. The organizational goals

38
must be flexible to reflect changing business conditions and specific enough to meet the
need for day-to-day guidance (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Step Two of the gap analysis model requires the identification of the individual
work/performance goals. Members of the organization must know and understand their
specific performance goal(s). According to Clark & Estes (2002), research on setting
goals strongly suggest how vital it is to select the type of work/performance goal and also
how the goal is communicated. They recommend work goals should have three qualities
or what Clark & Estes (2002) refer to as the C³ Goals. The goals should be concrete or
clear, easily understood, and measureable; challenging or difficult but doable; and current
or short-term (daily or weekly) (p. 26).
Step Three requires the identification of the performance gaps between the
organizational goals and the performance of individuals and teams. Clark & Estes (2002)
describe the following steps for setting and analyzing benchmark goals:
1) Identify the organizational goals & indicators for achieving those goals.
2) Benchmark & identify industry leader’s achievement in the specific area.
3) Quantify the organization’s current achievement for each goal.
4) Compute the gap by subtracting the organizations achievement for each
goal from the industry leader’s achievement.
5) Determine the economic benefit of closing the gap.
6) Identify individual and team goals that will close each gap.
In Step Four, we analyze the individual and team gaps to determine the root
causes. There are three major causes of performance gaps: people’s knowledge and

39
skill; their motivation to achieve the goal; and organizational barriers (Clark & Estes,
2002, p. 43). In order to determine gaps in knowledge and skill it is necessary to
determine whether people know how, when, why, what, where, and whom they need to
achieve their performance goal(s). Identifying motivational causes of gaps will be more
complex because it requires determining if the individual or team choose to work towards
the goal; will persist at it until it is achieved; and the amount of mental effort they are
willing to invest to accomplish the goal (Clark & Estes, 2002). Organizational barriers
result from inadequate facilities and faulty processes and procedures that delay or prevent
the work. Often, organizational problems can be attributed to the misalignment between
work processes and the organizational structure.
In order to analyze and determine the root causes in each area, the gap analysis
process recommends surveying opinions and beliefs about the gaps. This is best done
through active listening, interviews, focus groups, and surveys (Clark & Estes, 2002, p.
45). It is important to learn the beliefs and perceptions of the people doing the work. It
is imperative to listen carefully, naturally, and actively in order to determine if people are
saying the performance gaps are due to knowledge and/or skill, motivation,
organizational barriers, or a combination of the three.
Step five entails three distinct parts. Step 5A offers solutions and
recommendations to close the performance gaps in knowledge and skill. Knowledge and
skill enhancement are required when people do not know how to accomplish the
work/performance goal and when new learning is required to accomplish future goals.
This is accomplished by providing information, job aides, training, and/or education.

40
Step 5B addresses the motivation issues that contribute to the gap. According to Clark &
Estes (2002), three facets of motivation performance exist (p. 81):
1) Active choice: intention to pursue goal is replaced by action
2) Persistence: once started, we continue in the face of distractions
3) Mental effort: people work smarter and develop novel solutions.
An individual’s motivation to work is determine by his/her belief that the environment
provides them with the goals and resources that can result in a reasonable amount of
effectiveness (Clark & Estes, 2002). Motivation at work is based on results from the
individual’s experiences and beliefs about themselves, their co-workers, and their
prospects for being effective. Step 5C offers possible solutions to inefficient and
ineffective work processes and material resources that are causing performance gaps.
Once the organizational policies, processes, or resources levels that are causing the gap
are identified and solutions are proposed, they must be filtered through the organizational
culture to determine the potential for success. Clark & Estes (2002) recommend that a
organizational cultural profile be develop to determine if the solutions are compatible
with the culture of the organization.
“Evaluation is an absolutely essential ingredient when you are attempting to close
performance gaps or improve performance” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 125). Clark & Estes
(2002) claim that evaluation is the only way to determine the connections between
performance gaps, improvement programs, and cost-effectiveness.

41
Unit of Analysis
The unit of analysis of this alternative capstone project is the Glendale Unified
School District (GUSD). GUSD serves the cities of Glendale, Crescenta Valley, and
Montrose-Verdugo City. Glendale is a community of about 200,000 residents located
about 15 minutes drive north of downtown Los Angeles. It is the third largest city in Los
Angeles County, as of 2009. GUSD serves over 27,000 students in kindergarten through
grade 12 through thirty-one schools and employs over 2,600 people (GUSD, 2010).
We investigated the effects of the degree of implementation of a reform initiative,
Focus on Results (FoR), at three school sites in GUSD, a specific, geography-focused
organization, over the last five years of its implementation, which is a specific timeframe.
This is an example of a Structure Focused, Time Based case study that is Geography
Focused (Patton, 2002, p. 231). It is important to note that these categories cannot
necessarily be mutually exclusive—this is the nature of action research, specific to one
particular organization that cannot necessarily be generalized to all organizations in a
common field (Patton, 2002).
The district as the unit of analysis is challenging since the district’s decision to
implement FoR effectively dedicated resources (through its supplemental grant) to allow
for full implementation of the reform effort with fidelity—but the implementation took
place at the site level among the different schools. “[W]ithin-district variation may result
in differential enactment across schools” (Mangin, 2009, p. 765). The quality of the
district-level reform implementation is not the subject of this inquiry project. Rather, the

42
focus is instead placed on how district-level context affects the district’s decision to
implement the reform effort.
Sampling Strategies
This alternative capstone inquiry project employed purposeful sampling strategies
that allowed for “selecting information-rich cases from which a great deal about matters
of importance and therefore worthy of in-depth study” to be selected “strategically and
purposefully” (Patton, 2002, p. 243). We did not rely on random probability sampling
since the action research we conducted applied to a specific organization and was not
generalized to reflect other LEAs. Random probability sampling allows for a
representative sample of the greater population to be used for the inquiry; however, the
small sampling size can become especially problematic when the purpose of the inquiry
is to generalize the results from “a sample of the population to the population of which it
is a part” (Patton, 2002, p. 244).
The inquiry team focused on three sampling strategies: snowball/chain sampling,
typical case sampling, and emergent sampling. These can all be integrated into a
combination or mixed purposeful sampling strategy which help facilitate triangulation, is
flexible in its nature, and has the ability to meet multiple interests and needs of the
research project (Patton, 2002, p. 244). Snowball/chain sampling allows for the
identification of cases of interest from “sampling people who know what cases are
information-rich, that is, good examples for study, good interview participants” (Patton,
2002, p. 243). Typical case sampling allows site-based personnel to “illustrate or
highlight what is typical, normal, average” (p. 243)–in other words, how the reform

43
initiative took shape at the school sites during the implementation process. Emergent
sampling allows the inquiry team to be flexible and follow “new leads during fieldwork,”
giving the inquiry team the chance to “take advantage of the unexpected” (p. 244).
The semi-structured interview guides were developed collaboratively as a whole
thematic dissertation group over the course of two separate working sessions in mid-
February and early March 2010. The questions in our interview protocol are specific to
the GUSD districtwide reform process in question, FoR. The interview protocol was
designed with three specific purposes in mind: 1) to gather initial data on the
implementation of FoR as a reform initiative for the district; 2) to gain a historical
perspective on FoR; and 3) to collect data on the perceived goals and implementation
gaps for the districtwide reform.
The interview guide (see Appendix B) is the interview guide used for the initial
“scanning interview” process that Clark & Estes (2002) describe as the initial step
required in their gap analysis process. The purpose of the scanning interview was to
collect rich data from key stakeholders in an organized, uniform fashion to facilitate
comparison of information on a number of key issues that can be resolved through the
use of the gap analysis model. The scanning interview is used to help identify what gaps
are identified by stakeholders, how they quantify these gaps, and to what they attribute
these gaps.
The design of the scanning interview first involved the development of a
document introducing the inquiry team and its members, what the team’s intent was with
respect to this inquiry project, the expected length of time the team intended to spend

44
collecting data on site, and a general overview of the process by which the team intended
to conduct this collection, including the presentation of the interview questions. Open
guiding questions about reform in general as it applies to the school district in terms of
FoR, the reform initiative, were asked in order to allow for the respondents to go into
more detail about their perceptions of the degree of success of FoR and where they feel
the issues with FoR implementation are today.
Data Collection
Patton (2002) describes the nature of data collection in action research as being
“more informal, the people in the situation are often directly involved in gathering the
information and then studying themselves, and the results are used internally to attack
specific problems within a program, organization, or community” (p. 221).
Data for this project was collected at the district office and three GUSD school
sites through one-on-one interviews, observations, and document analysis. The
interviews were face-to-face, one-on-one semi-structured, and open-ended. These
interviews work best in a conversational context – having a discussion rather than having
an “interview” gives an air of informal nature. The conversational interview “provides
opportunities for flexibility, spontaneity, and responsiveness to individual differences and
situational changes” (Patton, 2002, p. 343).
The interview protocols we employed provided the opportunity for staff to be
insightful, to be candid, and to be forthright about their thoughts on the reform initiative.
Though we had a number of topics that we wanted to address, they were not necessarily
presented in a certain order. In a semi-structured interview, the interviewers must only

45
ensure that all the topics of concern are addressed during the course of the interview
(Patton, 2002). We did not conduct any structured interviews. Structured interviews
would work best when interviewing groups that may not necessarily have the full
background of the topic being investigated (Patton, 2002).
We conducted two rounds of interviews utilizing the Scanning Interview (see
Appendix D). The first round of interviews was used to obtain a sense of the issues
surrounding the implementation of FoR at different levels of the organization. We
interviewed district leadership cabinet members, district support staff, site administrators,
and members & non-members of the site ILTs. Data from these interviews help 1)
establish the context of the reform initiative and its implementation at the school sites and
2) provide staff the opportunity to give their perspectives on what they believe are the
issues with the implementation of FoR. These interviews were 30-45 minutes in length,
recorded digitally, transcribed, and coded to disaggregate data for further analysis.
The Stages of Concern protocol, based on the Concerns-Based Adoption Model
(CBAM, Hall & Loucks, 1979), was used to conduct the second round of interviews at
the three individual school sites. Hall, George, & Rutherford (1977) define concern as
"the composite representation of the feelings, preoccupation, thought, and consideration
given to a particular issue or task" (as cited in Hall & Hord, 2001, p. 61). The CBAM
(Hall & Loucks, 1979) describes the seven levels of concern that teachers experience as
they adopt a new practice (NCREL, 2010): At Stage 0, awareness, teachers have little
concern or involvement with the innovation. At the informational stage (Stage 1),
teachers may express some general interest in the innovation and would like to know

46
more about it. Stage 2 teachers, at the personal stage, want to learn about the personal
ramifications of the innovation. In other words, they want to know exactly how the
innovation will affect them. Stage 3 teachers are at the Management stage, where they
engage in learning the processes and tasks required of the innovation. They focus on
information and resources. At stage 4, the Consequence stage, teachers focus on how the
innovation will impact students and their learning. Collaboration (Stage 5) has teachers
working in collaboration with others to implement the innovation. Teachers at the
highest stage of concern, refocusing (Stage 6) find the benefits of the innovation and
work to develop modified strategies that are even more effective than the innovation
being implemented.
We utilized this protocol in the second round of interviews to quickly gauge more
stakeholders with respect to the implementation of FoR at their school site. Staff
members at large were interviewed for ten to twenty minutes. They were encouraged to:
1) speak of their overall experience with FoR as a reform initiative; 2) share their
perceptions of the strengths and challenges of the reform initiative; and 3) provide
suggestions and recommendations of how to improve the implementation process.
We utilized probes during both interview processes to: 1) further deepen the
perspectives of our interview participants; 2) clarify participant responses when the
comments did not seem clear; and 3) redirect participants when the question(s) asked
were not addressed in their commentary. The interview protocols served as the inquiry
team’s checklists to ensure we covered all topics of interest.

47
All three consultants on the inquiry team were present to facilitate the interviews
with the district-level role group members and the FoR consultant. Interviews of school
site personnel were distributed among the three consultants on our inquiry team – one for
each school level we reviewed: elementary, middle, and high school. Each consultant
was responsible for interviewing the principal and the administrative team, members of
the Instructional Leadership Team (ILT), teachers not affiliated with the ILT, and other
support personnel (both certificated and classified).
We prepared for the interviews by reading the websites of both the district and the
school sites under our review; reviewing public documents on standardized testing data
(DataQuest, California Department of Education (CDE)) and the School Accountability
Report Cards over the period of reform implementation (2004-present); and reading the
Focus on Results framework, The Power of Focus (Palumbo & Leight, 2007).
An interview agenda and the interview protocol were provided to all participants
prior to the interview day in order to facilitate the meeting, giving the participant ample
time to prepare his/her thoughts about the topics the inquiry team wanted to discuss. The
agenda was also provided to inform participants of the purpose for the interview. In
addition, we provided a written group introduction in the effort to explain the purpose of
our project and the purpose of the interview at hand.
We provided the interview participant with an opening statement that set the tone
of mutual respect, collegiality, and gratefulness. We asked prior to each meeting for
permission to digitally record the interview. It provided a real-time, authentic audio
record of the meeting that may be lost if taking notes was the only method of transcribing

48
the interview. These digital recordings were later transcribed for analysis and became the
basis of the coding that took place to disaggregate the data and determine patterns of note
for further investigation.
Data gathered from the interviews were amassed and then disaggregated through
content analysis that involves “identifying, coding, categorizing, classifying, and labeling
the primary patterns in the data” (Patton, 2002, p. 463).
We developed a coding system to process the data gathered from the two rounds
of interviews. Coding is “a manageable classification scheme” (p. 463) that allows for
the analysis of the content of interviews and observations to determine what is significant
(Patton, 2002). This disaggregation strategy was based on the “closed” and “open”
coding techniques as described by Strauss & Corbin (1998). The “closed” coding
technique integrated the Clark & Estes (2002) dimensions of the gap analysis into the
disaggregation of data: knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational culture are
considered “closed” codes. The “open” coding technique (Strauss & Corbin, 1998)
further deepened our data analysis for it allowed for the development of new codes to be
created in order to categorize, classify, and identify commonalities in the data. Examples
of “open” codes include misperception of knowledge/skill, resources, goal structure, and
commitment to reform. These codes worked to allow patterns in the data to be more
easily identified. A combination of the themes from the literature review on school
districts and educational reform, the gap analysis process model, and reflection on the
interviews served as the basis for the inquiry team to identify the major issues in the
reform implementation strategies employed by the three GUSD sites we examined.

49
Limitations to Data Collection
Although we conducted two full rounds of interviews with critical role groups
throughout the district (See Appendix A), we decided to end data collection after
disaggregating the interview data through coding and comparing the information we
obtained through our analysis.
We had an extremely short period of time in which to gather the data needed for
our inquiry analysis. We were given access to a very limited number of school sites and
worked in earnest to access the different school sites on multiple occasions to speak with
different personnel. However, we were only able to investigate the implementation
processes of three school sites, one at each level of instruction: primary, middle, and
secondary. This is a very small sample of the thirty-one schools in GUSD. We know
that the results of our inquiry project are representative of a great majority of schools
throughout the district—they were recommended to our team by various members of
district leadership—but also know they cannot necessarily be generalized as being the
case at every site in GUSD.
We were unable to elicit the participation of all critical GUSD role groups in our
inquiry process. We made several unsuccessful requests to speak with the leadership of
the Glendale Teachers Association (GTA). We struggled to speak with a greater number
of certificated personnel at the high school level. We also did not interview parents nor
students; reform implementation primarily involves the Local Educational Agency (LEA)
and the individual school sites. Students and parents, though they are fundamentally
critical stakeholders in the school community, had a minimal role in the formulation,

50
development, and implementation of the reform effort as they are really the recipients of
the reform process. We have included, though, questions that probe how students and
parents are kept abreast of the reform implementation at school sites.
As an inquiry team, we were able to identify common themes amongst the issues
that arose in the implementation of FoR throughout GUSD. These common themes were
substantial and were linked to one or more of the three main dimensions that are the root
causes of performance gaps in the Clark & Estes (2002) gap analysis process model:
motivation, knowledge/skill, and organizational culture. These themes were cited
extensively in social sciences and education literature. We felt that the information we
obtained was sufficient to systematically analyze through the gap analysis model and
provide a solid foundation for the recommendations we suggest to the district to enhance
the reform implementation process throughout GUSD.
Human Subjects Considerations
The purpose of this alternative capstone project was to provide assistance to a
specific school district on issues of practice identified by the district administration. The
intent of the project was not to produce generalizable knowledge, as in a traditional
dissertation, but rather to document activities carried out in the process of providing
consultation to the district on these issues. Therefore, this project is not considered as
research and therefore does not fall under the guidelines for research designed to produce
generalizable knowledge. The following sections from a University Institutional Review
Board (IRB) publication clarify the status of the present project:
“Federal Regulations define research as “a systematic investigation, including
development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to

51
generalizable knowledge
1
” (45CFR46.102(d)). As described in the Belmont
Report
2
“...the term 'research' designates an activity designed to test a hypothesis
[and] permit conclusions to be drawn... Research is usually described in a formal
protocol that sets forth an objective and a set of procedures to reach that
objective.”

“Research” generally does not include operational activities such as defined
practice activities in public health, medicine, psychology, and social work (e.g.,
routine outbreak investigations and disease monitoring) and studies for internal
management purposes such as program evaluation, quality assurance, quality
improvement, fiscal or program audits, marketing studies or contracted-for
services. It generally does not include journalism or political polls. However,
some of these activities may include or constitute research in circumstances where
there is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable knowledge. (Office for the
Protection of Research Subjects, p. 2)

Further clarification is provided in the following section:
Quality improvement projects are generally not considered research unless there
is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable knowledge and use the data derived
from the project to improve or alter the quality of care or the efficiency of an
institutional practice (Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, p. 4).

Alternative Capstone Inquiry – Team Structure
This alternative capstone project differs from the traditional dissertation process
in both the inquiry process and presentation of findings. A traditional thematic
dissertation process has students working collaboratively to prepare the literature review
and methodology for their subsequent individual studies. In our case, a team of three
individuals collaborated throughout the entire inquiry process. The team assembled to
tackle the inquiry topic of districtwide FoR reform implementation was best qualified to

1
"Generalizable knowledge" is information where the intended use of the research findings can be applied to
populations or situations beyond that studied.
2
The Belmont Report is a statement of ethical principles (including beneficence, justice, and autonomy) for human
subjects research by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

52
address this work. Two of the three members are district administrators with long-
standing careers in education: one is an assistant superintendent of schools with
extensive experience in the classroom, site administration, and district level directorship
of curriculum & instruction; the other is director of pupil services and student welfare
with a long-standing private practice as a therapist. The third member is a classroom
teacher with leadership experience in accreditation as well as school reform and the
restructuring process at her school site. As a team, we developed our data inquiry tools,
interacted with the district, collected data, identified the performance gaps and their root
causes, developed research-based solutions, and defended our dissertations together with
a common presentation.
The following sections of the dissertation, as a result, are common across the
three inquiry team members: Section 2B, the Methodology; Section 2C, the Inquiry
Findings; Section 3A, the Literature Review of Solutions; and Section 3B, the Expanded
Solutions Summary. Our collaboration is noted in the heading of these sections. Each
individual completed Chapter 1 and Chapter 2A, the Literature Review, on her own.
Inquiry Project
Project Overview
A chronology of the inquiry process is presented in Appendix B. The project
progression subsequently provides a more detailed account of the process for each
semester over the last 15 months.

53
Project Progression
Fall 2009.
As an introduction to the school district, the District Superintendent, his cabinet of
Assistant Superintendents, and the Public Relations officer provided a general overview
in a presentation to the entire thematic dissertation team. This meeting took place early
in early October 2009. A general overview of the state of the district, the demographics,
the current state of their district, and their noted achievements were presented. The API
score profiles (over a 6-8 year span) were shared for schools that demonstrated dramatic
gains in relatively short periods of time. API scores in this district range from 702 to
936. GUSD had only one school in Program Improvement (PI). That particular school
was unable to meet its proficiency targets in English Language Arts (ELA) for
Hispanic/Latino and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students and in Mathematics for
Hispanic/Latino and Special Education students (CDE, 2010). Although GUSD is a
high-performing district with considerable achievements, the district acknowledged in
this presentation that it needed to better support the needs of struggling students and
ensure greater success for all its subgroups across the district.
Focus on Results (FoR), their districtwide reform initiative, was presented by the
Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services as a professional development
framework implemented to improve student achievement. Now starting its sixth year of
implementation, FoR was developed to act as a concerted, cohesive movement to
dramatically improve student achievement—through an intense focus on instructional
practices—of the district’s statistically significant subgroups (Hispanic/Latino, English

54
Learners, Socioeconomically Disadvantaged, Special Education) that were not showing
dramatic gains at the same rates like their counterparts throughout the district.
Further discussion between the district Superintendent with our dissertation
advisors narrowed the inquiry topics to the three considered most urgent in the district:
districtwide Focus on Results implementation, closing the achievement gap for
Hispanic/Latino English Language learners, and increasing the number of eligible
students to attend four-year colleges and universities. The selection of topics and
assignment of dissertation inquiry groups were facilitated by the advisors and announced
in mid-December 2009. We were assigned districtwide reform implementation as our
inquiry topic.
The rest of the Fall 2009 semester was spent getting to know the district in terms
of its prioritized needs and preparing for the inquiry proposals for university defense on
February 25, 2010.
Spring 2010.
A group meeting held in January 2010 was used to develop a common interview
guide in preparation for the data collection to occur at the district/school sites this coming
spring.
The next contact with the district was made on February 18, 2010. The team met
with the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services. The purpose was to: 1)
establish norms for a working relationship between the inquiry team and the district
representatives; 2) determine what the organizational goals are for the district, meaning
what they perceive their expected outcomes to be as a result of the FoR implementation;

55
3) understand the district benchmarks/measures for results; 4) determine the district’s
expectations of the inquiry team; 5) identify nine key stakeholders in the district (site and
district level) that could provide better insight into the implementation of FoR in the
district; and 6) how to make initial contact with these key stakeholders.
Inquiry Proposal & Qualifying Exam
The oral defense for the qualifying exam proposal took place on Thursday,
February 25, 2010. The defense committee was composed of both dissertation advisors
and the representative from the other school district being examined by the thematic
dissertation group. The oral defense consisted of a 10-minute PowerPoint presentation
by the entire group as one unit followed by 30-40 minutes of discussion between the
proposal team and the reviewing committee. Suggestions were made to the proposal
team in preparation for the research that followed as a result of the proposal being
accepted by the committee.
Development of Inquiry Tools
The next thematic dissertation group meetings immediately following the
qualification exam were used to prepare for the data collection phase of the project. This
included the development of the Scanning Interview guide & interview norms, the Stages
of Concern (SoC) interview guide, and the Innovation Configuration.
Summer 2010.
Identification and explanation of the roots that cause these performance gaps
occurred during the summer. We prepared the comprehensive analysis of the roots
causes of performance gaps using the Clark & Estes (2002) gap analysis process model to

56
frame our work. We developed recommendations as solutions to help mitigate and close
the performance gaps uncovered by our inquiry. These solutions were the primary focus
of the products we produced this summer. This included the Executive Summary (see
Appendix F) presented in early Fall 2010 to GUSD leadership cabinet members. This
fifteen-page document provided an overview of the entire inquiry process as well as the
initial findings from the inquiry analysis.
Fall 2010.
We visited with representatives of district leadership three times in the fall of
2010. After meeting with our dissertation advisor, it was decided that the entire district
leadership team would meet with the USC inquiry teams to discuss the executive
summaries of our inquiry projects. The district leadership team was provided with
executive summaries of the identified performance gaps and their root causes for each of
the three inquiry topics examined by the GUSD inquiry teams. Representatives from all
three USC inquiry groups met with the newly-appointed Superintendent of Schools and
his Leadership Cabinet on September 13, 2010.
It was beneficial to have this meeting with the district because it provided the
GUSD leadership cabinet the opportunity to be refreshed with the entire inquiry project.
It also provided the inquiry team members the opportunity to listen to the
Superintendent’s Leadership Cabinet regarding their primary concerns with each team’s
findings. This afforded each inquiry team the opportunity to clarify viewpoints and
terminology—much of which was explained in the full executive summaries completed
by the inquiry teams.

57
Feedback from that September 2010 meeting with the GUSD Leadership Cabinet
helped the inquiry groups to develop their recommendations for presentation on
November 1, 2010. The district Leadership Cabinet asked if the inquiry teams could
present their findings in a manner that sounded less like a research study. An inquiry to
use the project documents for an unintended purpose was also discussed. The political
ramifications of our work and its interpretation by different role groups throughout
GUSD were of major concern by the Superintendent and much of his cabinet.
The inquiry team reflected on the September 13
th
requests and constructed the
presentation for November 1
st
with greater clarity. We prepared for the presentation with
the understanding that it would be unlikely that our audience would read the extended
solutions chapter with the accompanying literature review. It was determined that all
three inquiry teams would report their findings and recommendations in a combined
PowerPoint presentation (See Appendix H). We wanted to provide the district
Leadership Cabinet a cohesive and comprehensive view of the findings from each inquiry
team. Each team submitted their contributions for the PowerPoint presentation with this
context in mind.
We adhered to some commonalities and fundamentals that is characteristic of all
the work we developed together for this PowerPoint. We removed references to the
dissertation process to give more credibility to our work as consultants helping in a real-
world action research inquiry. We framed our partnership with the district as a result of
their invitation to consider the fidelity of their implementation process. We emphasized
that our intent was to be a viable resource of helpful information, while also learning for

58
our doctoral studies. As a result of careful preparation and reviewing on our intentions,
the tone of the team presentation was less like a formal report of research findings and
more like a professional dialogue among role groups, to exchange ideas, and "plant the
seeds" for change. The PowerPoint presentation clearly revealed how deeply each
inquiry team understood the status of the district in each inquiry investigation.
Two weeks prior to the November 1
st
presentation, the district reform
implementation inquiry team met with the Assistant Superintendent of Educational
Services and the Deputy Superintendent of Schools. We presented our slides to solicit
feedback regarding the clarity of our content and our delivery method. We also used this
opportunity to gauge the receptivity of our messages. We believe this additional meeting
contributed to the positive outcomes of our November 1
st
inquiry group presentation.
This process of presenting the underlying root causes for the performance gaps as well as
the proposed solutions represents step 5C of the gap analysis process (Clark & Estes,
2002).
The third interaction with the district was on November 1, 2010 – the final inquiry
group PowerPoint presentation. We were on the agenda of a special Leadership Cabinet
meeting. The Superintendent and his Leadership Cabinet were in full attendance. To
facilitate the presentation, one member from each inquiry team was selected to present
for their group. In his one-minute opening remark, the Superintendent thanked our
inquiry team for the work we did and framed the context for our presence in the district
as a partnership with GUSD. Our district liaison provided a 5-minute introduction to the
inquiry process and the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2002) used to conduct

59
our inquiry analysis. Each team gave a 15-minute presentation. This was followed by
10-15 minutes of dialogue between the district administrators and the inquiry team about
questions/concerns and next steps.
The PowerPoint was constructed with numerous visual representations to best
convey the inquiry findings and group recommendations. The Leadership Cabinet
members validated the clarity of our outcomes and informed the inquiry teams they
would carefully consider many of the ideas that were presented on November 1, 2010.
Issues: Confidentiality & Perceived Intent of Inquiry
It is important to note a request from members of the district Leadership Cabinet
that would have compromised the integrity of our agreements with interview participants
as well as future opportunities for the school staff to participate with USC dissertation
teams. At the conclusion of the inquiry team presentation, members of the leadership
cabinet requested for the three inquiry teams to present the findings to the relevant
schools where we conducted our data collection last spring. They also requested the
names of the school sites where we conducted our inquiry projects.
A concern was raised by someone on our inquiry team that the work we shared
during the presentation could be used by district administrators for more than just
“helping the district” better examine itself to understand issues that are affecting them in
their district at the current time. It had the potential to be used as a point of political
leverage against other district role groups. Many times during the inquiry presentation
we found the administrators expressing the need for our findings to be presented to other
groups in the district to explain that was what they as the district leadership “have been

60
saying all along they need to do.” Our purpose was not to reinforce district philosophies
and mandates. We were there to help the district leadership better understand the
dynamics of each of the three issues they brought to our attention as their areas of
concern.
Upon further debriefing, members of all three inquiry teams wholeheartedly
agreed that we must collectively protect the integrity of the inquiry process and our
commitment to school staffs.
Additional Presentation: District Focus on Results (FoR) Writing Team
The Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services invited our inquiry team to
present our PowerPoint presentation to their district FoR writing team, the group
responsible for writing the curriculum that drives Focus on Results implementation at
sites throughout the district. We presented our work on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 to
this team as well as the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services, the Deputy
Superintendent of Schools, and the external consultant from Focus on Results.
Many of the members of the writing team—composed of teachers, assistant
principals, principals, teacher specialists, and district-level coordinators—stated that our
messages resonated with what they found in their own work. They seemed to accept the
ideas presented in the PowerPoint presentation well and did not question the suggestions
we offered them. They wanted more details, however, regarding the methodology of our
inquiry process, especially data collection—the sites we visited, the members we
interviewed, the job positions of those we interviewed, the length of time these schools
had executed their implementation plans, and the level of involvement those interviewed

61
had with the ILT process at their sites. They also sought our advice on how we could
direct them as a writing team to help engage more people to participate in the reform
process.
Spring 2011.
The nine members of the project defended their inquiry work before the
dissertation committee on January 22, 2011. The defense design included a five-minute
introduction; a 10-minute private consultation by the committee; a 25-minute common
oral presentation of the grounding ideas, purpose, methodology, findings and how the
district was helped by the inquiry team; a 45-60 minute question-and-answer discussion
session led by each committee member; and three individual 10-15 minute feedback
sessions to each member of the inquiry team. Finally, a reflection on the alternative
capstone process, the use of the gap analysis process model (Clark & Estes, 2002) as a
framework for investigating the problems experienced at the school district and its
individual sites, and suggestions for next steps time was presented.

We now turn to Chapter 2C and present 1) the inquiry findings and 2) our subsequent
analysis of the roots that cause the performance gaps we presented in our findings. We
utilize the three dimensions of the gap analysis process model (Clark & Estes, 2002) as
the structure of the presentation of our findings: motivation, organizational culture, and
knowledge/skill.

62
ANALYSIS OF ROOT CAUSES OF THE PERFORMANCE GAPS

Authors: Rosemary Santos Aguilar, Debra L. Hill, & Regina D. Zurbano

Introduction
We present the findings to our inquiry and the subsequent analysis of the root
causes that result in the performance gaps we identified. These findings are the evidence
about the roots of the problem as explained by the gap analysis process model (Clark &
Estes, 2002). The three dimensions of the gap analysis—motivation, organizational
culture, and knowledge/skill—provide the structure to this section.
Background
Educators in school districts across the state of California—and the United States
in general—continue to struggle with the great educational dilemma as it encounters
challenges faced in this modern age of information and technology. Educators are also at
the mercy of political agendas that are in a constant state of flux. The latest political
agenda, Race To The Top (RTTT), under President Obama’s administration, imposes
even greater expectations as states compete for the coveted educational funding needed to
achieve its academic goals for every student. While much debate takes place over the
competitive process to receive these fiscal resources, most agree that students are entitled
to an equitable and rigorous education no matter their ethnic, social, or economic
background. The Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) initiated a reform process
that seemingly anticipated this rigorous shift in expectations when it adopted the Focus
on Results (FoR) reform initiative five years ago.

63
Focus on Results (FoR) is a research-based model that is comprehensive, data-
driven, and focused on instruction. This model encompasses the key elements that are
commonly described in various change models, such as developing a sense of urgency,
creating a guiding team with a powerful vision, increasing leadership capacity, removing
obstacles, resolving conflicts with effective communication, and persisting through the
difficult challenges (Fullan, 2001; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2009; Harvey, 1995; Kotter,
1996). The implementation of this framework is embedded in local context and culture.
It is only effective when accompanied by a shift from a traditional central office to a
central services organization. With increased capacity among all staff, this model is
designed to improve student achievement and ultimately close the achievement gap.
Specifically, the FoR key strategies for professional development are: to build
expertise, change practice, monitor student performance, and to communicate relentlessly
(Palumbo and Leight, 2007). FoR has three distinct phases: 1) identifying a schoolwide
instructional focus based on an assessment of students' needs; 2) implementing a
schoolwide instructional focus that meets students' needs; and 3) living a unity of purpose
through a clear instructional focus that drives all decisions (Palumbo & Leight, 2007).
The Gap Analysis
The gap analysis process model is a systematic, problem-solving approach
specifically designed to examine the gaps in an organization’s performance to help
improve and achieve their desired goals (Clark & Estes, 2002). The gap analysis focuses
on identifying, analyzing, and solving a specific problem in a specific context. This is the
nature of action research, where larger organizations and institutions undertake this type

64
of investigation, guided by professional researchers, with the aim of improving the
overall strategies, practices, and knowledge of the organization (as community) within
which they practice (Center for Collaborative Research, 2010). Clark & Estes (2002)
outline the six major steps that comprise the gap analysis process model (p. 22):
1. Identify clear organizational goals that define the vision for the organization;
2. Identify individual performance goals that are concrete, challenging, and
current (C
3
);
3. Determine performance gaps by quantifying gaps between desire goals;
4. Determine root causes by analyzing the gaps in knowledge/skill, motivation,
and/or organizational barriers;
5. Identify research-based solutions and implement to affect the root causes; and
6. Evaluate results of implementation and fine-tune goals.
Overall, GUSD successfully implemented the components of the FoR reform
initiative at the district level and established a good foundation for continued work
toward embedded sustainability. This chapter identifies a limited view of the district’s
accomplishments in the implementation process as well as some suggestions that will
strengthen the commitment to long-term cultural change.
GUSD’s efforts are commendable as we consider the five most common barriers
that typically impede a district’s success in implementing strategic initiatives. These
include: executing the strategy consistently across schools with different characteristics,
creating a coherent organizational design in support of the strategy, developing and
managing human capital, allocating resources in alignment with the strategy, and using
performance data to guide decisions (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006).
Using the gap analysis process model (Clark & Estes, 2002) to determine the
performance gaps and, consequently, the root causes that led to these gaps, we found
many of the issues we uncovered are rooted in issues of motivation. Though we present

65
our rationale for identifying issues rooted in both knowledge & skill and organizational
barriers, the majority of the issues that we feel have adversely affected the potential
success of FoR reform implementation are rooted in motivation. We devote much of our
discussion to this component.
Analysis of Gaps in Motivation
The Clark & Estes (2002) gap analysis process model was employed to assess the
motivational factors in the implementation of the Focus on Results reform initiative in
Glendale Unified School District (GUSD). According to this model the analysis of
motivation involves three processes or indexes (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Clark & Estes,
2002, 2006; Song & Keller, 2001), which include active choice (starting the task), mental
effort (the degree to which one applies focus and energy), and persistence (continuing in
spite of distractions and competing goals). When cultivating motivation, the individual’s
belief in the goal and process is essential to initiate movement toward implementation.
An individual may have the knowledge and skills to achieve a goal, but unless he or she
is motivated to initiate the process toward achieving the goal, the endeavor will be futile.
Since motivation is the response or product of interactions between people and their work
environment (Clark & Estes, 2002), nurturing safe, supportive and respectful
relationships is an essential global goal. Identifying motivational causes of gaps is
complex because it must be assessed if the individual or team chooses to work towards
the goal, will persist at it until it is achieved, and the amount of mental effort they are
willing to invest to accomplish the goal (Clark & Estes, 2002).

66
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is an important construct in motivation and is defined as a person's
belief about their ability to organize and execute courses of actions necessary to achieve a
goal (Bandura, 1997). Beliefs about self-efficacy have a significant impact on one's goals
and accomplishments by influencing personal choice, motivation, patterns of behavior,
and emotional reactions. For example, people tend to avoid threatening situations that
they believe exceed their coping skills.
Perceived self-efficacy also affects how successfully goals are accomplished by
influencing the level of effort and persistence a person will demonstrate in the face of
obstacles. That is, the stronger the perceived self-efficacy, the more active one's efforts.
Higher self-efficacy is also associated with more persistence, a trait that allows us to gain
corrective experiences that reinforce our sense of self-efficacy. Therefore, an
individual’s belief in the value of the task, his or her personal and group efficacy to
accomplish the goal, and the probability of success or effectiveness are factors that
influence one’s active choice to engage, to persist and apply mental effort toward that
end. When these three constructs are closely aligned, an individual or group is
“motivated” to work toward achieving the goals (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Active Choice
Active choice is essential to motivation as this is the behavioral evidence that one
has replaced his or her intention to pursue a goal with action. However, a moderator of
active choice may be influenced by whether one’s participation is voluntary or
involuntary. If the individual or group was excluded from the goal-setting and decision-

67
making processes, they may demonstrate resistant behaviors, such as procrastination,
avoidance and argumentativeness. One elementary school teacher stated: “The same
teachers that resist FoR were against NCLB accountability. These teachers always rebel
against ‘The Machine’.” If, however, individuals actively work towards the goals even if
they did not select them, they are considered to have chosen that goal (Clark & Estes,
2002). Even though the district selected the FoR reform initiative, school sites had the
choice of how the implementation would develop at their individual sites. These chosen
activities include the setting of their instructional focuses, the development of their ILTs,
and the use of student performance data to influence their decision making processes.
The motivation of staff in implementing the Focus on Results (FoR) reform
initiative varied throughout the five-year process. Initially, the goals and expectations
were unclear and defined differently by the different district role groups. While
principals were initially given the choice to participate, they did not understand the
degree to which their commitment would necessitate substantial changes to the entire
school program. Some principals expressed their belief that FoR was a “leadership
capacity building model for principals” that would give them a “vehicle to drive the
school forward”. Subsequently, the unexpected impact on teacher behavior created
internal conflict among school site administrators and staff. As the process unfolded and
expectations were increasingly defined, principals and district administrators gradually
realized the intent of the work was clearly focused on classroom instruction and change
of practice in order to increase student achievement. Consequently, the site-level
teachers believed they did not have a choice or a substantial voice in the decision-making

68
process, as they felt they were not engaged in collaborative conversations prior to making
the commitment. Some teachers felt the reform was imposed on them: “We were
already using data and doing the strategies recommended by FoR;” “We didn’t
appreciate being told to implement this initiative, especially when we found out how
much this was going to cost the district!”
The structure and process of staff work was required to change in order to
implement the seven components of Focus on Results. While most teachers appeared
committed to the process, it is more often based on external locus of control rather than
intrinsic motivation. This was more evident among tenured teachers who believed it was
“just another program,” “We have no choice,” “They don't understand our kids
(limitations),” or “This is just another way of doing what we are already doing
(overconfidence); how long will this last?” Initially, some teachers expressed great
resistance demonstrated by procrastination, avoidance, arguments and unwillingness to
participate, as they perceived the “choice” to be a “top-down directive.”
In the third year of implementation, when the district administration modified the
teacher evaluation format to incorporate student achievement outcomes, an even greater
adversarial reaction among staff created and “us” versus “them” climate. Teacher
commitment has varied from year to year even though they agree that test scores have
increased across the district, though some believe they would have improved anyway.
The interview process repeatedly revealed residual effects of “having no choice” and
resenting the “dog-and-pony shows” (performance versus mastery) associated with the
classroom instructional walkthroughs by district and site staff.

69
Persistence
Persistence is the ability to maintain action regardless of personal feelings; a person
presses on even when he/she feels like quitting. It is a form of self-discipline that is
required when a person has many competing goals that demand time and attention.
Persistence is an element of motivation that allows a person to keep taking action, to
overcome distractions, and to focus on the process of working to achieve the goal-
oriented results. Thus, when assessing for performance gaps, a lack of persistence due to
too many goals, lack of ownership, lack of focused attention, and lack of interest or task
value (among many other reasons) may be contributing factors in insufficient motivation
(Clark & Estes, 2002). A number of the interviewed teachers with many years of service
in the district, for example, expressed the historical pattern of changing initiatives often
and therefore they assumed this initiative, too, would soon pass – “we just have to wait it
out.”
Several motivation theories focus on the reasons individuals or groups persist and
remain engaged toward achieving goals. Intrinsic motivation theories espouse when
individuals are intrinsically motivated, they engage in an activity or task because they are
interested in, value, and enjoy the task (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Deci & Ryan (1985)
proposed self-determination theory in which they integrated two perspectives on human
motivation: 1) Humans are motivated to maintain optimal level of stimulation and 2)
Humans have basic needs for competence and personal causation or self-determination.
They argue that intrinsic motivation is maintained only when participants feel competent
and self-determined. Evidence that intrinsic motivation is reduced by exerting external

70
control and by giving negative competence feedback supports this hypothesis (Deci &
Ryan, 1985; Deci, Kroestner, & Ryan, 1999).
Prior to the implementation of FoR, school staffs were accustomed to making the
decisions about their own projects, programs, curricula, and efforts. These school sites
worked independently of each other; teachers exercised a great deal of autonomy in their
decision-making. The first fundamental component in the FoR implementation was for
each school staff to define their instructional focus as a collective. Many of the staffs
reported this process to be overwhelming and/or frustrating. Initially, teachers seemed to
resent losing “control” of deciding what curriculum or strategies they would use in their
classrooms. For example, one teacher stated, “The district has imposed another
program. They chose FoR and got the results they wanted.” This was also voiced by
other teachers as “it cannot be one size fits all” and “we know our community and our
students & how to teach them best.” However, as ILTs began to redefine their primary
instructional focus (such as literacy, writing, or comprehension), a new energy emerged
as teachers felt relieved to be less fragmented. Many teachers felt that “everyone shares
the same targeted focus on instruction; we have increased collaboration”. Staff was also
expected to work collaboratively and use student data to focus their discussions.
By the fourth year of implementation, these common goals, purposes, and
practices began unifying many teachers’ efforts. Some teachers who were interviewed
believed the rebellion they expressed toward the district administration in Year Three of
the implementation process resulted in fewer top-down directives from “the district” to
more site-based decisions. A sixth-grade teacher expressed that FoR was “the best thing

71
that ever happened–it provided direction and focused us on our response to student
needs.” Seemingly, this change created more ownership as the value of the site
Instructional Leadership Teams (ILT) increased and evidence of increased intrinsic
motivation emerged. An ILT member at the high school level stated, “The ILT is the
decision-making body that takes into account what teachers need to understand about
strengthening our instructional practices.”
The inquiry team observed varying degrees of persistence between the elementary
and secondary schools; between the schools with an API score above 800 and those
below 800; and between ILT members and non-ILT members. The nature of how staff
works at the elementary level is more collaborative than at the secondary level where
teachers are more isolated by their content area. Additionally, the district is comprised of
mostly elementary schools—this created a larger focus on strategies relevant to their
communities. Consequently, it seemed that some elementary teams more easily defined
their schoolwide focus, hosted more frequent meetings, worked collaboratively and
communicated across grade levels more consistently as the elementary ILTs were
comprised of grade-level representatives. However, the secondary schools consisted of
larger teaching staff and experienced greater challenges in bringing staff out of isolation
into schoolwide collaboration. This need was addressed by dividing the district into
elementary and secondary cohorts, at the suggestion of the FoR consultant, in order to
give the secondary groups more individualized expertise and support.
A difference in persistence also existed between staff that were part of the district-
level ILT and the site-based ILT. One teacher stated: “it would be helpful if we rotated

72
the teachers on the district and site level teams because teachers need to understand the
purpose and be more involved in the process of FoR.” A probationary teacher shared
how his membership on the ILT helped him understand the process: “I joined this school
two years ago and didn’t have a clue as to what FoR was all about. My second year, I
joined the ILT and the district team. I finally understood why we are doing what we are
doing with FoR.”
Some teachers expressed feelings of exclusion because the district-level teams did
not rotate staff. Others expressed appreciation for the support of the ILTs. In some
cases, it was noted that teachers who participated on the ILTs focused on mastery
orientation while those who chose not to participate seemed more aligned with
performance orientation by quickly preparing and scripting their students for the
“classroom walkthrough shows.” Some teachers shared that the walkthroughs felt like a
“dog-and-pony show because we coach the kids to perform for the visits.”
Another factor that seemed to influence persistence was the schools’ Academic
Performance Index (API) scores. Many staff believed they were “good enough” as they
had achieved scores above the desired score of 800 even though all students were not
proficient. Initially, all staff equated a high API with closing the achievement gap and
did not see the value in a process that “cost so much” and “required so much time.”
Mental Effort
The third dimension of motivated performance is mental effort, which is closely
related to persistence. People are natural cognitive misers—we are forever trying to
conserve cognitive energy (Aronson, 2008; Fiske & Taylor, 1991). In other words, all

73
other things being equal, individuals are motivated to use relatively effortless and simple
mental shortcuts that provide rapid but often inaccurate solutions rather than engaging in
complex mental processing that provides delayed but often more accurate solutions. If a
goal or process is routine and individuals can draw on past experiences to reach the goal,
it may not require much mental effort; however, novel or unanticipated challenges
require a great deal of mental effort to succeed (Aronson, 2008).
Additionally, mental effort is largely determined by a person’s confidence. People
who lack confidence or have misjudged their abilities and are overconfident do not invest
much mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2002). People who are challenged by the task or
process but are neither underconfident or overconfident seem to invest the most mental
effort (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Evidence to support claims of both overconfidence and underconfidence in the
implementation of the FoR Initiative was found in our inquiry. The district leadership
seemed convinced that all improvement in student achievement was directly the result of
implementing FoR. Clark & Estes (2002) describes an overconfident person as a person
who “thinks that he knows what he is doing and that the task is a no-brainer, so he does
not have to work hard to accomplish the goal” (p. 81). Some teachers of high-performing
schools saw little value in the process; they believed they had achieved success as
evidenced by their test scores and academic performance index. Teachers espoused, “We
already do this good work,” or “This is just another label,” or ‘It's business as usual.”
People who are overconfident may make mistakes and take no responsibility for them.
While some members at both the elementary and secondary level embraced the purpose

74
and process of FoR reform, many tenured teachers felt it was more meaningful and
helpful to the probationary teachers in the education field.
Underconfidence also influences mental effort, persistence, and choice concerns. If
people do not believe their efforts will result in growth and success, they may not engage
or persist as a form of self-preservation. The interviews of teachers at the elementary,
middle, and high school levels expressed feelings of professional and personal threat
relative to their students’ scores.
In the early phases of the implementation process, teachers perceived the district's
intent to be a “gotcha” strategy. Though they were reassured otherwise, teachers
believed they were being “judged, evaluated, and negatively criticized” during the
instructional walkthroughs. These feelings translated into perceptions of “dishonesty,
hypocrisy, and unfairness” (p. 87) described by Clark & Estes (2002) as inhibitors of
motivation toward goals and trusting relationships. Trust is a major factor in work
motivation: it is difficult to gain and easy to lose. These perceptions, not reality,
influenced the personal motivation of many staff members we interviewed.
The collaborative process exposed their class achievement data to fellow staff
members as well as the administration. This fear and anxiety escalated when the
protocols for teacher evaluation were changed to include data on student outcomes. This
heightened the perception of an “us-them” culture.
Clark & Estes (2002) speak of “I” and “We” cultures. In an “I” culture people
work hard individually and independently when they personally accept the value of the
work goal. “I” cultures value initiative and autonomy. Some thrive in this type of

75
environment. However, in the “we” culture, the work is accomplished collectively and
cooperatively as a team. For some, this type of environment is a catalyst for increased
motivation and mental effort. The successful implementation of the FoR initiative
required staff to shift from an “I” approach to a “we” approach. These conflicting
cultural styles undermined the fluid progress at various schools, especially the secondary
level. While teachers acknowledged academic growth during the five-year
implementation process, tones of self-protection consistently emerged as they referred to
the leadership as “The District People” who got what “they” wanted.
Other factors that sabotaged motivation included unclear goals and feedback during
the classroom instructional walkthroughs. Numerous teachers reported they were
informed well in advance of the upcoming visit as well as the FoR components they
would be observing; however, staff reported not receiving sufficient or helpful feedback
from the team. Teachers expressed a need for explicit information about their
“performance” and specific suggestions for improvement as well as accolades. Clark &
Estes (2002) indicated that “vague and constantly changing performance goals and
feedback” (p. 87) compromise confidence and motivation to maintain effort.
The attribution theory (Weiner, 1980, 1992) integrates both cognitive theory and
self-efficacy theory in the sense that it emphasizes that an individual’s or group’s current
self-perceptions will strongly influence the ways in which they will interpret the success
or failure of their current efforts and hence their future tendency to perform these same
behaviors. An important assumption of attribution theory is that people will interpret
their environment in such a way as to maintain a positive self-image. That is, they will

76
attribute their successes or failures to factors that will enable them to feel as good as
possible about themselves. In general, this means that when individuals succeed at a task
or goal, they are likely to want to attribute this success to their own efforts or abilities;
but when they fail, they will want to attribute their failure to factors over which they have
no control, such as lack of family support or bad luck. The basic principle of attribution
theory as it applies to motivation is that a person’s own perceptions or attributions for
success or failure determine the amount of effort the person will continue to expend.
Throughout the five-year process of the district’s implementation of the FoR
reform initiative, motivation vacillated among all stakeholders. The first three years
demonstrated the greatest challenges in establishing the foundation for systemic change.
Since excellent human performance motivation is a complex phenomenon that grows
from passion, belief, expectation, and expertise, only time will reveal whether the
investment of human and fiscal resources will result in sustained change of practice that
ultimately may close the achievement gap.
Analysis of Organizational Barriers
Organizational Culture
Organizational Culture is the “most important ‘work process’ in all organizations
because it dictates how we work together to get the job done” (Clark & Estes, p. 107).
Work culture is our understanding of who we are, what we value, and how we work.
According to Clark & Estes (2002), improving an employee’s performance is the highest
leverage activity available to an organization (p. 9). The lack of well-organized and
useful organizational work processes and material resources can contribute to

77
organizational gaps. Unproductive work process and inadequate resources can prevent
the achievement of performance goals even when individuals have high motivation,
knowledge, and skill. For example, a fifth grade teacher expressed that “the district did
not provide additional resources for our demographics for us to be successful in FoR.”
The FoR initiative had a substantial impact on the GUSD organizational culture
for it changed who they were, what they valued, and how they worked as a collective. In
order to do this, district leadership was strategic in how they articulated the goal, changed
work processes, and provided the required tangible resources to implement FoR.
Establishing the Organizational Goals
Organizational leadership is crucial to goal attainment. Their ability to help
employees see the organizational goal as valuable and desirable is critical to the initial
implementation of FoR. According to Clark & Estes (2002), leaders must be perceived
as a legitimate, trusted authority with a convincing rationale for the goal. They must
inspire a vision that is aligned to the desired goals.
Interviews and district documents indicate that GUSD leadership clearly
articulated the organizational goals. The first goal was to increase the API and to meet
AYP targets, which the Board of Education supported. It was communicated throughout
the entire GUSD community. The intermediate-level goal was to implement the FoR
strategy. This would have been the process to attain the first goal. Principals were
informed of the goals and were encouraged to join the first cohort and initiate the
implementation of the FoR at their sites.

78
The organization goals—to increase the API and to meet AYP targets—were very
clear to the entire GUSD staff. Interviews with staff at all levels of the organization and
documents indicted that there was a significant focus on increasing the API. The goal to
implement FoR was also clear; however, the FoR model required a fundamental shift in
how people were expected to work in order to achieve the organizational goals.
Work Process and Procedures
District leadership and FoR consultants coordinated and provided initial
professional development for the Instructional Leadership Teams. The training was
extensive and comprehensive. Teachers and principals commented on the amount of
time they were away from their schools and classrooms. In addition, the FoR Consultants
developed a 5-year capacity building plan design to develop the capacity of the GUSD
leadership to sustain the FoR approach (See Appendix I). The strategy was designed to
decrease the involvement of the FoR consultants over time while increasing the capacity
of district staff to lead the work.
This capacity building strategy was initiated during the second year of FoR
implementation. This required GUSD staff to assist with the facilitation of the training
for the second cohort. By the third year, GUSD staff developed content, provided
training, and coordinated the Instructional Walk Teams (IWT). At the end of the fourth
year, three cohorts encompassing all the schools in the district were trained and charged
with leading the FoR effort with minimal assistance from the consultants (See Appendix
I).
The following procedures occurred in support of GUSD’s implementation of FoR:

79
1. School ILTs were encouraged to participate and motivated by the availability of
grant funds to pay for training and substitutes.
2. District level training was provided for ILTs with content and tools to present the
training back at the site.
3. The ILTs met regularly to discuss and address the schoolwide instructional focus.
Professional learning communities were encouraged at the sites to improve
teaching and learning.
4. Targeted professional development plans were created at each site that built on
enhancing staff expertise in selected best instructional practices.
5. Professional development for each school was designed to support the schoolwide
focus by building teacher expertise, ensuring change in practice, and promoting
high expectations for all students.
6. The realignment of resources (people, time, talent, energy, and money) in order to
support instructional focus was evident at all levels.
7. Internal accountability systems were evident through schoolwide SMART-e
goals. These SMART-e goals included state assessments as well as local internal
measures of student performance (e.g. benchmarks). The data is part of the
internal accountability system that is used as a lens for decision-making, both
schoolwide and in the classroom. Results are easily available, publicly posted,
and widely communicated.
8. The principal and instructional support staff members are expected to be
instructional leaders.

80
9. District leadership has realigned their work to support schools around the FoR
implementation by providing leadership, coaching, support, supervision, and
creative problem solving to ensure school demonstrate dramatic growth in student
achievement.
10. The District is building its internal capacity to lead the work by increasing,
designing, and delivering specific professional development related to the FoR
framework.
Resources
Having appropriate resources is vital to the success of any endeavor. At a time
when districts face historic fiscal challenges, GUSD was able to acquire a grant and
finance the FoR district reform. Reallocation of resources is one of the principles of FoR
and crucial to the support and sustainment of any reform. The grant funds provided the
opportunity for employees to see results and experience the benefits of the FoR reform
before having to reallocate district and site resources.
Training and capacity building for the implementation of the FoR initiative was
substantial and comprehensive on three levels. First, it was provided to a cohort of
instructional leaders (teachers and principals) that chose to participate in the initial
training. Second, it was intense, requiring ILTs to attend monthly meetings that
encompassed over 60 hours of training the first year. Third, the ILTs were required to
present the information to their school staffs and facilitate the identification of the
schoolwide instructional focus.

81
The district’s leadership communication has been clear and explicit with regard to
the organizational goal as well as the strategy to achieve it by implementing FoR. They
created a capacity-building plan to ensure the internal capacity of the organization to
continue the reform work. It has reallocated both human and fiscal capital to prioritize
and sustain the reform. Based on the data, the processes and procedures principals and
teachers use to determine the school’s instructional focus has changed. In addition, there
are new districtwide processes and procedures for the identification, development, and
delivery of professional development.
Analysis of Gaps in Knowledge and Skill
To better understand performance gaps due to discrepancies in knowledge and/or
skills, we will frame our examination through the following three areas that Clark &
Estes (2002) suggest are indicators of issues in the knowledge/skill capacity of an
organization: communication, procedure, and experience (p. 50).
Communication
Lack of knowledge and/or skill in three specific areas led to communication
issues in the GUSD implementation of FoR. These three specific areas are the
understanding of the intention of FoR as a reform initiative, the level of transparency of
reform processes, and the overall knowledge of the changes to the district’s goal
structure.
Intention of Reform Initiative.
GUSD understood FoR to be a leadership capacity-building model but did not
fully understand until well into the implementation process (Year 3) the degree of change

82
that would be necessitated at the site level. District administration echoed this sentiment.
The FoR consultants designed the reform implementation to affect every role group to
make them cognizant of the direct impact their work processes have on student
achievement and success. The district effectively transformed their role into a central
services organization in order to remove barriers and provide critical resources to support
the four types of knowledge and skill enhancement described by Clark & Estes (2002, pp.
58-59):
• Information about the reform effort and its guiding principles that district
personnel (administrators and teachers) needed to know in order to succeed on
their own;
• Job aids that provided information for district employees to refer to while on the
job to perform the tasks necessary to reach the desired goals;
• Training in the form of monthly districtwide ILT workshops where personnel
acquired “how-to” knowledge and skills (first from the FoR consultants, later
from the internally-staffed writing and presenting teams) as well as the
opportunity to come back to gain corrective feedback on the practice they
implemented at the school sites to help them achieve their work goals; and
• Education necessary for personnel to acquire “conceptual, theoretical, and
strategic” knowledge and skills that may help them handle novel and unexpected
future challenges.
Communication was also inhibited as a culture of mistrust had intensified over the course
of the FoR implementation. This mistrust is rooted in the perceived “true intentions” of

83
FoR and is still prevalent in the district. Interviews revealed a pervasive “Us” versus
“Them” and an “I” versus “We” mentality at all levels of the district. This tone was
evident as well between “the District” and school staff, the Glendale Teachers
Association (GTA) and district administration, between tenured teachers and
probationary teachers, and between principals/site administration and teachers. Some
teachers at every level of instruction in the district expressed the sentiment of the FoR
process being a “conspiracy on the part of the district to evaluate and weed teachers out;”
Other teachers shared that they “feel a degree of threat and loss of autonomy, and it has
created huge divisions among the staff and with the principal.”
Knowledge about FoR as a reform initiative and its intentions has not been
disseminated to new personnel in a systematic fashion. The higher degree of professional
isolation at the middle and high school levels compared to the elementary level is due to
deeply rooted norms, beliefs, and traditional practices. The highly collaborative nature
that is the hallmark of FoR is hindered as a result at the middle and high school levels.
The decreased effectiveness of the reform implementation mirrors this hindrance at the
middle and high school levels.
Transparency.
The district-level instructional leadership team (ILT) was created to develop
professional collaboration teams to design the work that would improve teaching and
learning (Focus Area 2, FoR Framework). The district ILT was comprised of members
from across the district, representing all instructional levels (K-12). The ILT met once a
month for a total of 10 times per academic year. These monthly meetings allowed the

84
ILT to gradually develop all six dimensions of cognition (remember, understand, apply,
analyze, evaluate, create) as described by Anderson & Krathwohl (2006). These
meetings were initially highly structured and facilitated by the FoR consultants in the first
two years of implementation. This provided the opportunity for the ILT to safely explore
and master the higher levels of cognition as they worked as a collective to better
understand the FoR principles, to understand how to look for change, and to understand
how the ILT should center its reform work on the core principle of having a laser-like
focus on classroom instruction.
Most importantly, the highly collaborative structure of the districtwide ILT helped
to develop a common language that is now used throughout the district to discuss student
achievement. This sentiment was echoed by virtually all staff members interviewed in
the inquiry. This common language was further developed through the Instructional
Walkthrough (IWT) process. Many staff members interviewed in the inquiry process
considered the Instructional Walkthrough process to be a strong tool by which to examine
instruction more critically. The collaborative processes undertaken to write the
curriculum to present strategies to staff across the district, the actual presentation formats,
and the guides that facilitate the walkthroughs further develop the common language that
improves the quality of the professional conversations that staff members have about
student achievement. Having a common language helps to increase the transparency and
credibility of the processes that propel a reform process forward (Muller, 2004).
Not all teachers, however, engaged in the FoR reform initiative nor were they
versed in the FoR framework, its principles, and how it is directly linked to their

85
instruction. Some teachers even admitted in their interviews that they elected not to
participate in the reform process. Teachers uninvolved in the ILT were less likely to
understand the link between their work in the classroom and the FoR process. These
non-participating teachers more often expressed dissenting viewpoints when the district
first mandated the implementation of FoR (in 2005).
Across the organization, the feedback loop is not consistent regarding the
implementation of instructional practices. Teachers who did not value the Instructional
Walkthrough (IWT) process dismiss it as a “dog-and-pony show” for the “people in
suits” and indicated it was impossible to perform at that level on a daily basis. This is
reflective of inconsistent monitoring by principals to ensure the implementation of the
explicit instructional strategies. Moreover, teachers lack specific feedback from
principals on how to modify their instruction based on the knowledge and skills they
received in trainings. Lack of explicit feedback hinders the trial-and-revise cycles that
Clark & Estes (2002) advocate when helping employees take an innovation or strategy
learned in training and transform it into a commonplace practice.
Feedback given during the districtwide IWTs was anonymous and generalized.
Observers that participated in the walkthroughs were encouraged to write feedback on
Post-It notes that are then consolidated and presented at district ILT meetings. The
collective feedback was given to the school sites that were visited and disseminated
through the principals and site ILTs. Some teachers interviewed in the inquiry process
expressed interest in more specific positive feedback as well as constructive input on
what needs improvement. A department chair at the high school expressed it this way:

86
“How can I as a teacher improve if I do not know exactly what I did right and what I need
to change? Give feedback. Don’t assume that I don’t want to change. Maybe I just
don’t know what… or how to change it.”
Goal Structure.
GUSD leadership clearly articulated that the organizational goals were to 1)
improve the academic achievement of all students and 2) close the achievement gaps
between different student subpopulations in order to raise API scores and meet AYP
targets. This was articulated by the vast majority of staff members interviewed at each of
the three school sites we visited along with administrators at the district office.
The global organizational goal is supported through intermediate-level work goals
that require extended periods of time to achieve (but are more specific in their tasks).
The intermediate-level goals in GUSD are the seven areas of focus that comprise the FoR
philosophy.
Defining the work/performance goals were left in the hands of each individual
school site principal and his/her Instructional Leadership Team (ILT). However, staff
interviewed at the three school sites visited in the inquiry did not seem to understand the
direct relationship between the internal, site-specific SMART-e goal attainment and the
implementation of the seven areas of focus that comprise the FoR model. This lack of
understanding seemed to reflect the degree of involvement with the site ILT. Many of
the teachers interviewed in the inquiry process explained that their involvement on the
Instructional Leadership Teams (ILTs) gave them a deeper understanding of the FoR
philosophy, its areas of focus, and the implementation plan for the site level. This same

87
level of understanding was not seen among the teachers not directly affiliated with the
ILT (neither at the district level nor the site level). These non-ILT affiliated teachers
were unable to articulate the alignment of their work goals to the intermediate-level goals
(the seven areas of focus that comprise the FoR philosophy).
This misalignment of the goal structure at the intermediate and work goal levels
made it difficult for teachers to understand what they were responsible for achieving at
each level of the goal structure. “Alignment between the organization and its employees
begins with compatible goal structures. Without this initial step, all other attempts to
improve performance are like traveling in the dark to an unknown destination through
dangerous territory” (Clark & Estes, 2002, pp. 22-23).
“The ultimate objective for performance improvement is that it must support the
larger goals of the organization” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 23). Principals must clarify the
goal structure to help their teachers understand how the work they facilitate both in and
out of the classroom directly supports the implementation of the FoR areas of focus and,
subsequently, help to improve student achievement throughout the district. Principals
must take care to define the “big picture” for their staffs, to establish how the various
components they engage in on a regular basis through their professional practices –
analyzing student performance data, adopting the schoolwide instructional focus, use and
understanding of specific research-based instructional strategies to enhance student
learning – directly relate to and impact FoR implementation.
Clark & Estes (2002) assert that goal setting “is often the missing link in
performance improvement” and must be made clear and specific for employees in the

88
organization so that they work toward achieving the organizational goals rather than their
own. Clark & Estes (2002) describe the need for these work/performance goals to be
concrete, challenging, and current so that they can help employees 1) achieve them
within specific deadlines and criteria (p. 22) and 2) assess if they are succeeding or
failing at achieving them (p. 26).
To assume that the success of the reform implementation would hinge solely on
every single teacher in every school site throughout GUSD being directly involved with
the goal setting and planning necessary to implement FoR would be misguided. Clark &
Estes (2002) assert that employees do not need to be a part of the goal setting process in
order to be committed to achieving the goals set for them (p. 23). It is the level of clarity
of the work goal, being able to know if and when the goal(s) are being achieved, and the
rationale behind the work goal that employees should be expected to know in an
organization (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 23).
Across the organization, the feedback loop is not consistent with regard to
implementation of instructional strategies – a major area of focus in the FoR philosophy.
It is assumed that the teachers will fully implement an instructional strategy without need
for additional support.
Procedure
GUSD made considerable strides to implement the components of the FoR reform
initiative at the district level and established a solid foundation for continued work
toward embedded sustainability. The development of an incremental reform process, in
partnership with FoR, has resulted in the total inclusion of all 31 school sites after three

89
years of implementation. A substantial, comprehensive five-year capacity building plan
to ensure training of all staff members was created (See Appendix I). Most importantly,
the reform process saw the conversion of the district office into a central services
organization that provides leadership, support, and guidance by: 1) modeling processes
of establishing district goals; 2) examining student performance data to determine
achievement gaps; and 3) holding principals accountable for increasing student academic
achievement.
It is the districtwide expectation that every GUSD staff member be fully versed in
the goal structure and the reform initiative being implemented to support the
organizational goal of improving academic achievement for all students enrolled in the
district. Though this is the expectation from the district level, the induction of new
personnel (probationary teachers, principals, and district administrators) on the tenets and
processes of FoR is not institutionalized. New staff is left to acquire the knowledge and
skills needed to understand and implement FoR philosophy on their own. No orientation
or training is offered at either the district office that would bring these new staff members
to the same level of understanding as the rest of the staff with regard to this reform
initiative. A probationary teacher at the secondary level stated, “I don’t know what FoR
is really about – I just know that I want to survive my first years in the classroom. No
one has explained to me what to do and what I’m responsible for.” A probationary
teacher at the elementary level shared: “I joined the staff in January; someone has yet to
explain anything to me about the FoR process.”

90
It is assumed that staff members will intuitively understand because they are staff
members of a district with this comprehensive reform initiative being implemented.
Experience
A reform implementation should be so strong, well-defined, and comprehensive
in its scope that even if changes in leadership at individual sites occur, district
administrators declared that a new principal should be able to walk into the building and
know exactly what the reform effort is about and what is being done. Coupled with the
coaching trio, the district administrators were confident that the GUSD principals were
provided all the knowledge required to lead the reform effort at the school site they were
charged with leading.
A GUSD administrator initially described the process by which principals were
given the opportunity to volunteer their sites to participate in the implementation of FoR
but later clarified that the reform implementation was really a mandate: “This is what we
will be doing in GUSD. There wasn’t much flexibility of choosing to implement FoR.
Schools that were struggling were encouraged to participate in the initial cohort.”
Early on into the implementation process, the principals requested more support
from the FoR consultants. The FoR consultant and district administrators, in response,
developed the formation of the coaching trios (See Appendix J) after the end of the
second year of implementation. The coaching trio was the smaller collaborative unit in
which the principals gained additional peer support as they faced the day-to-day
challenges of implementation on site. It was designed to allow site administrators the
opportunity to have a safe environment to explore and dialogue, to seek critiques, and to

91
sound off ideas with each other. The coaching trios also encourage self-reflection—an
essential component for any person building his/her metacognitive knowledge. It is the
awareness of a person’s self-knowledge and thought process that is vital to a strong
educational leader charged with implementing a reform effort to decide, through
reflection, which processes are more beneficial to moving the reform in a forward
direction while at the same time empowering the site staff to participate and offer their
genuine support.
Understanding the FoR framework is part of the conceptual knowledge that all
principals must possess to lead the work. The question that remains is exactly how
principals will move their staffs from the primary levels on the knowledge dimension
(factual and conceptual knowledge) about the fundamentals of FoR as a reform initiative
and develop the more advanced dimensions of procedural and metacognitive knowledge
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2006) as the reform initiative is internalized.
The district administrators and the FoR consultant we interviewed agreed that the
coaching trios lack structure. The district has not elaborated on what skills they want
their principals to develop when meeting in the coaching trios. This support element has
been redesigned for the 2010-11 school year. Coaching trios now consist of three
principals from the same instructional level who partner to support each other’s
implementation efforts of FoR. A district administrator oversees each trio.

The focus of the dissertation now shifts from the analysis of the root causes of the
performance gaps to the proposed solutions to be offered to GUSD, the focus of the third

92
chapter. Chapter 3A will provide the context of the role of the district in school reform
and provide a review of literature that will link the findings presented in Chapter 2C to
the specific areas that directly impact the performance gaps and their root causes,
previously addressed in the inquiry analysis. From this review of literature, Section 3B
will present, in the extended solutions summary, the three major recommendations that
the inquiry team has selected as having the greatest potential to best mitigate the
performance gaps of the FoR implementation and therefore enhance the next stage of
implementation for GUSD.

93
CHAPTER THREE: PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
REVIEW OF LITERATURE RELATED TO SOLUTIONS

Authors: Rosemary Santos Aguilar, Debra L. Hill, & Regina D. Zurbano

Introduction
The passage of No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) ushered in a new wave
of learning standards and performance accountability for students of the American public
system of education. Numerous states across the nation rose to this daunting challenge of
ensuring 100% proficiency in content by 2014; however, the Local Educational Agencies
(LEAs), better known as school districts, bore the heavy burden of responsibility in
having to adapt to yet another set of expectations on what student learning is and how
these expectations should be used to hold schools accountable for its academic
performance in helping the nation’s children learn. The reforms instituted by schools
“could promote high-quality curricular frameworks, assessments tied to those standards,
and professional development of teachers whose performance would be directed toward
meeting a defined set of objectives” (O’Day & Smith, 1993, cited in Schneider &
Keesler, 2007, pp. 205-206). This focus on standards was supposed to change the system
to “allocate resources in a way… that would ensure all students would receive a high-
quality education and improve their opportunities for learning” (Darling-Hammond,
2004, cited in Schneider & Keesler, 2007, p. 206).
The role of the district office is now more crucial than ever as these reform
initiatives are developed and implemented by school districts. Chrispeels et al. (2008)
contend that “high levels of student achievement are possible when schools and the

94
district act as coordinated units of change” (p. 730). The district office needs to take a
more central role in initiating substantial change—and helping to maintain that change
for the better. Childress, Elmore, & Grossman (2006) assert that “district offices must
carry out what [they] call the ‘strategic function’—that is, they need to develop a
districtwide strategy for improving teaching and learning and to create an organization
that is coherent with the [reform] strategy” (p. 59).
District as a Unit of Reform
Districts have a profound effect on how schools function and are often the
deciding factor if a school will be successful in a reform effort (Crandall, 1984; Eubanks
& Levine, 1983; Fullan, 1985). Elmore (2003) states that the school district generally
establishes the educational structures, procedures, expectations, and accountability for all
stakeholders involved in the process of teaching and learning. Thus, school districts are
often viewed as the best vehicle to implement school reform (Elmore, 1993; Hightower,
2002; Lasky, 2002; Marsh, 2002).
Research also indicates that although some district and school reform efforts have
yielded pockets of excellence in student achievement, districtwide systemic reform can
be difficult (Corbett & Wilson, 1992). Replicating success requires extraordinary
leadership and effort; most teachers and principals do not exhibit the skills necessary to
create effective schools. According to Weiss (2007), “organizing an entire school system
around producing high student achievement requires a thoughtful, systemic approach to
teaching and learning in which standards, curriculum, assessment (both formative and
summative), professional practices, and professional development are carefully designed

95
and mutually reinforcing” (p. 3). Therefore, the district has the resources, and the
responsibility, to develop the capacity of principals, teachers, and staff as well as
organizational systems to support teaching and learning (Mac Iver & Farley, 2003).
According to Anderson (2003), successful districts employ a large repertoire of
strategies to mobilize and support districtwide success in student learning. However, the
effectiveness of these strategies is dependent on the strength of district leadership.
Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom (2004) found that the total (direct and
indirect) effects of leadership on student learning account for abou one-quarter of total
school effects. Thus, central office administrators are crucial in the school improvement
process (Crandall, 1984; Eubanks & Levine, 1983; Fullan 1985; Leithwood et. al, 2004).
According to Leithwood et al. (2004), three basic sets of practices are at the core
of successful leadership: setting directions, developing people, and redesigning the
organization. Clark & Estes (2002) concur with these practices in their gap analysis
process model. They state that establishing organizational goals is critical to any
organization for it must have a sense of where they are going. Second, ensuring that
employees posses the appropriate knowledge and skill is critical to accomplishing the
performance goals. Third, organizational structures and cultures that facilitate the work
of organizational members are vital to successful outcomes. Thus, even though these
practices in isolation will not improve performance in an organization, without them no
reform strategy will be successful. Consequently, superintendents leading
comprehensive school reform must understand and integrate these basic practices in their
leadership.

96
To this end, the superintendent as the organizational leader plays a pivotal role in
leading comprehensive school reform (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Petersen 2002). According
to Petersen (2002), the superintendent has influential power over factors that directly
affect teaching and learning. Specifically, the superintendent is able to: 1) direct
districtwide adoption of curriculum, standards, and monitor benchmarks; 2) lead the
establishment of goals; 3) development district policy and organizational structures in
support of teaching and learning; and 4) establish expectations and evaluation processes
that ensure staff is accountable for supporting district educational goals.
District-level reform requires leadership from a superintendent that is built to last.
In Good to Great, Collins (2001) identified the hierarchy of five levels of leadership that
defines leaders at all levels. A Level One leader is a highly capable individual that makes
productive contributions through talent, knowledge, skill, and good work habits. A Level
Two leader is a team member that contributes to the achievement of the group and works
effectively with others. The Level Three leader is a competent manager that can organize
people and resources to the effective pursuit of predetermined goals. A Level Four leader
is an effective leader that can catalyze commitment to and vigorous pursuit of a clear and
compelling vision. The Level Five leader builds enduring greatness through a
paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will.
There are two sides to a Level Five leader: professional will and personal
humility. As a professional, a Level Five leader creates superb results and takes the
organization from good to great; demonstrates unwavering resolve to do whatever it takes
to get the job done; sets the standard for building an enduring great company; and takes

97
personal responsibility for poor results. This leader also demonstrates great personal
humility by demonstrating compelling modesty by shunning public adulation; acts with
quiet determination and relies principally on standards; sets up successors for greater
success; and attributes success to others in the organization. Collins (2001) suggests that
great companies begin with who should be on the bus and in the right seat. Similarly,
superintendents need to develop the capacity of their districts to lead the reform by
building a central office staffed with the right individuals that can support and sustain the
reform effort.
Alignment of Organizational Goal Structure
According to Fiol & Lyles (1985), the alignment of goals in an organization relies
on the assumption that an organization has “the potential to learn, unlearn, or relearn
based on its past behaviors” (p. 804). Organizational performance affects the
organization’s ability to learn and to adapt in a changing environment (Fiol & Lyles,
1985, p. 804). Childress, Elmore, & Grossman (2006) suggest “district leaders must
come to view their organizations as integrated systems whose interdependent parts are
directly linked to the work of teachers and students in classrooms. Putting a districtwide
strategy into practice requires building a coherent organization that enables people at all
levels to implement their piece of the strategy” (pp. 59-60).
As the framework for guiding the rationale for our first recommendation, we
consider the five most common barriers that typically impede a district’s success in
implementing strategic initiatives (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006):

98
1) Executing the strategy consistently across schools with different characteristics;
2) Creating a coherent organizational design in support of the strategy;
3) Developing and managing human capital;
4) Allocating resources in alignment with the strategy; and
5) Using performance data to guide decisions.
Executing a Consistent Strategy Across the Organization.
“Clarity and alignment among the five aspects of organizational life—purpose,
objectives, strategy, structure, and culture—are key to the proper direction of an
organization” (Merron, 1994, p. 52, as cited in Semler, 1997, p. 25). In order to achieve
this alignment, the higher leadership of an organization must re-establish organizational,
intermediate and performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2002). Organizations need to be
goal-driven (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 21). The organizational or global goal must be far-
reaching, ambitious, and have a timespan that may stretch beyond many years. Clark &
Estes (2002) contend that performance/work goals must support the greater, global-level
organizational goals (p. 23). However, these two goal levels are often disconnected.
When an organization implements reform initiatives or strategies to obtain the desired
global organizational goals, the reform initiatives can be considered intermediate-level
goals. Intermediate-level goals help make the link between the daily performance goals
(of which each member of the organization has direct control) to the long-term goals of
the organization. Most organizations struggle with making this link for its staffs.
“To achieve these [organizational] goals, a district office must develop a coherent,
clearly communicated strategy to help people decide what to do and what not to do”
(Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006, p. 60). Without clear goals to work toward,
Clark & Estes (2002) assert that individual employees may lose sight of working to

99
support the organization and instead work to achieve their own personal goals that may
not necessarily be in alignment with the global organizational-level goals (p. 23). They
do not necessarily have to participate in developing the work goals but the work goals
assigned to them must be clear, challenging, and concise (C
3
) (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Therefore, organizational leadership must determine and define individual performance
goals for role groups (district, principals, and teachers) at different levels of the
organization (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Gaps between the performance of employees and work/performance goals are
“natural and desirable consequence[s] of managing performance using cascading goal
systems” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 47). However, if the goals are not set for everyone to
understand, it will not be clear for people to know what they are working toward (Clark
& Estes, 2002). “The greater the congruence of perceptions between central office and
school leadership teams regarding these leadership tasks, the more effective the
leadership teams will be in achieving organizational goals” (Chrispeels et al., 2008, p.
734).
Marsh et al. (2005) contend that districts successful in achieving significant
progress toward reaching “intermediate instructional improvement goals”–the reform
initiatives–were largely contingent on the implemented strategies being “aligned and
mutually supportive” of the varying perspectives held by different role groups involved
(p. 3). Having an aligned goal structure—and having multiple role groups agree to the
alignment of the goal structure – has the power to minimize frustrations regarding the

100
reform initiative that Marsh et al. (2005) believe can result in a lack of buy-in to the
implementation process.
“A comprehensive focus on a small number of initiatives is also crucial for a
district to achieve the intermediate-level goals for instructional reform” (Marsh et al.,
2005, p. 2). With fewer components of the reform initiative on which to have to focus,
the district leadership can send a clear and consistent message to the entire organization.
This enhances the district stance on its priorities and supports the subsequent reallocation
of funds in order to support this prioritized reform initiative. This level of commitment
sends a powerful message to all role groups that may otherwise be wary of the length of
time it will take to enact the reform initiative through the district. Goals at the local/site
level (performance/work goals) can then be developed with an even tighter focus to
support the intermediate (reform) level goals (Marsh et al., 2005).
District leadership must reaffirm the establishment of the district- and site-level
Instructional Leadership Teams as the primary decision-making or “intermediary” groups
(Marsh et al., 2004) responsible for making decisions about FoR implementation and the
implementation of the FoR strategy at all sites as the district’s intermediate goal.
“…seeing a greater importance of what school leadership teams (SLTs) can be … having
a more rapid impact on change, if you understand how to really facilitate and work with
the SLT” (p. 740). Aligning and developing a comprehensive set of strategies can
reinforce overarching instructional improvement goals (Marsh et al., 2004). By adopting
the FoR reform initiative and setting its comprehensive, incremental system of change
into play, the ILTs were well-poised to respond to the new district goals in ways that

101
should have “enhanced system coherence, shared purpose, and student learning”
(Chrispeels et al., 2008, p. 745).
Knowledge/Skill Capacity of Role Groups
According to Clark & Estes (2002), a key factor or cause to consider when staff is
not achieving work/performance goals is to assess whether they have acquired sufficient
knowledge and skills. The organizational gaps in achieving goals are caused by human
performance (Clark & Estes, 2002), thus the imperative is to invest in human skill and
knowledge development (Elmore, 2002). Leaders must create a common culture of
expectations regarding skills and knowledge, and hold individuals accountable for their
contributions to the collective result (Elmore, 2002; DuFour, Eaker & DuFour, 2005).
Unger, Macq, Bredo, & Boelaert (2000) stated that systems reform depends upon
"training of field staff, on-the-spot expert coaching, and the promotion of a new
organizational structure" (as cited in Fixen et. al, 2005, p. 44).
Training Systems.
Continuous training to increase the knowledge and skills of staff is an essential
component of implementation. Training opportunities should continuously inform and
review with participants the organization’s global goal, the intermediate goals (initiative,
framework, strategy, curriculum), and work/performance goals (focused on instruction)
that are implemented at the site level. Elmore (2000) observed, “Learning about
improvement occurs in the growth and development of common understanding about
why things happen in the way they do” (p. 13).

102
The design of effective professional development to guide the implementation of
an innovation includes five elements: 1) theory, 2) demonstration, 3) practice, 4)
feedback, and 5) coaching (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Kealey, Peterson, Gaul, & Dinh,
2000). The rationale, protocols, and theory for the initiative or program must be
communicated during knowledge acquisition to provide understanding, meaning and
motivation. The content of training will vary depending upon the evidence-based practice
or initiative.
Formal Induction System for all New Personnel.
In order to sustain knowledge and skills for the practices of reform, it is important
that the organization systematically induct new staff to the culture, expectations, and
policies of that organization. Human Resources typically provides some level of new
employee orientation that informs staff of structures, safety, policies and resources;
however, formal induction should also entail the organization’s vision and mission, and
ensure knowledge transfer of the organization’s mental model or instructional
framework, values, and expectations (Robinson, 2003). According to Robinson (2003),
induction processes should play a key role in knowledge management initiatives.
Support Personnel.
Support personnel such as instructional coaches, department chairs, ILT leaders,
and district office personnel are critical in the implementation of an innovation. Their
commitment is to help novice or struggling staff to develop the knowledge and skills
needed to understand how to embed the instructional changes in the classroom, as well
as, identify the criteria that serve as indicators for others to observe the evidence-based

103
practices (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Wren & Vallejo, 2009; Spouse, 2001). The
implementation of systems reform depends upon “training support staff, on-the-spot
experts, coaching, and promotion of a new organizational structure” (Spouse, 2001).
Formal knowledge needs to be supplemented with skills and strategies so practitioners
can see the relevance of what they have learned to the situations at hand.
Support staffs add another layer of training and coaching for principals and
teachers as they learn how to implement the components of an initiative or new
instructional strategies. This resource counters the “train and hope” approach (Stokes &
Baer, 1977) where staffs learn new knowledge and skills in a workshop and struggle to
transfer the acquired knowledge into the classroom.
The primary role of a school leadership team is to provide support and peer
coaching to ensure their colleagues have the resources, knowledge, and skills (Marsh et
al., 2005) needed to achieve the site-level work/performance goals. Like athletes,
teachers will put newly learned skills to use if they are coached (Joyce and Showers,
2002). Effective coaching fosters a blame-free culture where initial attempts are viewed
as valuable learning. Technical coaching, team coaching, and challenge coaching models
are used when there is a concern for learning and the implementation of an innovation in
curriculum and instruction (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Resnick & Glennan, 2002). All
coaching models use feedback as a vehicle of improving or changing practice as it
provides information for the teacher on the effectiveness of their implementation of the
new strategy or curriculum (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Spillane, 2006).

104
School Principals & Instructional Leadership Teams (ILTs).
The site level provides another induction opportunity that is less formal but more
detailed and explicit. The ILT must clearly know and inform staff of the components of
the FoR initiative and help staff understand how these objectives serve as a bridge to
connect their classroom practice to the intermediate goal of implementing FoR and the
organization’s goal of high academic achievement for all students. When staff
understands the goals and rationale behind their practice, they are more likely to engage
in the process (Clark & Estes, 2002).
The ILT collaborates and shares the leadership responsibilities so that there is
greater capacity to maintain the instructional focus (Spillane, 2006). The quality of
teaching, learning, and relationships in learning communities depends on the quality of
leadership by principals and teachers who shape conversations by persistently “offering
their values, intentions, and beliefs to others and by expressing themselves in declarative
sentences” (Sparks, 2005, p. 157).
The principal and the ILT deepen the focus on instruction by implementing a
well-designed learning community, which is a powerful and meaningful way to
seamlessly blend teaching and professional learning to produce more complex, intelligent
behavior in all teachers (Elmore, 2000; Fullan, 2003; DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005;
Schmoker, 2004; 2005; Sparks, 2005). A professional learning community involves a
systematic process in which teachers work together to analyze data and improve their
classroom practice and instruction (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005). As teams
continually redirect staff to consider multiple sources of data, effective solutions to

105
challenges for student learning, teacher learning and organizational change are more
likely to emerge through professional collaboration (Elmore, 2000; DuFour, Eaker, &
DuFour, 2005; Fullan, 2003; Schmoker, 2004, 2005; Sparks, 2005), which is the key to
developing and sustaining goal consensus, shared beliefs, and commitment to reform.
The unifying principle of a professional learning community asserts that educators have
not fulfilled their fundamental purpose until all students have learned at high (proficient)
levels (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005; Fullan, 2005; Reeves, 2005; Schmoker, 2005).
Instructional Walkthroughs
The Instructional Walkthrough (IWT) process has been portrayed as an effective
and efficient system to collect data regarding instructional practices and provide feedback
(Cervone & Martinez-Miller, 2007; Downey, et al., 2004). Fink & Resnick (2001)
define the instructional or classroom walkthrough as “an organized observation that
requires the principal or supervisor to frequently visit the classrooms to look for specific
instructional practices” (p. 598). The walkthrough process was developed through the
Institute of Learning at the University of Pittsburgh to support the systemic focus on
instructional improvement. A set of nine Principles of Learning (Resnick, 2008) serves
as an organizing framework for both thinking about and observing learning and
instruction. These nine constructs are the heart of the walkthrough process and are
designed to help educators analyze the quality of instruction and opportunities for
learning that they offer to students (Resnick, 2008):

106
1) Organizing for Effort: A sustained and directed effort can yield high achievement
for all students by re-organizing the organization to evoke and support this effort;
2) Clear Expectations: Expectations for student learning must be defined explicitly
so that all role groups know and understand the benchmarks that indicate each
stage of learning;
3) Fair & Credible Evaluations: assessments, connected to and embedded in the
curriculum, that are used should be fair to students and found credible by the
public. Students are evaluated by measuring progress toward explicit learning
standards;
4) Recognition of Accomplishment: Clear, regular recognition of authentic
accomplishment should be celebrated by all role groups. Work that meets
standards or intermediate progress benchmarks as well as standards-based
assessments should be recognized;
5) Academic Rigor in a Thinking Curriculum: In every subject, at every grade level,
instruction and learning in every subject in every grade level must include
commitment to a knowledge core, high thinking demand, and active use of
knowledge;
6) Accountable Talk
®
: talking with others about ideas and work is fundamental to
learning. Accountable Talk
®
uses evidence-based questioning appropriate to the
discipline and follows established norms of good reasoning to sustain learning;
7) Socializing Intelligence: educators can teach intelligence—a set of problem
solving and reasoning capabilities along with the habits of mind that lead one to
use those capabilities regularly—to all students;
8) Self-Management of Learning: students need to develop and regularly use an
array of self-monitoring and self-management strategies. These metacognitive
strategies help students be more self-aware of their role in learning; and
9) Learning as Apprenticeship: learning environments should be organized so that
complex thinking is modeled and analyzed; mentoring and coaching should be
provided for students as they undertake extended projects and develop
presentations of finished work, both in and beyond the classroom.
The Walkthrough is not designed for evaluation but rather for the purpose of
professional development (Fink & Resnick, 2001). It can be varied to serve different
levels of educational needs. While all walkthroughs are organized to improve learning
and instruction, differing relationships among the individuals participating in the
Walkthrough, and their specific purpose for participating, determine the need for

107
different walkthough modes (Resnick, 2001). Observational Walkthroughs are
conducted by the school principal and external observer(s) that come from outside of the
district. Collegial Walkthroughs are conducted by people that serve as colleagues to the
principal or by others who have a shared commitment to the improvement of instruction
and learning in the school. Supervisory Walkthroughs may involve a principal and his or
her immediate supervisor. In all three walkthrough modes, the observers closely examine
the learning and instruction process as it relates to the content in which students are
engaged. The focus of discussion for each walkthrough mode is on progress in student
learning. This is tied to the discussion that happens as a result of the walkthrough
process: what support is being offered to teachers so that learning and instruction of
essential content show continuous improvement.
Fink & Resnick (1999) incorporate the Walkthrough as a focal event in the
professional development of principals as instructional leaders. The typical principal day
is often encumbered with numerous management duties, impeding their active
participation in developing their knowledge of curriculum and developing their skills as
an instructional leader. Fink & Resnick (1999) designed a professional development
system for principals, calling on the school to be “a learning organization that, under its
principal leadership, is continuously improving its capacity to teach children” (p. 5). In
turn, the principal is “expected to be an instructional leader in the strongest possible sense
of the term” (p. 6). Thus, the principal must understand the district’s adopted
instructional programs well enough to actively guide teachers in its implementation.

108
He/she must be able to assess the quality of teaching in order to select and maintain a
strong teaching staff.
Walkthroughs develop a learning community among students, staffs, all levels of
administration, parents and community. Love (2009) emphasizes the value of
opportunities for collaborative inquiry by school staff – especially among teachers – as a
structure to keep the focus on the strengths and need for improvement in instructional
practices. Skretta (2007) adds that the time allotted for collaborative reflection (learning
community) after walkthroughs is essential. Successful participation in productive
professional collaboration also increases the capacity of the group to be a professional
learning community –a safe place to ask hard questions about the links between results,
content, and instructional practices (Cervone and Martinez-Miller, 2007).
Principals as Instructional Leaders
The quality of school leadership directly correlates with school and pupil
outcomes (Cotton, 2003; Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, Hopkins, 2006;
Leithwood & Riehl, 2005; Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006). Quality of school
leadership is a primary influence on student achievement (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson,
& Wahlstrom, 2004). Principals must balance pressure and support (Elmore, 2000) to
ensure the implementation of the innovation so that the goal of increased student learning
can be realized. Effective leaders not only know what to do, but how, when, and why to
do it. They understand the impact on student achievement, school staff, and community.
They know how to adjust their practices to respect various sociocultural influences
(Waters, Marzano, & McNultry, 2003).

109
The goal of ongoing training for principals is to increase their capacity as
instructional leaders. Principal training needs to be rigorously challenged and cause them
to question their long-held assumptions and inspire them to embrace new thinking about
leadership, teaching, or learning (Evans & Mohr, 1999). Many studies on school
effectiveness report that instructional leadership is one of the several defining
characteristics of successful schools (Waters, Marzano, & McNultry, 2003).
A meta-analysis published by the McREL (Mid-Continent for Research and
Learning) Center compiled a list of twenty-one essential skills that comprise their
“Balance Leadership” framework for effective principal leadership. The top five
principal leadership responsibilities include (Waters, Marzano, & McNultry, 2003):
1) Situational awareness - the extent the principal is aware of the details and
undercurrents in the running of the school and to what degree this data is used
to address current and potential problems and barriers;
2) Intellectual stimulation - ensures that teachers and staff are aware of the most
current theories and practices and embeds discussions of these concepts
deeply into the school’s culture;
3) Culture - fosters the development of shared beliefs and the sense of
community and cooperation;
4) Input - involves teachers in the design and implementation of important
decisions and policies;
5) Change agent - willingness to and actively challenges the status quo.
Collins (2001) refers to this type of effectiveness as a Level Five leader who
demonstrates tenacious professional will and personal humility.
Principal learning is personal yet takes place most effectively while working in
groups (Evans & Mohr, 1999). Coaching for principals is essential to ensure they
develop effective and research-based leadership strategies to improve instruction (Joyce
& Showers, 2002). Coaching reinforces the value of building on one another’s thinking

110
and of being willing to let go of former assumptions in order to construct new knowledge
together (Evans & Mohr, 1999). A culture that emphasis continuous learning and mutual
accountability encourages “lateral accountability” among principals as they collectively
develop their professional learning community (Elmore, 2000; Resnick & Glennan, 2002;
Schlechty, 2002). Principals who engage in coaching sessions often deepen their
commitment and are determination to do whatever it takes to succeed (Joyce & Showers,
2002).
Sustainability
Educational organizations facing the threat of sanctions and the need to improve
academic achievement for at-risk students are desperately searching for the “silver
bullet” that will address these concerns. Significant amounts of money and effort are
invested in research-based strategies that have proven to be effective in improving
student achievement, only to fail when other organizations attempt to replicate them.
Why is it that these evidence-based best practices fail to deliver as promised? It is not
because they are not effective but rather because of an inadequate implementation design.
Therefore, in order to improve or change practices that result in positive outcomes for
students, educational leaders need to know and understand what factors, processes, and
practices are critical to the implementation of any new strategy or reform.
We define implementation as the efforts taken to incorporate a program or
practice in an organization and at the practitioner level. We will present research-based
frameworks and processes that can be used to ensure effective implementation of
programs and practices in districtwide reforms. GUSD’s districtwide initiative, Focus on

111
Results, affects both organizational structures and individual practice. Therefore, we hope
that GUSD finds the following suggested considerations useful in deepening the
implementation and thus yielding the benefits that this evidence-based reform strategy
can provide.
Implementation and sustainability
The identification and development of an implementation framework that can
ensure the implementation of a new strategy or program in an organization is critical
(Fixen et al., 2005; Fullan, 2005; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006; Lambert, 2003; Mourshed,
Chiijioke, & Barber, 2010). According to research, successful implementation is vital to
obtaining the desired results from a program or practice and the ability to sustain the
reform over time (Fixen et al. 2005; Fullan, 2005; Hargreaves and Fink, 2006; Lambert,
2003; Mourshed, Chiijioke, & Barber, 2010). However, Fixen et al. (2005) found the
science related to implementing evidence-based practices and programs was limited. In
2003, the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health declared the need to
identify processes and contextual factors that can improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of program implementation. Fixen et al. (2005) have developed a
framework for implementation that includes promising processes and practices to address
this need. These practices are research-based and have proven to be successful in other
fields.
First, it is important to understand the complexity of implementing a new program
or strategy. According to Fixen et al., (2005), “there is broad agreement that
implementation is a…complex endeavor, more complex than the policies, programs,

112
procedures, techniques, or technologies that are the subject of the implementation efforts”
(p. 2). Therefore, successful implementation requires not only careful attention to the
structures, procedures and processes but also explicit attention as to whom, how, and
where the new “initiative” will affect the organization. Consequently, thoughtful and
effective execution of implementation strategies at multiple levels of the organization is
critical for it requires transformation of the system, change in human behavior, and the
restructuring of organizational context, which can be particularly difficult to any
organization.
Two critical factors must be in place in order to achieve positive outcomes from
the implementation of a new reform strategy. The reform must be evidence-based and
has proven to be successful in the environment in which it is being implemented. The
“effective” reform must also be implemented with fidelity. According to Fixen et al.
(2005), ineffective programs can be implemented well and not yield positive results.
Thus, a desirable outcome can only be achieved when effective programs are
implemented well.
Second, it is important to know and understand the essential outcomes for the
implementation of any program. Fixen et al. (2005) define organizational
implementation as “ a specific set of activities designed to put into practice an activity or
program of known dimensions…the implementation processes are purposeful and are
described in sufficient detail such that independent observers can detect the presence and
strength of the ‘specific set of activities’ related to the implementation” (p. 5). Therefore,
the essential implementation outcomes are (Fixen et al., 2005, p. 12):

113
1) Changes in adult professional behavior (in the form of knowledge and skills of
practitioners and other key staff members within an organization or system);
2) Changes in organizational structures and cultures, both formal & informal
(values, philosophies, ethics, policies, procedures, decision making), to
routinely bring about & support changes to adult professional behavior; and
3) Positive changes in relationships to consumers, stakeholders, and systems
partners.
These three outcomes have the potential to have a substantial impact on the core of any
organization for they require shifts in personal behavior as well as organizational values
and beliefs.
Third, Fixen et al.’s (2005) framework identifies three degrees of implementation:
paper, process, and performance. Paper implementation is based on developing new
policies and practices to be implemented in the organization. Process implementation
refers to new procedures or processes to conduct business. Performance implementation
deals with how procedures and processes in a way that result in positive outcomes for the
consumer. All three of these implementation levels are important to GUSD because all
three must be present to achieve effective implementation of FoR.
The process of taking a reform strategy and ensuring that it is embedded in the
day-to-day work of an organization to the point of achieving the desired results can be
daunting and challenging for organizational leaders. Fixen et al. (2005) have identified
six stages that comprise the implementation process (p. 15). The first stage, exploration
and adoption, deals with finding the right strategy for the organizational problem being
addressed. Program installation, the second stage, establishes all the required resources
and structures necessary to initiate the program. The most complex stage is stage three,
initial implementation. It requires change in every aspect of the organization, including

114
skill level, organizational capacity, and organizational culture. If the initial
implementation is successful, then full implementation (stage four) can occur once the
new learning becomes integrated into practitioner and organizational practices,
procedures, and policies. Stage five, innovation, involves making modifications to the
practice. Many times, practitioners try to modify the practice during the initial
implementation stage, thus affecting implementation fidelity. This can result in failing to
achieving the expected outcomes. Therefore, this should only be done after the practice
has been implemented with fidelity and is operational. The sixth and final stage is
sustainability, the continual capacity building of the organization to ensure the leadership,
funding streams, and program requirement changes.
Fixen et al.’s (2005) conceptual framework for implementation is based on five
essential components (p. 13):
1) Source (an evidence-based best practice or framework, e.g. FoR);
2) Destination (the individual practitioner and the organization that adopts the
practice, e.g. teachers and schools);
3) Communication link (the individuals who work at implementing the identified
practice with fidelity; e.g. consultants, district leaders, principals, and ILTs);
4) Feedback mechanism (a regular flow of reliable information about
performance of students, teachers, principals, teams, and organizations acted
upon by relevant practitioners (teachers, principals, and district
administrators)); and
5) Sphere of Influence (social, economic, political, historical factors that impinge
directly or indirectly on people, organizations, or systems).
In addition, Fixen et al. (2005) identified “implementation drivers” that are
necessary to accomplish high-fidelity practitioner behavior. These “drivers” are staff
selection, preservice & inservice, ongoing consultation and coaching, staff & program
evaluation, facilitative administrative support, and systems intervention (p. 28).

115
Fixen et al. (2005) found the implementation of a reform effort to be successful
when practitioners were carefully selected and received coordinated training, coaching,
and frequent performance assessments. This includes the infrastructure necessary for
timely training, skillful supervision and coaching, and regular process & outcome
evaluations. Assessment of practitioner performance and program evaluation can be
useful in determining the overall success of the implementation in order to assure
successful integration of the desired practices.
Facilitative administrative support provides leadership the means to obtain the
desired outcomes. This includes the utilization of a variety of data that can inform
decisions and determine if interventions are necessary. Interventions for the
implementation process deals with external forces—fiscal, political, human, and
organizational—that impact successful implementation and, consequently, reform
sustainability. According to Fullan (2005), sustainability is at the heart of any initiative
because the reform strategy is only as good as a district’s ability to obtain successful
outcomes. Fullan (2005) suggests that educational leaders should not focus on a
particular initiative but on the system’s ability to sustain it. Hargreaves & Fink (2006)
concur: “Sustainability addresses how a particular initiative can be developed without
compromising the development of others in the surrounding environment now and in the
future” (p. 30). Finally, Mourshed, Chijioke, & Barber (2010) found that for the
improvement journey of a system to be sustained over time, the improvement strategy
had to be integrated into the very fabric of the system’s pedagogy.

116
Mourshed, Chiijioke, & Barber (2010) outline three ways that improving systems
keep improving. These systems established collaborative practices, they mediated
between the school and the district, and they built leadership capacity for the future.
Collaborative practices describe how teachers and school leaders work together to
build their own capacity to address the learning needs of all their students. According to
Hargreaves & Fink (2006), sustaining reform requires deep learning about the work and
the individuals in the organization. This includes preserving and advancing the most
valuable aspects of the work over time from one leader to another and creating a culture
of distributed leadership that builds the capacity of others to lead. It also requires the
creation of a fair and diverse environment that not only promotes the growth of material
and human resources but honors and learns from the best of the past to create an even
better future.
Sustainability also requires building the capacity of instructional leaders at all
levels of the organization to become system thinkers that go beyond content knowledge,
teaching strategies and even leadership. According to Fullan (2005), the development of
system thinkers at all levels of the organization is imperative to sustaining reform. These
system thinkers interact with larger parts of the system to bring about deeper reform and
help produce other leaders working on the same issue. Building instructional leadership
capacity to become system thinkers involves developing the collective ability of leaders
to bring about positive change by demonstrating the necessary disposition, skills,
knowledge, motivation, and resources (Fullan, 2005).

117
Lambert (2003) defines leadership as the organizations ability to lead itself and
sustain that effort when key individuals leave, therefore having a profound effect on the
effectiveness and maintenance of an educational reform effort. The ultimate purpose of
leadership in an organization is to broaden the skillful participation of teachers, parents,
and students in the work of leadership. When “the principal, a vast majority of the
teachers, and large numbers of parents and students are all involved in the work of
leadership, then the school will most likely have a high-leadership capacity that achieves
high student performance” (Lambert, 2003, p. 4) and is able to overcome difficult
challenges and transitions.
Conclusion
This literature review examined three areas that school districts should consider
when designing and executing the implementation of a reform initiative or strategy
through its organization: alignment of the organizational goal structure, the knowledge &
skill capacity of the role groups throughout the district most impacted by the reform
initiative, and the efforts made by the district to work toward sustainability of the reform
initiative. These three components are crucial to enhancing the foundation of the reform
implementation plan that has already been in place for a significant period of time (five
years). Enhancing these aspects of the reform implementation will strengthen the
foundation of the reform initiative and elevate the district to deeper levels of
implementation, giving the potential to be even more transformative in its impact on
academic success for all students.

118
From this broad base of research, we now turn to the recommendations we would like
GUSD to consider in working to enhance its current implementation efforts to support
greater student academic success throughout the district. Chapter 3B will present the
strengths of the current FoR implementation and then present, in more detail, the three
major proposed solutions and their rationales for consideration. These three areas are
what we consider to have the greatest potential to impact the implementation of FoR as
GUSD moves onto the next phase of its reform effort.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
Authors: Rosemary Santos Aguilar, Debra L. Hill, & Regina D. Zurbano
Introduction
The gap analysis process model has provided the inquiry team with a systematic
method of examining the degree of implementation of the Focus on Results (FoR) reform
initiative throughout Glendale Unified School District (GUSD). Combining our inquiry
analysis with a comprehensive review of relevant research, the performance gaps
currently experienced in the GUSD reform implementation process can now be addressed
by specific, research-based strategies that we present for consideration in this section.
First, we present an overview of the strengths of the current implementation of FoR as
initiated by GUSD. This is followed by a presentation of the three major
recommendations, along with their rationales, that we suggest for GUSD in order to
enhance its reform implementation efforts.

119
Strengths of FoR Implementation
The organizational goals for GUSD are to 1) ensure the academic success of all
students by increasing the Academic Performance Index (API) & meet federal Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) benchmarks; and 2) to close gaps in achievement that persist for
some subpopulations of students enrolled in GUSD. To accomplish these goals, the
GUSD leadership adopted the Focus on Results (FoR) framework in 2005. The purpose
of this inquiry project was to examine how well the district had laid the foundation
required for the implementation of FoR. The Clark & Estes (2002) gap analysis process
model was the analytical framework used to identify and classify the performance gaps in
the FoR implementation.
Our inquiry project revealed that the district had created a comprehensive
implementation plan design to build districtwide capacity in an effort to implement and
sustain the reform. The analysis discovered that the district had:
• clearly articulated the organizational goals: to increase the API and AYP and
close the achievement gap;
• designed/implemented a comprehensive five-year capacity building plan;
• secured a supplemental grant to wholly finance the implementation process;
• developed a common language to discuss student achievement;
• created the Instructional Walkthrough process to monitor the districtwide
implementation of the instructional focus and chosen instructional strategies;
• developed Instructional Leadership Teams at each school site which increased the
level of collaboration throughout the district;

120
• converted the district office into a central services organization; and
• worked to increase the internal capacity of GUSD staff to design and lead
professional development.
The gradual process that GUSD undertook to establish FoR as the change initiative was
very strong. Each of these components, on their own, were very labor-intensive and
required significant commitments of time, personnel, and financial resources. Not only
has GUSD been able to establish these components but did so in a sequential fashion that
has allowed the effort to support itself and strengthen it. This strong foundation is
necessary to support academic success of all students.
However, our inquiry analysis revealed three specific performance gaps that, if
addressed, have the potential to deepen and sustain the implementation of FoR in GUSD.
Summary of Performance Gaps
According to Clark & Estes (2002), the three “Big Causes” (p. 43) of performance
gaps are: people’s knowledge and skill, their motivation to achieve the goal, and barriers
that persist in the organization. Our inquiry uncovered that in the area of knowledge and
skill, performance gaps resulted from both the lack of an institutionalized training and
induction process for new staff as well as the lack of specific feedback to teachers during
the site instructional walkthroughs.
With respect to motivation, the first performance gap is based on the
misperception as to the choice of selecting FoR as the reform initiative to implement
through the district. District leadership felt that site staff had a choice to identify the
instructional focus and the instructional strategies; in other words, the way that the reform

121
would be implemented at the site was left to the site staff. Site-level staff felt they were
directed to implement the FoR framework, therefore all work involved with
implementing FoR was therefore a district mandate. Both positions are true; however,
the misinterpretation from both role groups created a motivational barrier in some
instances to the degree of reform implementation. District leadership failed to
communicate two important points. The first was that the implementation of FoR was
not a choice, that eventually the entire district was going to implement the reform.
Second, the individual sites had a choice as to determine the instructional focus and the
instructional strategies to be implemented schoolwide. The second performance gap in
motivation was based on some teachers feeling that they were already doing the
processes being asked of them in the reform implementation and that there was no need
to spend the funding required for implementation of the work. These teachers chose not
to participate in the reform process and therefore did not invest the mental effort to “get
the job done” as necessitated by the reform implementation.
In the area of organizational barriers, the analysis uncovered that the intermediate-
level goal was not clearly defined for all role groups. Determining goal alignment is a
critical step in the gap analysis process (Clark & Estes, 2002). The global-level
organizational goals and the site-level work performance goals were clear, but the
intermediate goal—to implement FoR as the reform initiative—was not made explicit to
all role groups in the district. The second gap revealed a lack of commitment to the
sustainability of the reform. Several significant administrative changes were scheduled to
take place at the site and district level after the sixth year of implementation; staff felt that

122
there may be a change of focus once those administrative changes were made. Some
teachers also expressed the concern that another new change idea would come around,
supplanting FoR, so why invest so much time and energy if the change effort would once
again change so soon? The third organizational barrier was the lack of a districtwide
evaluation done for the FoR implementation to determine whether the reform needed
additional support and direction to ensure its successful and continued implementation.
Recommendations to the District
We offer three recommendations for GUSD to consider: 1) ensure the alignment
of organizational goal structure; 2) work to build the knowledge/skill capacity of role
groups; and 3) develop a plan for reform sustainability.
Recommendation 1: Ensure Alignment of Organizational Goal Structure
We found that the vast majority of individuals working throughout GUSD could
clearly identify the global organizational goals and could explain the site-specific
SMART-e goals. However, the work being done by teachers in their classrooms could
not be linked to the implementation of FoR, the intermediate-level goal. It is not
uncommon that individuals within an organization fail to make the connection between
high-level goals and the specific team/individual goals.
The gap analysis process model (Clark & Estes, 2002) provides a structure that
identifies disparities between the site-level work/performance goals and the global-level
organization goals. This information assists the organizational leadership in constructing
an intervention plan to improve outcomes. GUSD must align the goal structure by re-
establishing global/organizational, intermediate, and work/performance goals throughout

123
the district (Clark & Estes, 2002). This will help in setting direction, one of the three key
leadership practices necessary for moving a reform forward to reach the district’s desired
goals (Leithwood et al., 2004; Leithwood & Riehl, 2003).
If goals are not set for everyone to understand, it will not be clear for people to
know what they are working toward (Clark & Estes, 2002). Clark & Estes (2002) assert
that employees do not need to be a part of the goal setting process in order to be
committed to achieving the goals set for them (p. 23). It is the level of clarity of the work
goal, being able to know if and when the goal(s) are being achieved, and the rationale
behind the work goal that employees should expect to know in an organization (Clark &
Estes, 2002, p. 23). This way, the chance of individuals working toward their own
personal goals is minimized.
We believe the link between what is being done in the classroom and how this
work is linked to FoR can be better articulated for all role groups throughout GUSD.
Individual performance goals that are concrete, challenging, and current (C
3
) must be
determined and defined (Clark & Estes, 2002) for role groups at different levels of the
organization (district, principals, and teachers). The individual performance goals should
ultimately support the establishment of the schoolwide instructional focus and the
implementation of relevant instructional practices in all classrooms, both intermediate-
level goals that are two of the areas of focus advocated in FoR.
Aligning and developing a comprehensive set of strategies can reinforce
overarching instructional improvement goals (Marsh et al., 2004). We are aware that the
district has committed to working toward this for the 2010-11 school year. Though it is

124
the primary role of the site principals to be able to communicate and translate the vision
for their staffs, training the ILTs to be able to help site staffs understand the goal structure
should be a district priority. By adopting the FoR reform initiative and setting its
comprehensive, incremental system of change into play, the ILTs were well-poised to
respond to the new district goals in ways that should have “enhanced system coherence,
shared purpose, and student learning” (Chrispeels et al., 2008, p. 745). Chrispeels et al.
(2008) go on to explain how this coherence impacts goal attainment: “[t]he greater the
congruence of perceptions between central office and school leadership teams regarding
these leadership tasks, the more effective the leadership teams will be in achieving
organizational goals” (p. 734).
Although we acknowledge the strong level of reform implementation thus far in
GUSD, we must keep in mind that prioritization of FoR must also be “complemented by
sending a clear and consistent message about district priorities and by channeling limited
district and school resources to a finite number of areas” (Marsh et al., 2004, p. 2).
GUSD needs to modify and update their graphic “mental model” that clearly depicts the
FoR framework and the cascading goals. It is vital that all stakeholders at every level
understand the organization goal structure and actively link their role at a school or in the
district to achieving the goals at every level. The district instructional leadership team
(ILT) needs to provide specific training to increase their understanding of the goal
structure, as well as offer effective strategies to communicate understanding with site
staff.

125
Recommendation 2: Build knowledge/skill capacity of GUSD role groups.
Knowledge systems are one of the most important factors in achieving the
global/organizational goals. It is crucial that each role group is provided ongoing
information, training, and coaching to ensure the implementation of the reform initiative
is done with fidelity. Training and coaching support are significant activities to increase
the knowledge/skill capacity of all staff. Joyce & Showers (2002) concluded that the
objectives of both training and coaching mirror each other and that professional
development plans and leadership need to embed coaching into the training component to
ensure knowledge transfer occurs when participants return to their school site. Clark &
Estes (2002) identifies lack of sufficient knowledge/skill as a cause for performance gaps.
Knowledge and skills provide the “what, when, where, who, how, and why” information.
A gap analysis is helpful is assessing this need as people are often unaware of their own
lack of knowledge or skill or are reluctant to disclose their need for training and support
(p. 44).
As the project inquiry team interviewed the members of various role groups, a
consistent theme emerged indicating a significant gap in critical information among
teachers, principals and district leadership. Teachers have varied levels of involvement
with FoR. Some choose not to participate. They do not realize how to link their work to
the FoR principles and their level of implementation. Some teachers claim the FoR
principles are already a part of their teaching repertoire—but they cannot articulate how
they link together. Principals are instructional leaders who must “enhance guidance and
standardization, [can produce] faithful implementation of program-specific teaching

126
regimes, without leading to negative results, such as decreased teacher motivation”
(Rowan & Miller, 2007, pp. 287-288).
Furthermore, a lack of awareness or clarity exists on how exactly the reform
initiative is directly linked to their classroom practice. The knowledge/skill gap was also
demonstrated by the lack of a specific induction plan for new personnel at either the
district or site level. It was learned that grade-level teachers on the elementary school
ILTs did not provide a specific orientation of the FoR framework that links the work
performance goals to the organization goal. It was assumed that new staff would “catch
on” eventually or that they would “figure it out” by being part of the staff.
The gap analysis also disclosed the inconsistent practice among principals for
providing meaningful feedback related to the ILT-selected instructional strategies in the
classroom. Teachers expressed the need for validation of their best practices as well as
guidance and support that could help them improve. Staff expressed a greater desire for
more explicit feedback that would help them achieve their performance goals.
Performance goals need to be monitored with regular observation and feedback so staff
may improve their efforts of success (Clark & Estes, 2002). Feedback is one of the most
important elements in learning, improving, and refining an innovation.
While districtwide Instructional Walk Throughs (IWT) were regularly scheduled,
the desired feedback was inconsistent, vague, and created uncomfortable reactions among
teachers as they wondered about their performance. This attitude may have contributed
to the inconsistent implementation of the reform initiative among classrooms and schools.
Without a clear understanding of the goal alignment, explicit feedback to validate or

127
improve best practices, the IWTs did not achieve their full capacity or the intended
outcomes consistently.
The inquiry team proposes five steps to enhance teacher and principal efficacy
and ensure that all role groups have sufficient knowledge and skill to accomplish the
work and FoR intermediate goals:
Develop a Formal Induction System.
While GUSD has provided ongoing information and some training in the FoR
components incrementally over the past five years, designing a formal induction process
for new staff would ensure transfer of knowledge and increase fidelity of the
implementation process. Induction opportunities must be offered regularly so that new
staff is trained very shortly after they join the organization. When new employees join
the GUSD staff, in addition to the typical orientation agendas (policy, protocols, safety),
the district personnel should present the instructional mental model – the graphic that
displays the three levels of goals and defines the strategies and tactics within each one. It
is imperative for the sustainability of the FoR reform that everyone, everywhere in GUSD
knows the district’s values for professional learning, collaboration, and instructional
focus. New staff needs to know and understand the ILT structure and be directed to meet
with them at the site.
Support Personnel.
Support personnel such as instructional coaches, department chairs, ILT leaders,
and district office personnel are critical in the implementation of an innovation. Their
commitment is to help novice or struggling staff develop the knowledge and skills needed

128
to understand how to embed the instructional changes in the classroom as well as identify
the criteria that serve as indicators for others to observe the evidence-based practices
(Joyce & Showers, 2002; Spouse, 2001; Wren & Vallejo, 2009). Perceived value and
effectiveness of interactions were greater when coaches tailored their work to school
and/or teacher needs and advised teachers about instruction (Marsh et al., 2004, p. 2).
An effective coaching model is critical to support novice or struggling teachers
and principals in the implementation process. Both technical and team coaching models
would be beneficial to support the implementation of an innovation in curriculum and
instruction (Joyce & Showers, 2002). The principals and ILTs could be trained in
coaching protocols that include supervision and monitoring of the instructional focus,
teaching and modeling while engaged in practice activities, offering meaningful
assessment and feedback, and providing emotional support (Spouse, 2001). This would
increase the capacity of site leadership to provide ongoing coaching so staff would
understand more deeply how the seven principles of FoR are implemented at their
particular site and reinforce the focus on the site-level SMART-e goals for student
achievement.
Many districts decide to hire professionals (instructional coaches) to lead
instruction in literacy, math and science to provide ongoing, job-embedded professional
development to the classroom teachers (Sturtevant, 2003). Under pressure for high
achievement, many schools recognize the need for site-based, content-specific expertise
to guide improvements in curriculum and instruction (Wren & Vallejo, 2009). Sufficient
evidence exists that support fact that the knowledge and talent of the classroom teacher is

129
one of the most important variables influencing academic success for students (Elmore,
2002; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004).
Principals and ILTs.
The analysis of data from staff interviews revealed the varying levels of
knowledge and commitment among staff members. While district and site ILT members
demonstrated greater knowledge, skill, and active engagement in the FoR principles, non-
participants seemed to have less understanding of the intermediate goal and its
connection to the work/performance goals and the global/organizational goal. School
ILTs could better mitigate this distancing by establishing a specific plan to induct new
staff and refresh site staff in their understanding of the rationale and instructional focus.
This type of informal induction provides site-specific details about that would serve as
another layer of training and peer coaching to enhance implementation fidelity. As the
ILT collaborates and shares the leadership responsibilities by recruiting all team members
to increase participation, there is greater schoolwide capacity to maintain the instructional
focus (Spillane, 2006).
School leadership teams need to be part of a broader communication bridge with
the central office, rather than indirectly through the principal: “The creation of a more
formal linkage and communicative relationship may allow for more explicit discussions
of team and district theories of action, thus increasing an important opportunity for
collective dialogue and greater co-construction of the reforms (Datnow et al., 2006;
Hubbard et al., 2006, as cited in Chrispeels et al., 2008, p. 744).

130
Instructional Walkthroughs.
Instructional Walkthroughs (IWTs) are a viable process that ensures increase
accountability and fidelity of the instructional focus (Graf & Werlinich, 2002). While the
IWT is intended to gather school wide data regarding school climate and efficacy in
instructional practices, many GUSD teachers requested that they receive more explicit
feedback that informed them about their classroom practice. In the tone of a professional
learning community, the IWT should be non-judgmental, non-evaluative and inquiry-
based using multiple forms of data. The feedback should validate best practices, as well
as provide considerations for ways to improve implementation fidelity and classroom
instruction. This requires cultivating professionally safe, supportive, honest, and trusting
relationships.
Principals as Instructional Leaders.
Principals are the gatekeepers of change, whether intentionally or due to lack of
knowledge and/or skill. They are also the barometers of academic achievement;
therefore, it behooves the organization to invest a great deal of resources to help each
principal achieve full capacity as an instructional leader as school leadership is strongly
correlated with student achievement (Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, Hopkins, 2006).
The role of the principal has changed and many may not have sufficient knowledge and
skill in the twenty-one key McREL responsibilities required of effective principals
(Waters, Marzano, & McNultry, 2003). District leadership may provide principals with
additional knowledge in prioritizing school tasks so that they find substantial time to be

131
in classrooms to coach, mentor, support, and provide resources to build trusting
relationships and increase teacher capacity.
A more structured peer coaching system for principals should be developed by
district leadership to increase principal capacity to lead change and implement the reform
initiative. A consideration would be to create principal trios that meet regularly, conduct
IWTs at each other’s sites, and disclose their needs for additional information to
strengthen their efforts in being an effective school leader. This type of informing
coaching relationships allow each individual to hear new ideas, reflect on different
possibilities, and confront their personal assumptions and stereotypes. This would also
increase cooperation among schools by acknowledging and learning from each other’s
strengths and strengthening perceived or real weaknesses. When a collective mentality is
nurtured, the culture transitions and emerges into a higher-level professional learning
community.
Recommendation 3: Stay The Course! Work to Sustain the Reform.
Clark & Estes (2002) proposed that when organizations make informed decisions
using the most current research evidence, it increases the chances that the chosen
performance improvement program will succeed.
Turnover in leadership at all levels of the district (superintendent & leadership
cabinet, principals, staff ILT leaders) and the end of the supplemental grant that provided
districtwide training and collaboration threaten the sustainability of FoR and may support
the notion that it is “just another reform” that will disappear as soon as the next novel

132
idea is popularized. District leadership needs to reaffirm its commitment to the FoR
initiative.
The second threat facing the reform is the major turnover in leadership at the
district and site levels. Staying the course and deepening the implementation is a
practical, cost-effective choice for GUSD. Implementation of a multi-level
comprehensive reform like FoR in a large organization like GUSD takes time. According
to research, successful implementation is at the heart of getting the desired results from a
program or practice and the ability to sustain the reform over time (Fixen et al. 2005;
Fullan, 2005; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006; Lambert, 2003; Mourshed, Chijioke, & Barber,
2010).
It is important to understand the complexity of implementing a new program or
strategy. According to Fixen et al., (2005), “there is broad agreement that
implementation is a complex endeavor, more complex than the policies, programs,
procedures, techniques, or technologies that are the subject of the implementation efforts”
(p. 2).
Therefore, successful implementation requires not only careful attention to
structures, procedures, and processes but also explicit attention as to whom, how, and
where the new “initiative” will affect the organization. Consequently, thoughtful and
effective execution of implementation strategies at multiple levels of the organization is
critical for it requires transformation of the system, change in human behavior, and the
restructuring of organizational context, which can be particularly difficult to any
organization.

133
Though these obstacles to reform would stop any other district from proceeding
forward, we feel that GUSD has established such a strong foundation for its reform
implementation that it should stay the course and proceed forward, being mindful of the
rough road ahead that it will face: demands from Race To The Top (RTTT) legislation,
severe budget constraints, a tepid relationship with the unions of its classified and
certificated staff, and the ever-increasing proficiency requirements under NCLB. A
strong, multi-faceted sustainability plan will help GUSD mitigate these obstacles and
help all students achieve academic success.
As GUSD evaluates their progress over the last five years and measures for
implementation fidelity, they will be able to construct explicit next steps to deepen the
reform effort and achieve their greatest goal, academic success for each and every
student. The inquiry team proposes the following eight steps for GUSD to consider in
developing a plan for reform sustainability:
• Ensure leadership at all levels of the district can define the “big picture” for staff;
• Re-establish staff’s belief in the goal structure to increase task value;
• Reaffirm its commitment to the FoR reform initiative under the leadership of the
new Superintendent;
• Use the developed rubrics to measure the degree of implementation for each
GUSD site – ILT, school staff, and district administrators;
• Establish mentoring system between schools for reform support.
School teams who are efficacious in the reform effort would partner with another site that
shares a common instructional focus to share strategies and ideas. All role groups must be

134
able to harness social capital – “the formal and informal ties with others and the degree of
trust, shared norms, and expertise that characterizes those ties” (Honig & Coburn, 2008,
p. 598) as they interact with one another through the district.
• Acknowledge group efficacy by explicitly celebrating the growth in student
achievement outcomes across all schools;
• Mitigate perceptions of threats/“ill-intent” (evaluation vs. coaching); and
• Symbolically create a “new beginning” by creating a digital message on portable
medium (DVD) where the “new” district Superintendent presents his views on
FoR and the reform implementation:
o Acknowledges the hard work, talents, commitment, and other virtues that
have occurred over the past five years;
o Validates the leadership of the ILTs and team members;
o Outlines the district human and fiscal resources that will support the
implementation of the FoR reform;
o Reaffirms “the team’s” commitment to continuing the collaborative
approach for implementation, including ILTs, site-based professional
development, the use of data to inform and modify instruction, to reinforce
the instructional focus; and
o Reinforces the importance of positive, caring relationships based on open
communication, trust, support and willingness to problem-solve
differences together.

135
Human Capital
There is one thing that is common to every individual, relationship, team, family,
organization, nation, economy, and civilization throughout the world---one thing
which, if removed, will destroy the most powerful government, the most
successful business, the most thriving economy, the most influential leadership,
the greatest friendship, the strongest character, the deepest love. On the other
hand, if developed and leveraged, that one thing has the potential to create
unparalleled success and prosperity in every dimension of life. Yet it is the least
understood, most neglected, and most underestimated possibility of our time.
That one thing is trust (Covey, 2006, p. 1).
Though it is crucial to close the gaps in the aforementioned three areas, the
foundation of the reform plan must always be maintained. The impact of human capital
must not be disregarded in this implementation process. The reform will continue to
persist when all GUSD role groups feel a sense of collective ownership about the reform
initiative and process, when the process is transparent, and fosters collegiality among
members. The working relationships that support the foundation of the reform effort (and
go toward ensuring the individual components of the reform process will persist) must be
based on trust and mutual respect. District leadership must be mindful of the impact of
human capital upon the overall success of the reform effort – and the ability of the effort
to be sustained for years to come.

136
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Academic Performance Index (API): A number summarizing the performance of a
group of students, a school, or a district on California’s standardized tests. A
school’s number (or API score) is used to rank it among schools of the same type
and among the 100 schools of the same type that are most similar in terms of
students served, teacher qualifications, and other factors.
Accountability: The notion that people or an organization should be held responsible for
improving student achievement and should be rewarded or sanctioned for their
success or lack of success in doing so.
Achievement Gap: A consistent difference in scores on student achievement tests
between certain groups of children and children in other groups. The data
documents a strong association between poverty and students’ lack of academic
success as measured by achievement tests. And while poverty is not unique to any
ethnicity, it does exist in disproportionate rates among African Americans and
Latinos. The reasons for the achievement gap are multifaceted. They do to some
degree stem from factors the children bring with them to school; however, other
factors contribute to the gap stem from students’ school experiences.
Achievement Test: A test to measure a student’s knowledge and skills.
Action Research: Systematic investigation by teachers of some aspect of their work in
order to improve their effectiveness. Involves identifying a question or problem
and then collecting and analyzing relevant data. (Differs from conventional
research because in this case the participants are studying an aspect of their own

137
work and they intend to use the results themselves.) For example, a teacher might
decide to give students different assignments according to their assessed learning
styles. If the teacher maintained records comparing student work before and after
the change, he would be doing action research. If several educators worked
together on such a project, it would be considered collaborative action research.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Adequate Yearly Progress is a set of annual
academic performance benchmarks that states, school districts, schools, and
subpopulations of students are supposed to achieve if the state receives funding
under Title I, Part A of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
Alignment: The degree to which assessments, curriculum, instruction, textbooks and
other instructional materials, teacher preparation and professional development,
and systems of accountability all reflect and reinforce the educational program’s
objective and standards.
Assessment: Another name for a test. An assessment can also be a system for testing and
evaluating students, groups of students, schools or districts.
At-risk Students: Students who have a higher-than-average probability of dropping out
or failing school. Broad categories usually include inner-city, low-income, and
homeless children; those not fluent in English; and special needs students with
emotional or behavioral difficulties. Substance abuse, juvenile crime,
unemployment, poverty, and lack of adult support are thought to increase a
youth's risk factor.

138
Benchmark: A detailed description of a specific level of student achievement expected
of students at particular ages, grades, or developmental levels.
California Standards Test: Tests that are a part of the Standards Testing and Reporting
(STAR) program and are based on the state’s academic content standards.
Cohort: A particular group of people with something in common. For instance, a cohort
might be a group of students who had been taught an interdisciplinary curriculum
by a team of junior high school teachers. Researchers might want to track their
progress into high school to identify differences in success of students in the
cohort compared with students who had attended conventional classes in the same
school.
Comprehensive School Reform: An approach to school improvement that involves
adopting a design for organizing an entire school rather than using numerous
unrelated instructional programs. New American Schools, an organization that
promotes comprehensive school reform, sponsors several different designs, each
featuring challenging academic standards, strong professional development
programs, meaningful parental and community involvement, and a supportive
school environment.
Continuous Progress: A system of education in which individuals or small groups of
students go through a sequence of lessons at their own pace, rather than at the
pace of the entire classroom group. Continuous progress has also been called
individualized education or individualized instruction and is one version of
mastery learning. In continuous-progress programs, able and motivated students

139
are not held back, and students take on new lessons only if they show they have
the prerequisite skills. A criticism, however, is that unmotivated students often
progress more slowly than they would in regular classes.
Core Academic Standards: The basic academic standards that are assessed in the
statewide testing system for K-12 public schools.
Corrective Action (Sanctions): A plan to improve low-performing schools. Under the
federal No Child Left Behind Act, when a school or school district does not make
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), the state will place it under a corrective action plan.
Criterion-Referenced Test: A test that measures specific performance or content
standards along a continuum from total lack of skill to excellence. These tests
also have cut scores that determine whether a test-taker has passed or failed the
test or has basic, proficient or advanced skills.
Curriculum: The course of study offered by a school or district.
Disaggregated Data: The presentation of data broken into segments or smaller groups.
Data Driven Decision Making: The process of making decisions about curriculum and
instruction based on the analysis of classroom data and data and standardized test
data. Data driven decision-making uses data on function, quality, and quantity of
inputs and how students learn suggest educational solutions.
Disaggregated Data: Test scores or other data divided so that various categories can be
compared. For example, schools may break down the data for the entire student
population (aggregated into a single set of numbers) to determine how minority

140
students are doing compared with the majority, or how scores of girls compare
with those for boys.
Educational leadership: Leadership in formal educational settings. It draws upon
interdisciplinary literature, generally, but ideally distinguishes itself through its
focus on pedagogy, epistemology and human development. In contemporary
practice it borrows from political science and business. Debate within the field
relates to this tension.
Educational organization: Organization within the scope of education. It is a common
misconception that this means it is organizing educational system; rather, it deals
with the theory of organization as it applies to education of the human mind.
Formative Assessment: Any form of assessment used by an educator to evaluate
students’ knowledge and understanding of particular content and then used to
adjust instructional practices accordingly toward improving student achievement
in that area.
High-stakes Testing: A test that results in some kind of consequence for those who score
low, some kind of reward for those who score high or both.
Intervention Program: Program(s) that provide extra support and resources to help
improve student or school performance.
Instructional Leadership: Actions or behaviors exhibited by an individual or group in
the field of education that are characterized by knowledge and skill in the area of
curriculum and instructional methodology, the provision of resources so that the
school’s mission can be met, skilled communication in one-on-one, small-group

141
and large-group settings, and the establishment of a clear and articulated vision
for the educational institution.
Lateral Accountability: Mutual accountability to a peer group (e.g. principals in a
coaching trio).
Low-performing schools: Schools, almost always located in urban or low-income rural
areas, in which an unacceptably low proportion of students meet established
standards, as indicated by test scores. Also called failing schools. Some observers
believe it is unfair to call such schools failing because, they say, the real failure is
society's for allowing the social conditions that hamper student learning. Others
point out that some schools, called effective schools, succeed in teaching low-
income children, so others could do it too. Because policies increasingly focus on
such schools, and because test scores usually vary from year to year rather than
going steadily up or down, state and national officials have devoted considerable
attention to procedures for deciding which schools should be declared “low-
performing”.
Multiple Measures: An approach that relies on more than one indicator to measure a
student’s academic strengths and weaknesses.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): The 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Originally passed in 1965, ESEA programs
provide much of the federal funding for K-12 schools.

142
Mentoring: A developmental relationship between a more experienced mentor and a less
experienced partner referred to as a mentee or protégé. Usually - but not
necessarily - the mentor/protégé pair will be of the same sex.
Norm-Referenced Assessment: An assessment in which an individual or group’s
performance is compared to a larger group.
Percentile Ranks: One method to compare a student, class, school or district to a
national norm by ranking them according to how they scored on a given test
compared to others who took the same test with the 99th percentile rank being the
highest.
Performance Assessment: Also referred to as alternative or authentic assessment.
Requires students to generate a response to a question rather than choose it from a set of
possible answers provided for them.
Performance Standards: Standards that describe how well or at what level students
should be expected to master the content standards.
Professional Development: Programs that allow teachers or administrators to acquire the
knowledge and skills they need to perform their jobs successfully.
Proficiency: Mastery or ability to do something at grade-level.
Program Improvement: An intervention under the No Child Left Behind Act for
schools and districts that receive federal Title I funds when for two years in a row
they do not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) towards the goal of having all
students proficient in English Language Arts and Mathematics.

143
Reform Strategies: Strategies used by superintendents/system leaders to improve
student performance. USLI has identified ten key change levers that are worthy of
study: curriculum, assessment, professional development, human resource system
and human capital management, finance and budget, communications,
governance/board relations, labor relations/contract negotiations, family and
community engagement, and strategic plan.
Sampling: In education research, the administration of a test to and analyzing the test
results of a set of students who, as a group, represent the characteristics of the
entire student population. Based on their analysis of the data of the representative
sample, 22 researchers, educators, and policymakers can infer important trends in
the academic progress of an individual or group of students.
School Board: A locally elected group, usually between three and seven members, who
set fiscal, personnel, instructional, and student-related policies. The governing
board also provides direction for the district, hires and fires the district
superintendent, and approves the budget and contracts with employee unions.
School District: A local education agency directed by an elected local board of
education that exists primarily to operate public schools.
Scientifically Based Research: Research that involves the application of rigorous,
systemic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge
relevant to educational activities.

144
Self-efficacy: The belief that one has the capabilities to execute the courses of actions
required to manage prospective situations. Unlike efficacy, which is the power to
produce an effect (in essence, competence), self-efficacy is the belief (however
accurate) that one has the power to produce that effect.
Significant Subgroup: A group of students based on ethnicity, poverty, English Learner
status, and special education designation. Socioeconomically Disadvantaged:
Students whose parents do not have a high school diploma or who participate in
the free/reduced price meal program because of low family income.
Standardized Test: A test that is the same format for all takers. Relies heavily or
exclusively on multiple-choice questions.
Standards: Degrees or levels of achievement based on grade level curriculum.
Superintendent: Chief administrator of a school district selected and evaluated by the
district’s board of education and responsible/accountable for all school district’s
operations and management.
Title I: A federal program that provides funds for educationally disadvantaged students
based on the number of low-income students in a school.
Valid: An adjective that describes the efficacy of a test.
Value-added Systems of Accountability: Models that attempt to measure the value
added by an individual teacher or school to students’ performance over time.

145
REFERENCES

Anderson, S. E. (2003). The school district role in educational change: A review of the
literature. Ontario, Canada: International Center for Educational Change,
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New
York, CA: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Aud, S., Fox, M., & Kewal-Ramani, A. (2010). Status and trends in the education of
racial and ethnic groups (NCES 2010-015). U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Autor, D. H., Levy, F. & Murnane, R. J. (2003, November). The skill content of recent
technological change: an empirical exploration. Quarterly Journal of Economics,
118(4), 1279-1333.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Barth, R. (2004). Learning by Heart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barth, R. (1991). Restructuring schools: some questions for teachers and principals. Phi
Delta Kappan, 73(2), 123-128.
Barth, R. (2005). Turning book burners into lifelong learners. In DuFour, R., Eaken, R.,
& DuFour, R. (Eds.). On common ground: The power of professional learning
communities (pp. 115-134). Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of
Educational Research, 71(2), 171-217.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boulding, K. E. (1989). The three faces of power. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.

Bryk, A. S. & Schneider, B. (2003, March). Trust in schools: A core resource for school
reform. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 40-45.

146
Cal Facts 2006. (2006, August 6). California's economy and budget in perspective.
Retrieved January 31, 2010, from California Legislative Analyst's Office Web
site: http://www.lao.ca.gov/2006/cal_facts /2006_calfacts_econ.htm
California Department of Education. (2009). 2009 Adequate Yearly Progress report
information guide. Retrieved February 10, 2010 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/
ta/ac/ay/documents/infoguide09.pdf
California Department Of Education. (2009). Data and statistics. Retrieved
February 8, 2010, from California Department of Education Web site:
http://cde.ca.gov/ds
Cervone, L. & Martinez-Miller, P. (2007, Summer). Classroom walkthroughs as a
catalyst for school improvement. Leadership Compass, 4(4). Retrieved from
http://www.naesp.org/resources/2/Leadership_Compass/2007/ LC2007v4n4a2.pdf
Childress, S., Elmore, R. F., & Grossman, A. (2006, November). How to manage urban
school districts. Harvard Business Review, 1-14.
Chrispeels, J. H., Burke, P. H., Johnson, P., & Daly, A. J. (2008). Aligning mental
models of district and school leadership teams for reform coherence. Education
and Urban Society, 40(6), 730-750. doi: 10.1177/0013124508319582
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How
disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: Harper Business.
Covey, S. (2006). The speed of trust. New York: Free Press.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide for selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Corbett, H. D., & Wilson, B. L. (1992). The central office role in instructional
improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 3(1), 45-68.
Corcoran, T., Fuhrman, S. H., & Belcher, C. L. (2001, September). The district role in
instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 78-84.
Cotton, K. (1995), “Effective Schooling Practices: A Research Synthesis 1995 Update,”
NW Regional Educational Laboratory, http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/esp/es/
95toc.html

147
Crandall, D. P., & Eiseman, J. W. (1983). Coordinating assistance in school improvement
efforts: issues to consider. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Cranton, P. (2002). Teaching for transformation. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 93, 63-71.
Cuban, L. (1989, June). The ‘at-risk’ label and the problem of urban school reform. Phi
Delta Kappan, 70(10), 780-784, 799-801. Retrieved July 15, 2010 from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20404031
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: a competent teacher for every child.
Phi Delta Kappan, 78(3), 193-200.
Darling-Hammond, L., (1999, December). Teacher quality and student achievement: a
review of state policy evidence. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Retrieved on December 14, 2008 from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/
LDH_1999.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers
College Record, 106(6), 1047-1085.
Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform in changing
district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 121-153.
Datnow, A., Park , V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2006). Achieving with Data: How High-
Performing School Systems Use Data to Improve Instruction for Elementary
Students.” Los Angeles: Center on Educational Governance, Rossier School of
Education, University of Southern California. Available at:
http://www.newschools.org/viewpoints/AchievingWithData.pdf
David, J. L., (2008). What research says about classroom walkthroughs. Educational
Leadership. 65(4), 81-82.

Deal, T. E. & Kennedy, A. A. (2000). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of
corporate life. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.
Deal, T. E. & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychology
Bulletin, 125, 627-68.

148
Downey, C. J., Steffy, B. E., English, F. W., Frase, L. E., & Poston, W. K. (2004). The
three-minute classroom walkthrough: Changing school supervisory practice one
teacher at a time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
DuFour, R. (2004, May). What is a “professional learning community”? Schools as
Learning Communities, 61(8), 6-11.
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., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook
for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work:
Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.

DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (2005). Closing the knowing-doing gap. In
DuFour, R., Eaken, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.), On common ground: The power of
professional learning communities (pp. 225-252). Bloomington, IN: National
Educational Service.
Eaker, R., DuFour, R., & DuFour, R., (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to
become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National
Educational Service.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual
Review Psychology, 53, 109-132.
Edsource, Inc. (2005, June). The state’s official measures of school performance.
Retrieved October 11, 2006, from http://www.edsource.org/pdf/perfmeasguide05.pdf
Education Data Partnership. (1999, September). Understanding the API. Retrieved
February 6, 2010, from Education Data Partnership Web site: http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Articles/21Article.asp?title=Understanding%20the%20APIEducati
on Week (2009), Quality Counts 2009 Per Pupil Funding. Retrieved January 11,
2009, from http://www.cta.org/NR/rdonlyres/35098CAB-729F-4436-B2D5-
AC8A1AD8CFEE/0/CAPerPupilFunding47thRankingChartQC20091909.pdf

Education Week (2009), Quality Counts 2009 Per Pupil Funding. Retrieved
January 11, 2009, from http://www.cta.org/NR/rdonlyres/35098CAB-729F-4436-
B2D5-AC8A1AD8CFEE/0/CAPerPupilFunding 47thRankingChart
QC20091909.pdf

149
EdSource. (2004). No child left behind in California? The impact of the federal NCLB act
so far. Palo Alto, CA, EdSource.
EdSource (2005a). Holding school districts accountable. Retrieved February 25, 2008,
from http://www.edsource.org
EdSource. (2005b). Understanding school district budgets. Mountain View, CA:
EdSource.
EdSource (2005c). School accountability under NCLB: ambitious goals and competing
systems. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
EdSource. (2006). Similar students, different results: Why do some schools do better?
Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
Elmore, R. F. (1993). The role of local school districts in instructional improvement. In
S. Fuhrman, (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy: Improving the System
(pp. 96-124). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. The Albert Shanker
Institute: Washington, DC. Retrieved on December 15, 2008 from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/building.pdf
Elmore, R. F. (2003). Knowing the right thing to do: School improvement and
performance-based accountability [Electronic Version]. CPRE: NGA Center for
Best Practices. Retrieved from: http://www.nga.org/cda/files/
0803KNOWING.PDF
Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practices, and
performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Elmore, R., & Burney, D. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff Development and
Instructional Improvement in Community School District #2, New York:
Consortium for Policy Research in Education and National Commission on
Teacher & America’s Future, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Eubanks, E. E., & Levine, D. U. (1983). A first look at effective schools projects in New
York City and Milwaukee. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(10), 697-702.
Evans, R., & Mohr, B. (1999). Turnaround principal: high-stakes leadership. Principal,
84(1), 13-23.
Fiol, C. M. & Lyles, M. A. (1985, October). Organizational learning. The Academy of
Management Review, 10(4), 803-813.

150
Ferren, A. S. & Kinch, A. (2003, Summer). The dollars and sense behind general
education reform. Association of American College &Universities peerReview, 8-
11.
Fink, E. & Resnick. L. (1999). Developing principals as instructional leaders.
Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, High Performance Learning
Communities Project, Learning Research and Development Center, Retrieved
December 18, 2010 from: http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/hplc/

Fink, E. & Resnick, L. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi Delta
Kappan, 82(2), 598-607.
Firestone, W., Meyrowitz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment and
instructional change: the effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 95-113.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fixen, D., Naoom, S., Blasé, K., Friedman, R., Wallace, F., (2005). Implementation
Research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.
French, J. & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.).
Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The World is Flat: A brief history of twenty-first century. New
York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Fullan, M. (1985). Change processes and strategies at the local level. The Elementary
School Journal, 85(3), 391-421.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks: Corwin
Press.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand
Oaks: Corwin Press.
Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M., Bertani, A., & Quinn, J. (2004). Lessons from districtwide reform.
Educational Leadership, 61(6), 42-46.

151
Fullan, M. G. & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what
doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 744-752. Retrieved July 22, 2010 from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20404761
Fuhrman, S. & Elmore, R. (1990). Understanding local control in the wake of state
education reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(1), 82-96.
Garcia, G. E. (2002). Chapter 1 (Introduction). In Student cultural diversity:
Understanding and meeting the challenge (3
rd
Ed.), (pp. 3-39). Boston, MA:
Houghton-Mifflin.
Gardner, D. P. (1983, April). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform
(ED 266 006). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved April
18, 2010, from The National Commission on Excellence in Education website:
http://datacenter.spps.org
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Gerhardt, M. W. & Luzadis, R. A. (2009). The importance of perceived task difficulty in
goal orientation – assigned goal alignment. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies 16(2): 167-174. doi: 10.1177/1548051809337875
Gillispie, J. & Chrispeels, J. H. (2008). Us and them: conflict, collaboration, and the
discursive negotiation of multishareholder roles in school district reform. Small
Group Research, 39(4), 397-437. doi: 10.1177/1046496408319877
Ginsberg, M. B., & Murphy, D. (2002). How walkthroughs open doors. Educational
Leadership, 34-36.
Guskey, T. R. (2003, June). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta
Kappan, 749.
Hall, G., George, A., & Rutherford, W. (1979). Measuring stages of concern about the
innovation: a manual for use of the SoC questionnaire. Austin, TX: The
University of TX at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education.
Hall, G. & Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
Hall, G. & Hord, S. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

152
Harvey, T. R. (1995). Checklist for change: A pragmatic approach to creating and
controlling change. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Co., Inc.
Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (Eds.). (2009). Change wars. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree.
Hersh, R. H. (2009, April 22). Our 21st-century 'risk': Teaching for content and skills.
Education Week. Retrieved January 11, 2010 from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/04/22/29hersh_ep.h28.html
Hightower, A. M. (2002). Theory of instruction drives district’s decision making and
infrastructure. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Hoerr, T. R. (2005). The Art of School Leadership. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Honig, M. I. & Coburn, C. (2008). Evidence-based decision making in school district
central offices: toward a policy and research agenda. Educational Policy, 22(4),
578-608. doi: 10.1177/0895904807307067
Hopkins, G. (2008, April 12). Walkthroughs are on the move. Education World.
Retrieved December 14, 2010 from: http://www.education-world.com/a_admin/
admin/admin405.shtml
Jacobson, S. L., Johnson, L., Ylimaki, R., & Giles, C. (2005). Successful leadership in
challenging US schools: enabling principles, enabling schools. Journal of
Educational Administration, 43(6), 607-618. doi: 10.1108/09578230510625700
Johnson, D. P. (2005). Sustaining Change in Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Johnston, H. (2003). Leadership by walking around: walkthroughs and instructional
improvement. The Principals’ Partnership. Retrieved from
http://www.principalspartnership.com/feature203.html
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). How should we spend our time in professional
development? (3rd Ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision of
Curriculum and Development.
Kealey, K. A., Peterson, A. V., Jr., Gaul, M. A., & Dinh, K. T. (2000). Teacher training
as a behavior change process: Principles and results from a longitudinal study.
Health Education & Behavior, 27(1), 64–81.

153
Kewal-Ramani, A., Gilbertson, L., Fox, M., and Provasnik, S. (2007). Status and trends
in the education of racial and ethnic minorities (NCES 2007-039). National
Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department
of Education. Washington, DC.
Keirsey, D. & Bate, M. (1998) Please understand me: Character and temperament types.
Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Books.
King, D. (2002, May). The changing shape of leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8),
34-39.
Kirkpatrick, D. E. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koelher Publishers, Inc.
Knowles, R. N. (2002). The Leadership Dance: Pathways to Extraordinary
Organizational Effectiveness. Niagara Falls, NY: The Center for Self-Organizing
Leadership.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Lasky, S. (2002). The district as lens. In A. Datnow & S. Stringfield (Eds.), CREDE
synthesis project on systemic integration for effective reform. Unpublished
manuscript.
Leithwood, K. (2006). Understanding successful principal leadership: progress on a
broken front. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 619-629. doi:
10.1108/09578230510625719
Leithwood, K. (2010, June). Turning around underperforming school systems:
guidelines for district leaders. A paper commissioned by the College of Alberta
School Superintendents. Retrieved July 22, 2010 from: http://o.b5z.net/i/u/
10063916/h/Moving%20and%20Improving/District_turnaround_main_text_June
_8.pdf
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Seven strong
claims about successful school leadership. Nottingham, England: National College
of School Leadership. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from
http://www.npbs.ca/2007- elements/pdfs/seven-strong%20claims.pdf
Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research:
How leadership influences student learning. Learning from Leadership Project.
The Wallace Foundation.

154
Levitt, B. & March, J. G. (1988, August). Organizational learning. Annual Review of
Sociology, 14, 319-338. Retrieved May 17, 2010 from:
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org
Lewis, A. C. (1998, May). The importance of evidence. Phi Delta Kappan, 644.
Lieberman, A. (1996). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming
conceptions of professional learning. In McLaughlin, M. & Oberman, I. (Eds.),
Teacher learning: New policies, new practices (pp. 185-201), New York:
Teachers College Press.
Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’
professional relations. Teachers College Record, 509-536.
Loesch, P. C. (2010, May/June). Four core strategies for implementing change.
Leadership, 28-31.
Louis, K. S. (2005). Reconnecting knowledge utilization and school improvement: two
steps forward, one step back. In Hopkins, D. (Ed.), The practice and theory of
school improvement (pp. 40-61). Netherlands: Springer.
Love, N. (Ed.). (2009). Using data to improve learning: A collaborative inquiry
approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Mac Iver, M. A. & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back: The role of the Central
office in improving instruction and student achievement. Baltimore, MD: John
Hopkins, University.
Mangin, M. M. (2009). Literacy coach role implementation: how district context
influences reform efforts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 759-792.
doi: 10.1177/0013161X09347731
Marsh, J. (2000). Connecting districts to the policy dialogue: A review of literature on
the relationship of districts with states, schools, and communities. Seattle, WA:
Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
Marsh, J. A. (2002). Broadening boundaries to build system capacity: The Highland
School District. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Marsh, J. A., Kerr, K. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., Suttorp, M., Zimmer, R., &
Barney, H. (2004). Advancing systemwide instructional reform: lessons from
three urban districts partnered with the Institute for Learning. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND Corporation, Research Brief RB-9142-EDU. Retrieved from:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9142/

155
Marsh, J., Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. S., Plecki, M. L., & Portin, B. S. (2006). Leading,
learning, and leadership support. Seattle: University of Washington.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in school: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollack, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Massell, D. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research &
Improvement. (2000). The district role in building capacity: four strategies.
CPRE policy briefs. (CPRE RB-32). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy
Research in Education, Graduate School of Education, University of
Pennsylvania.
Massell, D. & Goertz, M. (2002). District strategies for building instructional capacity.
In A. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. Marsh, & McLaughlin, M. (Eds). (2002).
School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 43-60). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Maturana, H. R. & Varela, F. J. (1992). The tree of knowledge. Boston, MA:
Shambhala.
McDermott, K. A. (2000, Spring). Barriers to large-scale success of models for urban
school reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(1), 83-89.
Retrieved July 15, 2010 from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1164309
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good,
what’s not, and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high
school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2002). Reforming districts. In A. Hightower, M. S. Knapp,
Marsh, J., & McLaughlin, M. (Eds). (2002). School districts and instructional
renewal (pp. 173-192). New York: Teachers College Press.
Mourshed, M. Chijioke, C. & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school
systems keep getting better. McKinsey&Company.
Muhammad, A. (2009). Transforming school culture: How to overcome staff division.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

156
Muller, R. D. (2004, November). The role of the district in driving school reform: A
review for the Denver Commission on secondary school reform. Retrieved 5 June
2010 from: http://www.dpsk12.org/pdf/district_role.pdf
Nerad, M. (2005). From graduate student to world citizen in a global economy.
International Higher Education, 40, 8-9. Retrieved from Boston College Web.
Site: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2009).
Retrieved from: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/Number40/
p8_Nerad.html
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage
Publications, Inc.
O’Connell, J. (2009). Highlights Impact of Budget Cuts to Education,
California Department of Education Retrieved February 10, 2010 from:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr09/yr09rel86.asp
Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, Office of the Provost. (n.d.). Is your
project human subjects research? A guide for investigators. University of
Southern California.

Olson, B. & Sexton, D. (2009). Threat rigidity, school reform, and how teachers view
their work inside current education policy contexts. American Education
Research Journal, 46(1), 9-44. doi: 10.3102/0002831208320573
Olson, D. R. (2003). Psychological theory and educational reform: How school
remakes mind and society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ouchi, W. G. (2003). Making schools work: A revolutionary plan to get
your children the education they need. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66, 543-578.
Palumbo, J., & Leight, J., (2007). The power of focus: More lessons
learned in districts and school improvement. United States of America.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

157
Pennsylvania Department Of Education (2008). Teacher Induction Report, November
2008. (TeacherInductionRerport 9-29.pdf) Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office. Retrieved from: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=
web&cd=1&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fschools.nlsd.org%2Fnlsd_
admin%2FStrategicPlan%2FReports%2FTeacherInductionReport%25209-
29.pdf&rct=j&q=teacher%20induction%20report%20929.pdf&ei=y2kITcqpMou
gsQO0w5H8Dg&usg=AFQjCNFlKlBlFZ1ipCICxjG4S4iy74_ezQ&sig2=IUBMF
p92I7LqVVO3NyWsEg&cad=rja
Perkins, D. (2004). Knowledge alive. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 14-18.
Peterson, P. E. (2010). Saving schools: From Horace Mann to virtual learning. Boston,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart communities turn
knowledge into action. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications. (2
nd
Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.
Pollock, J. E. (2009). Improving Student Learning One Principal at a Time.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Programme of International Student Achievement. (2006). Top of the class: High
Performers in Science in PISA 2006. Paris, France. Retrieved on December 7,
2009, from: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/1742645389.pdf
Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social
power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
Reeves, D. B. (2000). High performance in high poverty schools: 90/90/90 and beyond.
In Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations (Chapter 19).
Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.
Reeves, D. B. (2005). Putting it all together: standards, assessment, and
accountability in successful learning communities. In DuFour, R., Eaken, R., &
DuFour, R. (Eds.), On common ground: The power of professional learning
communities (pp. 45-64). Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

Resnick, L. (2008). The principles of learning. Pittsburgh, PA: Institute of Learning,
University of Pittsburgh. Retrieved December 18, 2010 from:
http://ifl.lrdc.pitt.edu/ifl/index.php/resources/principles_of_learning/

158
Rorrer, A. K., Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in
educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 307-358. doi:
10.1177/0013161X08318962
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991). Teachers' workplace: The social organization of schools. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Rowan, B. & Miller, R. J. (2007). Organizational strategies for promoting instructional
change: implementation dynamics in schools working with comprehensive
school reform providers. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 252-
297.
Rudalevige, A. (2005, October). Adequacy, accountability, and the impact of
“No Child Left Behind”. Working Paper PEPG/05-27, Progarm on Education
Policy and Governance, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University. Retrieved February 11, 2010 from: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/
PDF/events/Adequacy/PEPG-05-27rudalevige.pdf

Rusch, E.A. (2005). Institutional barriers to organizational learning in school systems:
the power of silence. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 83-120.
Saphier, J. (2005). Masters of Motivation. In DuFour, R., Eaken, R., & DuFour, R.
(Eds.), On common ground: The power of professional learning communities (pp.
85-114). Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service
Sarason, S. (1999). Teaching as a performing art. New York: Teacher College Press.
Schlechty, P. C., (1997). Inventing better schools: An action plan for educational
reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Schlechty, P. C., (2002). Working the work: An action plan for teachers, principals, and
superintendents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Schneider, B. L. & Keesler, V. A. (2007). School reform 2007: transforming education
into a scientific enterprise. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 197-217. doi:
10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131731
Seaton, M., Emmett, R. E., Welsh, K., & Petrossian, A. (2008). Teaming up for teaching
and learning. Leadership, 37(3), 26-29.
Semler, S. W. (1997). Systematic agreement: a theory of organizational alignment.
Human Resource Development Quarterly 8(1): 23-40. doi:
10.1002/hrdq.3920080105

159
Senge, P. (1990) The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P. (1990, Fall). The leader’s new work: building learning organizations. Sloan
Management Review, 32, 10-13.
Schmoker, M. J. (2001). The results fieldbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schmoker, M. J. (2004). Tipping point: From feckless reform to substantive
instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(6), 424-432.
Schmoker, M. (2005). No turning back: The ironclad case for professional learning
communities. In DuFour, R., Eaken, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.), On common
ground: The power of professional learning communities (pp. 135-154).
Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
Schneider, B. L. & Keesler, V. A. (2007). School reform 2007: transforming education
into a scientific enterprise. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 197-217.
Simmons, W. (2007). From smart districts to smart education systems: A broader
agenda for educational development. In R. Rothman (Ed.), City schools: How
districts and communities can create smart education systems (Chapter 12).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Snipes, J., Doolittle, F., & Herlihy, C. (2002). Foundations for Success: Case studies of
how urban school systems improve student achievement. MDRC for the Council
of the Great City Schools.
Snyder, J. (2002). New Haven Unified School District: A teaching quality system for
excellence and equity. In A. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. Marsh, & M.
McLaughlin, M. (Eds). School districts and instructional renewal. (pp. 94-110).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Sofo, R. (2008, Summer). Voices Inside Schools. Beyond NCLB and AYP: one
superintendent’s experience of school district reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 78(2), 391-409.
Song, S. H., & Keller, J. M. (2001). Effectiveness of motivationally adaptive computer-
assisted instruction on the dynamic aspects of motivation. Educational
Technology, Research and Development, 49(2), 5-22.

160
Sparks, D. (2005). Leading for transformation in teaching, learning, and relationships.
In DuFour, R., Eaken, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.), On common ground: The power
of professional learning communities (pp. 155-176). Bloomington, IN: National
Educational Service.
Sparks, D. (2001, April). The real barrier to improved professional development. Results
Newsletter, 2.
Spellings, M. (2007, April). Building on results: A blueprint for strengthening the No
Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved July 7, 2010, from http://www.ed.gov/print/
policy/elsec/guid/secletter/ 070423.html
Spillane, J. P. (1996). Districts matter: Local educational authorities and state
instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10, 63-87.
Spillane, J. P. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school
district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational
Research Journal, 35(1), 33-63.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spouse, J. (2001) Bridging theory and practice in supervisory relationships: a
sociocultural perspective. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(4), 512-522.

Stecher, B., Hamilton, L. & Gonzales, G., (2003). Working smarter to leave
no child behind: Practical insights for school leaders. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation.

Stecher, B. & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability:
Lessons for education from other sectors. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/publications
Stiggins, R. (2005). Assessment for learning: Building a culture of confident learners.
In DuFour, R., Eaken, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.), On common ground: The power
of professional learning communities (pp. 65-84). Bloomington, IN: National
Educational Service.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Sturtevant, E. G. (2003). The literacy coach: A key to improving teaching and learning in
secondary schools. Alliance for Excellent Education:
http://www.all4ed.org/publications/LiteracyCoach.pdf

161
Tichy, N. (2002). The cycles of leadership: How great leaders teach their companies to
win. New York: Harper Business.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can
do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: The
Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Toll, C. A. (2005). The Literacy Coach’s Survival Guide: Essential Questions and
Practical Answers.
U. S. Department of Education (2010). Improving basic programs operated by local
educational agencies (Title I, Part A). Retrieved February 15, 2010 from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html
U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Resources Division. (1993, April). Systemwide
education reform: federal leadership could facilitate district-level efforts
(Publication No. GAO/HRD-93-97). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Vanneman, A., Hamilton, L., Baldwin Anderson, J., and Rahman, T. (2009).
Achievement gaps: how Black and White students in public schools perform in
mathematics and reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress,
(NCES 2009-455). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Wagner, T. (2001, January). Leadership for learning: an action theory of social change.
Phi Delta Kappan, 82(5), 378-383. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20439912
Walters, J., Marzano, R., McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What thirty years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora,
CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/LeadershipOrganizationandDevelopment/
5031RR_BalanceLeadership.pdf.
Weiner, B. (1992). An attribution theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.
Weiss, J. (2005). Conditions for student success: the cycle of continuous instructional
improvement. Working Paper 4. School Finance Redesign Project. University of
Washington retrieved on November 29, 2010 at
http://newschools.org/files/ConditionsForStudentSuccess_0.pdf

162
Williams, T., Kirst, M., & Haertel, E. (2005) Similar students, different results: Why do
some schools do better? A large-scale survey of California elementary schools
serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource. Retrieved
November 14, 2005, from http//www.edsource.org/pdf.
Wolk, R. A. (2009, April 22). Why We're Still at Risk. Education Week. Retrieved from
www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/04/22/29wolk_ep.h28.html.
Wong, H. (2002, March). Induction: the best form of professional development.
Educational Leadership, 59(6), 52–55.

Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teachers and classroom context
effects on student achievement: implications for teacher evaluations. Journal of
Personal Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. M.
Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.
13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn. Educational
Psychology, 25, 82-91.

163
APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

INQUIRY PROJECT TIMELINE
Table A-1: Project Overview
Semester Project Activities
Fall 2009
Inquiry Team Formation
Defining Context of Need
Understanding District Priorities
Narrowing Inquiry Focus: Districtwide FoR Implementation
Spring 2010
Qualifying Examination Proposal & Defense
Interviews of key District personnel
Data Collection
Exploring the Roots of the Problem
Chapter I completed
Summer 2010
Data Analysis
Identification of Performance Gaps & Root Causes
Development of Findings
Chapter II completed
Fall 2010
Interactions with the District:
Presentation of Findings & Solutions as Recommendations to:
-Superintendent & District Leadership Team
-Additional Select District Role Groups, on request
Chapter III completed
Spring 2011
Dissertation defense
Group, Individual Reflections
Completion of Alternative Capstone Project
Graduation

164
APPENDIX B

INTERVIEWED ROLE GROUPS
Table B-1: District Level Personnel
Stakeholder Assigned Code Organization
Assistant Superintendent,
Educational Services
AS GUSD
Public Relations Officer PRO GUSD
Director,
Professional Development
PD GUSD
Lead Consultant LC Focus on Results

Table B-2: School Site Personnel
Stakeholder
Assigned
Code
Elementary
School
Middle
School
High School
Principal P 1 1 1
Assistant Principal AP 0 1 1
Associate Principal AP 0 0 4
Teacher on Special
Assignment (TOSA)
TS 1 0 1
ILT Teachers T 10 15 8
Non-ILT Teachers T 1 5 2
Counselors C 0 1 0
Classified Staff CS 3 1 0

165
APPENDIX C
SCANNING INTERVIEW GUIDE
Client’s Name Date
Role in District Interviewer

Thanks for taking time to talk with me/us today. We’d like to focus on the
implementation of the Focus on Results (FoR) Reform Initiative in GUSD. Your
comments will help us better understand what is happening. We want to assure you that
we will not quote nor attribute your comments to anyone outside the USC dissertation
team.

1) Please give me an overview of the implementation of FoR as a reform initiative
here in GUSD.
What is the current situation? Where do things stand?
What do you think is being done about it?
Is this situation a “problem”? In what sense?
2) I would like to gain some historical perspective on this situation.
What was it like here in the years prior to implementing FoR?
After the implementation, what has changed?
How has the district tried to address this districtwide reform initiative in
specific ways? Could you please describe?
Was there any degree of success with these efforts?
Do they continue to this day? What happened to these efforts you
described?
3) Regarding FoR, are there any formal or informal goals for what you or the district
are trying to accomplish?
What is/are the goal/s of this effort?
What do you aspire to? In what time frame?
How will you/the district know if this effort is successful?
Do different role groups have different goals for this effort? What
specifically do you know?
How large is the gap between where you are not and where you aspire to
be?
4) Let’s go a little further into this gap between where you are now and where you
aspire to be. I/we want your perspective.
What do you think is keeping the district from achieving perfect success
with regard to FoR implementation?
How else do you attribute this difference?
5) What suggestions do you have for our team to better understand the FoR
implementation in GUSD?

166
APPENDIX D
STAGES OF CONCERN (SoC) INTERVIEW PROMPT GUIDE
1) “What do you think about Focus on Results as the reform initiative implemented
in GUSD?”
2) “What are the positives and the concerns or challenges with the FoR initiative?”

Table D-1: Typical Expressions of Concern about an Innovation (adapted from Hall &
Loucks, 1979)

Stage of Concern Expression of Concern
6 Refocusing
I have some ideas about something that would
work even better.
5 Collaboration
How can I relate what I am doing to what others
are doing?
4 Consequence
How is my use affecting learners? How can I
refine it to have more impact?
3 Management
I seem to be spending all my time getting
materials ready.
2 Personal How will using it affect me?
1 Informational I would like to know more about it.
0 Awareness I am not concerned about it.

167
APPENDIX E
TRIANGULATION OF DATA
Dissertation Title
Using the Gap Analysis to Examine Focus on Results Districtwide Reform
Implementation in Glendale Unified School District (GUSD):
An Alternative Capstone Project

Chairs
Dr. David Marsh and Dr. Robert Rueda

Table E-1: Triangulation Methods

Research Questions Interview Observation
Document
Analysis
1) How was the FoR reform initiative
implemented throughout GUSD?
X X X
2) What was the degree of implementation
of FoR at the different levels of instruction
offered in GUSD?
X X
3) What performance gaps exist at this
point in the FoR implementation process
that need to be addressed?
X X X
4) What are the root causes of these
performance gaps?
X X
5) What research-based recommendations
can be offered to address the performance
gaps and help GUSD enhance and sustain its
implementation of FoR?
X X X

168
APPENDIX F
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Educators in school districts across the state of California—and the United States
in general—continue to struggle with the great educational dilemma as it encounters
challenges faced in this modern age of information and technology. Educators are also at
the mercy of political agendas that are in a constant state of flux. The latest political
agenda, Race To The Top (RTTT), under President Obama’s administration, imposes
even greater expectations as states compete for the coveted educational funding needed to
achieve its academic goals for every student. While much debate takes place over the
competitive process to receive these fiscal resources, most agree that students are entitled
to an equitable and rigorous education no matter their ethnic, social, or economic
background. The Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) initiated a reform process
that seemingly anticipated this rigorous shift in expectations when it adopted the Focus
on Results (FoR) Reform Initiative five years ago.
Purpose
A three-person team, working in a consultant capacity, led this particular
dissertation inquiry project. GUSD leadership requested our team to examine the Focus
on Results (FoR) implementation process throughout the district. The goals of the
inquiry project were to 1) determine the nature of the performance gaps in the
implementation of FoR in the district and 2) provide GUSD with a set of research-based

169
recommendations to address the root causes behind the performance gaps we identified in
the inquiry process.
Project Timeline
The timeline below outlines the requirements for our doctoral candidacy and the
progression of our work in GUSD.
Table F-1: Project Timeline
Fall 2009 Spring 2010 Summer 2010
1. Research team formation
2. Topic: review of district
reform implementation
3. Context of need
4. Understanding the district
data
1. Qualifying examination
and proposal
2. In-depth data collection:
- Scanning interviews of
key district/site personnel
- SoC Interviews with site
personnel
1. Chapter 1 completion:
Context of Project
2. Chapter 2 Completion:
Literature review of
roots, methodology,
findings, executive
summary
Fall 2010 Spring 2011
1. Chapter 3 completion: Literature Review, Solutions,
and Recommendations
2. Presentation of findings & recommendations to
designated group
3. Chapters 4 & 5 Completion: Leadership Portfolio and
Process Reflection
1. Chapter 6 Completion:
Next Steps
2. Dissertation Defense
3. Graduation

The Gap Analysis
The gap analysis process model is a systematic problem-solving approach
specifically designed to examine the gaps in an organization’s performance to help
improve and achieve their desired goals (Clark & Estes, 2002). The gap analysis focuses
on identifying, analyzing, and solving a specific problem in a specific context. This is the
nature of action research, where larger organizations and institutions undertake this type
of investigation, guided by professional researchers, with the aim of improving the

170
overall strategies, practices, and knowledge of the organization (as community) within
which they practice (Center for Collaborative Research, 2010). Clark & Estes (2002)
outline the six major steps that comprise the gap analysis process model (p. 22):
7. Identify clear organizational goals that define the vision for the organization;
8. Identify individual performance goals that are concrete, challenging, and
current (C
3
);
9. Determine performance gaps by quantifying gaps between desire goals;
10. Determine root causes by analyzing the gaps in knowledge/skill, motivation,
and/or organizational barriers;
11. Identify research-based solutions and implement to affect the root causes; and
12. Evaluate results of implementation and fine-tune goals.
Methodology
We utilized the Clark & Estes (2002) gap analysis framework (Appendix A) to
guide our inquiry to understand the district’s progress toward its achievement goals. Our
inquiry also helped us uncover some possible reasons for underperformance that may be
rooted in issues of motivation, knowledge and skills, and institutional barriers. It is our
hope that our understanding and knowledge of staff perceptions may assist the district in
their next steps toward continued growth toward sustainability of the FoR reform
initiative.
The primary data collection methods were the review of documents (from Focus
on Results and GUSD) and the informal interview. The interviews were face-to-face,
one-on-one semi-structured, and open-ended in nature, proving staff the opportunity to be

171
reflective, insightful, and candid about their thoughts and feelings regarding the strengths
of the FoR components and their concerns about the process of implementation. We
were careful to honor the integrity of the semi-structured interview process by ensuring
that the participants were encouraged to voice all of the topics of concern during the
course of the interview (Patton, 2002).
Our team conducted two rounds of interviews. Our initial scanning interviews
included three district level personnel, the consultant from FoR, the principals of three
school sites and their Instructional Leadership Teams and lasted approximately one hour
each. The three schools that responded to our request for interviews represented the
elementary, middle, and secondary levels of education. The scanning interview guide
(Appendix B) included was five open-ended questions that helped us understand staff
perspectives. The purpose of the scanning interview was to collect rich data from key
stakeholders in an organized, uniform fashion to help facilitate problem solving in the
implementation process. In a sense, this step in the process is a form of progress
monitoring, which is a vital action step in performance improvement.
The team utilized the Stages of Concern (SoC) Concerns-Based Adoption Model,
CBAM (Hall & Loucks, 1979) format for the second phase of interviews that included 20
people at the elementary level; 18 people at the middle school level; and 16 people at the
high school level. The SoC interviews ranged from 15-30 minutes and included
teachers, administrators, and support personnel. This phase of the interview process
involved ten-to-twenty minute interviews with teachers that focused on three items: 1) to
share their overall experience with FoR as a reform initiative, 2) to share their

172
perceptions of the strengths and challenges of the reform initiative, and 3) what
suggestions and recommendations might improve the implementation process.
The Focus on Results Reform Initiative
Focus on Results is a research-based model that is comprehensive, data-driven
and focused on instruction. This model encompasses the key elements that are
commonly described in highly credible change models, such as developing a sense of
urgency, creating a guiding team with a powerful vision, increasing leadership capacity,
removing obstacles, resolving conflicts with effective communication, and persisting
through the difficult challenges. The implementation of this framework is embedded in
local context and culture, and it is only effective when accompanied by a shift from a
traditional central office to a central services organization. With increased capacity
among all staff, this framework is designed to improve student achievement and
ultimately close the achievement gap.
Specifically, the FoR key strategies for professional development are to build
expertise, change practice, monitor student performance and to communicate relentlessly
(Palumbo and Leight, 2007). FoR has three distinct phases: 1) identifying a schoolwide
instructional focus based on an assessment of students' needs; 2) creating and
implementing a schoolwide instructional focus that meets students' needs; and 3) living a
unity of purpose through a clear instructional focus that drives all decisions.

173
Findings
Strengths in the District Reform Implementation Effort
Overall, GUSD successfully implemented the components of the Focus on
Results reform at the district level and established a good foundation for continued work
toward embedded sustainability. This report identifies a limited view of the
organization’s accomplishments in the implementation process, as well as some
suggestions that will strengthen the commitment to long-term cultural change.
GUSD’s efforts are commendable as we consider the five most common barriers
that typically impede a district’s success in implementing strategic initiatives. These
include: executing the strategy consistently across schools with difference
characteristics, creating a coherent organizational design in support of the strategy,
developing and managing human capital, allocating resources in alignment with the
strategy, and using performance data to guide decisions (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman,
2006).
GUSD leadership clearly articulated that the organizational goal was to improve
student academic achievement to raise API scores and meet AYP targets.
GUSD, in partnership with FoR, developed and implemented an incremental
reform process that resulted in:
o Total inclusion of all GUSD school sites after three years;
o A 5-year capacity building plan to ensure training was substantial and
comprehensive;

174
o The conversion of the district office into a central services organization
that provides leadership, support, and guidance by:
modeling processes of establishing district goals;
examining data to determine achievement gaps; and
holding principals accountable for increasing student achievement
• GUSD realigned resources (people, time, money, talent, and energy) to support
the changes necessitated by FoR.
• An increase in the internal capacity of GUSD staff is noted by the shift of
responsibility from FoR consultants to instructional leaders for 1) development of
content to be taught to staff; 2) facilitation of trainings; and 3) Instructional
Walkthrough processes.
• The Instructional Walkthrough process is considered a strong tool by many
respondents for helping teachers see what happens in the classroom by giving a
focus from which to examine the schoolwide instructional focus and relevant
instructional practices.
• Respondents at all levels of GUSD (from district to school site) agree that FoR
provided a common language that all stakeholders now use districtwide to discuss
student achievement.
• Districtwide collaboration efforts increased through the development of the
districtwide Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) and the school site ILTs.
Teachers involved with the ILT process were cognizant of the FoR process and
could articulate the seven areas of focus.

175
• Modifications to the implementation of FoR were made to address the issues as
they arose: 1) cohort structure changed from the year of FoR implementation to
instructional level of the school sites (primary vs. secondary) and 2) the formation
of the principal trios to provide principals with peer-to-peer support.
• The implementation of FoR did not affect the general funding of GUSD for the
first five years – a grant was secured that paid for resources, facilitator training,
release time for teachers, and facilities to host meetings.
Areas of Growth: Emergent Themes
In order to close performance gaps and achieve the organizational goals,
underlying causes for performance gaps must be identified. The gap analysis process
(Clark & Estes, 2002) provides a framework for diagnosing the human causes and
identifying appropriate effective performance solutions. Underperformance is typically
the result of insufficient knowledge, inadequate skills, and lack of motivation or
organizational barriers. We found four emergent themes in our process of inquiry:
perceptions of the need for FoR, the misalignment of goals, the knowledge/skill capacity
of role groups in the district, and the sustainability of the reform effort.
Root Causes within Emergent Themes: Perceptions
• A lack of active choice is apparent in the significant number of respondents
that indicated the Focus on Results reform initiative to be a “top down”
district mandate, that “it was never an effort from the ‘bottom up’”. District
leadership, however, felt that because each school ILT and school staff

176
custom-designed the reform strategies to match their site-specific data and
needs, FoR implementation was therefore more of a “bottom up” initiative.
• A tone of mistrust about FoR is apparent throughout the district. Interviews
revealed a pervasive “Us” versus “Them” and an “I” versus “We” mentality at
all levels. This tone was evident among all role groups.
• The pervasiveness of the reform effort tended to differ based on the
instructional level of the school site (elementary schools identified by district
administrators and the FoR consultant are seemingly doing well compared to
secondary schools).
• The higher degree of professional isolation at the middle school and high
school levels compared to the elementary level is due to deeply rooted norms,
beliefs and traditional practices. The highly collaborative nature that is the
hallmark of FoR is hindered at the middle and high school levels.
• As educational policy moves toward explicit accountability where educators’
performance reviews reflect some aspect of student outcomes, the natural
reaction to this level of accountability is fear and resistance, as self-
preservation becomes a primary motivation – the initiative for believing and
behaving a certain way.
• Though GUSD initially “invited” the participation of principals and teachers,
staff not involved in the district-level or site-level Instructional Leadership
Teams (ILTs) expressed dissenting viewpoints. This pattern proved more

177
prominent at the secondary level and among veteran educators as opposed to
newer educators in the field.
• GUSD understood FoR to be a leadership capacity-building model but did not
fully understand until well into the implementation process (third year) the
degree of change that would be necessitated at the site level.
• Comments such as “we were doing this already” and “this is nothing new”,
made by a significant number of tenured teachers working in the district
before the FoR initiative was introduced, tended to convey an overconfidence
in these teachers.
• The tenured teachers interviewed believed the work, time, and money spent
on this reform was unnecessary—although they believed it to be very
beneficial for the newer, younger teaching staff. This overconfidence often
compromises motivation as people invest little mental effort when they
misjudge their own abilities (Clark & Estes, 2002). However, the same
viewpoint may be an indicator of limited task value or interest.
• Principals and staff often attributed this teacher perspective of overconfidence
to resistance to change, lack of ownership for all students’ success, and fear of
professional judgment and criticism.
Root Causes within Emergent Themes: Misalignment of Goals
• Defining the work/performance goals were left to each individual site
principal and his/her Instructional Leadership Team. However, staff did not
seem to understand the direct relationship between internal, site-specific

178
SMART-e goal attainment and the implementation of the seven areas of focus
that comprise the FoR model.
• Although the majority of teachers felt they were doing the work necessary to
meet the organizational goal of helping the school improve its API score, they
could not articulate the alignment to the intermediate level goals – which were
the seven areas of focus that comprise FoR.
• Teachers not directly involved with the districtwide or sitewide ILT could not
explain the seven areas of focus that comprise Focus on Results nor could
they identify the work that led to achievement of performance goals for the
reform effort. They knew of the walkthroughs and know that the “schoolwide
instructional focus” was set, they knew of looking at data for student
achievement but did not know how these all related to FoR.
Root Causes within Emergent Themes: Knowledge/Skill Capacity of Role Groups
Teachers.
• Not all teachers are engaged in the FoR reform initiative nor are they versed in
the FoR framework, its principles, and how it is directly linked to the work
they are doing in the classroom. Some teachers have even elected to not
participate.
• Probationary teachers, new to the district, are not provided an orientation or
training that will catch them up to the rest of the staff with regard to FoR. It is
assumed that they will “get it” because they are a part of the site staff.

179
• Across the organization, the feedback loop is not consistent with regard to
implementation of instructional strategies.
o Lack of consistent monitoring by principals to ensure changes to
instructional practices.
o Lack of specific feedback to teachers from principals on how to modify
their instruction based on the knowledge and skills they received in
training.
o Only anonymous, generalized feedback is provided to teachers in the
walkthrough process.
o Teachers desire more specific feedback – especially if their classrooms are
visited. They want feedback about what is working and what needs
improvement.
Principals.
• Principals were expected to already have the knowledge and skills necessary
to lead the reform work. Those that did not demonstrate that capacity were
either reassigned or removed from their school sites where improvement in
the API score was not demonstrated.
• The need to increase principal leadership capacity was identified by the FoR
consultant and the district administrators (after the end of Year 2), leading to
the formation of the coaching trios. The structure and dynamics of the
coaching trios is unclear. The district must be more explicit about what skills
they want their principals to develop when in the coaching trios.

180
• The dynamics of the coaching trios, originally meant to be a peer group of
three principals, shifted when a district administrator was made one of the
three members. Principals did not feel comfortable to share their issues with
one another for fear of evaluation. This speaks to the culture of mistrust that
persists in this district.
District Level.
• Induction of new personnel (probationary teachers, principals and district
administrators) on the tenets and processes of FoR is not institutionalized.
Consequently, new staff is left to acquire the knowledge and skill on their
own.
• Differences in individual capacity level among the principals is evidenced by
the varied levels of implementation of the FoR process at the school sites.
From the onset of the reform implementation, it was assumed that 1) all the
principals had the capacity to create and lead a comprehensive, school-based
improvement process and that 2) the principals had the same level of
enthusiasm in adopting FoR as the reform initiative to improve student
achievement.
• District administrators assumed an increase in the API was equivalent to the
level of success of FoR implementation.

181
Root Causes within Emergent Themes: Sustainability
• The belief that Focus on Results is “just another reform” that will disappear as
soon as the next novel idea is popularized (expressed by a number of tenured
teachers that were interviewed) undermines commitment to the reform.
• Staff expressed a general consensus that the new practices were improving
teaching and learning, but waned on full commitment as many believed ‘the
reform’ would dissipate due to district and site leadership changes and the loss
of grant funds needed to support collaboration time.
• Changes in leadership throughout the district (new Superintendent, Assistant
Supt., Director of Professional Development, principal replacements, and
teacher layoffs) threaten the vision for sustaining the reform effort.
• The grant that funded the reform has ended and the fiscal challenges facing
the district will require careful consideration when reallocating resources to
continue funding the collaboration time required by FoR.
• Continued tension between district leadership and GTA leadership fosters a
culture of mistrust and fear of professional judgment and criticism.
Conclusion
GUSD can celebrate its tremendous progress in its collective effort to change the
organizational culture by implementing the FoR framework. While there are many
challenges and areas of growth that need explicit attention, this will always be true in a
dynamic and complex organization. Use of the Clark & Estes (2002) gap analysis
process should not be one-time; the process of measuring and addressing the various

182
performance gaps in the organization is continuous and must be visited on a regular basis
in order to monitor the progress of FoR as a reform initiative. It is a daunting task to
address root causes of human behavior that inhibit an organization from achieving its
moral purpose. Educators must once again internalize their moral imperative to ensure
that all students receive a high quality and proficient education for the sake of our
nation’s future.

183
APPENDIX G

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS POWERPOINT

Figure G-1: Title Slide

Figure G-2: Introduction Slide – Project Design

184

Figure G-3: The Gap Analysis

Figure G-4: Inquiry Methods

185

Figure G-5: Project Timeline

Figure G-6: Group 1 – Presentation Introduction Slide

186

Figure G-7: Areas of Strength: Implementation Years 1-5

Figure G-8: Issues Uncovered in Inquiry Analysis

187

Figure G-9: Areas of Need: Implementation Years 6+

Figure G-10: Considerations: Area 1 - Alignment of Goal Structure

188

Figure G-11: Issues: Area 2 – Knowledge/Skill Capacity of Role Groups

Figure G-12: Considerations: Area 2 – Knowledge/Skill Capacity of Role Groups

189

Figure G-13: Issues: Area 3 - Sustainability

Figure G-14: Considerations: Area 3 – Sustainability

190
Figure G-15: Summary of Considerations

Figure G-16: Group 1 – Presentation Conclusion Slide

191
Figure G-17: Group 2 – Presentation Introduction Slide

Figure G-18: District Strengths

192
Figure G-19: Issues Uncovered: Area 1 – Knowledge/Skill

Figure G-20: Recommendation 1: Area 1 – Knowledge/Skill

193

Figure G-21: Recommendation 2: Area 1 – Knowledge/Skill

Figure G-22: Issues Uncovered: Area 2 – Motivation

194

Figure G-23: Recommendation: Area 2 - Motivation

Figure G-24: Issues Uncovered: Area 3 – Organizational Culture

195

Figure G-25: Recommendation 1: Area 3 - Organizational Culture

Figure G-26: Recommendation 2: Area 3 – Organizational Culture

196

Figure G-27: Group 2: Presentation Conclusion Slide

Figure G-28: Group 3 – Presentation Introduction Slide

197

Figure G-29: Areas of Strength

Figure G-30: Issues Uncovered in Inquiry Analysis

198

Figure G-31: Areas for Consideration

Figure G-32: Considerations: Area 1 – Create & Communicate Explicit Goals

199

Figure G-33: Equity Scorecard

Figure G-34: The Typical Experience?

200

Figure G-35: Considerations: Area 2 – Increase Four-Year College Access

Figure G-36: Considerations: Area 3 – Maximize Success of Transfer Students

201

Figure G-37: Summary of Considerations

Figure G-38: Group 3 – Presentation Conclusion Slide

202

Figure G-39: Special Thanks

203

APPENDIX H

FOCUS ON RESULTS (FoR) IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTS

Table H-1: Plan for Building Capacity in Glendale USD
204

205
206

207
208

209

Table H-2: Focus on Results Implementation Rubric A
210
Table H-3: Focus on Results Implementation Rubric B
211

Table H-4: Focus on Results Implementation Rubric C
212

Table H-5: Focus on Results Implementation Rubric D
213

Table H-6: Focus on Results Implementation Rubric E
214

Table H-7: Focus on Results Implementation Rubric F
215

Table H-8: Focus on Results Implementation Rubric G
216

Table H-9: Focus on Results Implementation Rubric H
217

Table H-10: Focus on Results Implementation Rubric I
218

a

APPENDIX I:

Table I-1: Coaching Support Triad Groupings in GUSD

Asset Metadata

Creator Zurbano, Regina de la Cruz (author)

Core Title Using the gap analysis to examine Focus on Results districtwide reform implementation in Glendale USD: an alternative capstone project

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/24/2011

Defense Date 01/22/2011

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

Tag action research,alternative capstone,education reform,Focus on Results,gap analysis,K-12,OAI-PMH Harvest

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (counties), school districts: Glendale Unified School District (geographic subject)

Language English

Advisor Marsh, David D. (committee chair), Rueda, Robert S. (committee chair), Arias, Robert J. (committee member)

Creator Email zurbano@gmail.com,zurbano@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3672

Unique identifier UC1133944

Identifier etd-Zurbano-4311 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-416624 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3672 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Zurbano-4311.pdf

Dmrecord 416624

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Zurbano, Regina de la Cruz

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 uscdl@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This alternative capstone dissertation inquiry project was a gap analysis of the implementation of Focus on Results, a reform initiative, in the Glendale Unified School District (GUSD). The Clark & Estes (2002) gap analysis process model was the analytical framework used to conduct our inquiry. This alternative capstone project developed from a partnership between the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California (USC) and GUSD. At the request of GUSD, our inquiry focus was to gain a better understanding of how and to what extent the FoR implementation was implemented through the different levels of instruction offered in GUSD. The first section will present an introduction of the role of the district office in educational reform as it pertains to educational reform. A review of literature pertaining to the district and its role in the reform process is then presented. Methods pertaining to our inquiry process follow. We then present our inquiry findings, identifying and classifying the root causes of the performance gaps through one of each of the three dimensions of the gap analysis process model: knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational culture. Much of the issues experienced by GUSD in its implementation of FoR were rooted in the misalignment of organizational goal structure, the knowledge/skill capacity of its role groups, and the lack of a defined plan for sustainability. The next section presents a review of literature pertaining to these areas we believe can best impact the implementation. Finally, in an effort to maximize the district’s opportunity to enhance and sustain the reform initiative, we propose research-based recommendations to address these root causes and mitigate the performance gaps identified in our inquiry analysis.