University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Principal leadership practice: the achieving principal coaching initiative

(USC Thesis Other)

Principal leadership practice: the achieving principal coaching initiative

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICE: THE ACHIEVING PRINCIPAL
COACHING INITIATIVE

by
Diane E. Kammeyer

________________________________________________________________________

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

December 2010

Copyright 2010 Diane E. Kammeyer

ii

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Ron Kammeyer. Without his
support and commitment to my efforts, I could never have taken on and finished such a
feat. Thank you for all the extra things you did to allow me time to go to class, study,
and persevere. You have been the definition of compassion and it reminds me of all the
reasons I love you.
This is also dedicated to my children, Blake, Christian, and Stephanie. I thank
God for each of you and hope that through my efforts to pursue my education and
dreams, each of you will continue with higher education and pursue your dreams. All
three of you are amazing people with the potential to achieve great things, and I love each
one of you.
This is also dedicated to my parents, Jim and Judy Thompson, my first teachers.
Thank you both for instilling in me the importance of higher education and hard work.
Mom, thank you for listening for hours throughout the entire process and always
encouraging me. Dad, thank you for pushing me to apply and telling me I could do it. I
love you both very much.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I acknowledge the following individuals for their support of and faith in my
achievement. To my Dissertation Committee Chair: Dr. Margaret Reed for her
leadership throughout this very rigorous process. To my Dissertation Committee
Members: Dr. Michael Escalante and Dr. David Marsh for their positive feedback and
perspective.
A very special acknowledgement is made to my colleagues and collaborators:
Sunday Abbott, Paula Chamberlin, Chuck Flores, Chris Hert, Omira Lee, and Paula
Libby. I am grateful for the opportunity to have collaborated with them during this
endeavor. I could have never done it independently, a special thank you to each of you.
FIGHT ON!
A special thank you goes to Sandra Gray. Sandra commuted to class with me,
prayed for me, called to check on my progress, and encouraged me when the end did not
seem visible. She really has been the definition of a friend throughout this process. I am
especially thankful for her unwavering support to see me to the finish line.
A special thank you goes out to Bob Seavers, Superintendent, and Phyllis
Carnahan, Principal, of Apple Valley Unified School District for their support of me
throughout this three-year progression. Mr. Seavers changed my assignment from a
comprehensive high school to a middle school to reduce the number of night duties I was
committed to during this process as well as allowed me to leave before the end of my
duty day to get to class by 4 PM in Los Angeles. Phyllis Carnahan was my receiving
principal and endured my leaving early to go to class and taking days off to meet this

iv

enormous deadline. She has never been anything other than supportive and I am thankful
for her.
Also, a special thank you goes out to my two Case Study schools. Both principals
were accommodating and supportive throughout this process. I hope that both of you
continue to strive for great things for students.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables ix
List of Figures x
Abstract xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Introduction: Background of the Problem 1
History of the Principal’s Role 2
Problem Statement 8
Purpose of the Study 9
Research Questions 10
Significance of the Study 11
Assumptions 13
Delimitations 15
Limitations 15
Definition of Terms 16
Chapter Summary 17
Organization of the Study 17

Chapter Two: Literature Review 18
Introduction 18
Definition of Leadership and Effective Leadership 19
Definition of Leadership 19
Effective Leadership 20
Standards-Based Reform Movement 22
Leadership Theories 23
Instructional Leadership Theory 23
Transformational Leadership Theory 25
Learning-Centered Leadership Theory 28
Social Justice Theory 30
Components of Effective Leadership Preparation Programs 32
Achieving Results! and Principal Coaching Initiative 34
Leadership Support Structures 38
Leader Effects 42
Urban Context 49
Summary 52

vi

Chapter Three: Methodology 54
Introduction 54
Intervention 55
Study Design 57
Sample and Population 57
Selection Criteria 58
Gaining Access to Participants 59
Data Collection Procedures 60
Instrumentation 61
Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) 62
Interviews 66
Observations and Documents 69
Data Analysis Procedures 71
Formative Data Analysis Procedures 71
Summative Data Analysis Procedures 72
Validity 73
Ethical Considerations 75
Summary 76

Chapter Four: Findings 77
Introduction 77
Achieving Results! and Achieving Principals’ Coaching Initiative (APCI) 79
Capacity-Building: The Institute for Learning 80
Coaching Component 81
Case Study One: Success Middle School 81
History of School 81
School Context and Culture 81
Principal Avina 82
Academic Achievement 82
Research Question One: How Does Participation in the APCI Prepare 83
Principals to Become Effective Instructional Leaders?

Key Finding: System-Wide Comprehensive Professional 84
Development
Key Finding: APCI Leadership Coach 86
Research Question Two: How Does APCI Influence the Knowledge, 90
Beliefs, and Leadership Practices of Urban School Principals?
Key Finding: Implementation of District-Managed Instruction 90
Key Finding: Staff Involvement and Student Intervention 96
Programs
Research Question Three: How Does an Urban School Principal Create 99
and Sustain Organizational Structures and Processes That Promote
Effective Teacher Practices and Improve Student Outcomes?
Key Finding: Resources Allocation Structure 99
Key Finding: Learning Walks to Monitor Classroom Instruction 101

vii

Key Finding: Principal’s Communication Structure 103
Key Finding: Foundations Committee 105
Key Finding: Professional Learning Communities 106
Research Question Four: What Leadership Support Structures Enable 108
Leader Practice?
Key Finding: Content Coaches and CILT Team 109
Key Finding: Principal Improvement Plan 111
Research Question Five: How Can The VAL-ED Instrument Serve 112
as a Coaching Tool To Assist Principals to Become Effective
Instructional Leaders?
Key Finding: Identification of Areas of Strength and Weakness 113
Fall (2009) and Spring (2010) VAL-ED Survey Results 114
Intersection of Core Components and Key Processes 115
Sources of Evidence 116
Leadership Behaviors for Possible Improvement 116
Case Study Two: College and Career Magnet 119
Research Question One: How Does Participation in the APCI 122
Prepare Principals to Become Effective Instructional Leaders?
Key Finding: Comprehensive Professional Development 122
Key Finding: APCI Leadership Coach 125
Research Question Two: How Does the APCI Influence the Knowledge, 128
Beliefs, and Leadership Practices of Urban School Principals?
Key Finding: Professional Development 128
Key Finding: Critical Support Programs 132
Research Question Three: How Does an Urban School Principal Create 134
and Sustain Organizational Structures and Processes That
Promote Effective Teacher Practices and Improve Student
Outcomes?
Key Finding: Building Relationships and Empowering Staff 135
Key Finding: Learning Walks 137
Research Question Four: What Leadership Support Structures Enable 139
Leader Practice?
Key Finding: District Rules/Protocols/Curriculum 140
Key Finding: CILT Team 142
Research Question Five: How Can The VAL-ED Instrument Serve as 144
a Coaching Tool to Assist Principals to Become Effective
Instructional Leaders?
Key Finding: Identification of Areas of Strength and Weakness 145
Fall (2009) and Spring (2010) VAL-ED Survey Results 145
Intersection of Core Components and Key Processes 146
Sources of Evidence 147
Leadership Behaviors for Possible Improvement 148
Cross-Case Analysis 149
Summary 154

viii

Chapter Five: Summary, Discussion, and Recommendations 156
Introduction 156
Statement of Problem 156
Purpose of Study 158
Research Questions 158
Methodology Summary 159
Summary of Findings 161
Implications for Future Research 169
Implications for Policy and Practice 171
Conclusion 172

References 173

Appendices:
Appendix A: District Test Scores 178
Appendix B: Preinterview Protocol For Teachers and Principals 180
Appendix C: Classroom Observation Protocol 183
Appendix D: Document Review Protocol 185
Appendix E: Meeting Observation Protocol 188
Appendix F: Example Of Val-Ed Survey Results For Both Case Studies 190
Appendix G: Principles of Learning Definitions 206
Appendix H: Informed Consent 207
Appendix I: Professional Development Case Study One 210
Appendix J: Proposal Approval Letter 214

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Dimensions of Instructional Management 25

Table 2: Effective Components of Leadership Preparation Programs 33

Table 3: Key Processes and Core Components 63

Table 4: Leadership Behavioral Outcomes 68

Table 5: Triangulation Table 70

Table 6: Timeline for Data Collection 73

Table B1: Preinterview Protocol For Teachers and Principals 180

Table G1: Principles of Learning Chart 206

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 13
Figure 2: Learning-Centered Leadership Framework 44
Figure 3: Sample VAL-ED Survey 64
Figure A1: District Mathematics Performance, 2007-2009 178
Figure A2: District Writing Performance, 2007-2009 178
Figure A3: District Reading Performance, 2007-2009 179

xi

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this case study was to contribute to the knowledge base about
effective components of leadership capacity-building programs and support structures
that enable and sustain school leader practice. The focus of this study was to find out how
principal participation in the Achieving Principal Coaching Initiative (APCI) influenced
leadership practices in the urban school context. This mixed-methods case study
investigated the following five questions: (1) How does participation in the APCI prepare
principals to become effective instructional leaders?; (2) How does APCI influence the
knowledge, beliefs, and leadership practices of urban school principals?; (3) How does an
urban school principal create and sustain organizational structures and processes that
promote effective teacher practices and improve student outcomes?; (4) What leadership
support structures enable leader practice?; (5) How can the VAL-ED Instrument serve as
a coaching tool to assist principals to become effective instructional leaders?
Quantitative data were collected from the results of the pre-post intervention of
the online Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) survey, an
instrument that provided a summary of the perceptions of principals, teachers, and
supervisors of leader effectiveness on learning-focused leadership behaviors that have
been found to correlate with student achievement (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring & Porter,
2006). In addition, qualitative data were collected from pre and post intervention
interviews with the principals and a subset of each of their teachers. Document analysis
and pre and post field observations of the principals were also conducted to collect data
on the principals’ leadership practices.

xii

Both principals in these case studies increased their skills for effective leadership
at their sites through the professional development provided both in the “Achieving
Results! Principal Coaching Initiative” and in interactions with their coaches.
Researchers have found that, “Principals play a vital and multifaceted role in setting the
direction for schools that are positive and productive workplaces for teachers and vibrant
learning environments for children” (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson,
2005, p.1). Thus districts must provide professional development and coaching so that
principals of urban schools can produce successful students.

1

CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Introduction: Background of the Problem
No Child Left Behind Legislation (NCLB, 2001) set the stage for nation-wide
reform. NCLB (2001) reauthorized a number of federal programs aiming to improve the
performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools by (a) increasing the standards of
accountability for states, school districts, and schools, (b) allowing parents more
flexibility in choosing the schools their children will attend, (c) measuring student
progress through standardized tests, and (d) promoting increased focus on reading
(Young, 2009). NCLB (2001) requires that all children perform at the proficient level in
math and reading by 2013-2014. Though academic achievement for minority students
has increased under NCLB, it still does not equal the achievement of their White and
Asian counterparts (Darling-Hammond, 1998). Administrators and teachers are
struggling to respond to legal punitive measures as they seek to raise achievement levels
in schools not meeting adequate yearly progress.
Schools in an urban context generally have lower state test scores, lower
graduation rates, and smaller percentages of students going on to postsecondary
education. Urban schools tend to have fewer financial and educational resources and a
shortage of teachers (Whitten, Bentley, & Dittman, 2004). Urban teachers spend more
time responding to student behavior problems—such as absenteeism, teen pregnancy,
classroom discipline and weapons possession—than teachers in suburban schools

2

(Whitten et al., 2004). Low performance in the urban context is much more the result of
unequal access to skilled teachers and quality curriculum than of race (Darling-
Hammond, 1998). As stated by Darling-Hammond, (1998) “the U.S. educational system
is one of the most unequal in the industrialized world, and students routinely receive
dramatically different learning opportunities based on their social status” (p. 2).
In spite of federal legislation and years of school reform, our urban schools are
not achieving at the rate of their suburban counterparts (Whitten et al., 2004). Urban
schools need strong leadership because talented principals build productive schools
where student achievement is prevalent (Bottoms, Fry, Gray & O’Neill, in press). With
the focus of NCLB (2001) on all schools and all students, urban schools must be provided
with leaders that can work with teachers and students to effect change.
Classroom instruction is the largest factor affecting student learning in school,
whereas school leadership is the second most significant of school-related factors
(Leithwood, Seashore Lewis, Anderson, & Walstrom, 2004). Given this information, we
need to strengthen, train, and support school leadership so that all students can learn.
This introduction will discuss the evolution of the principal’s role, and the leadership
theories that have developed along the way, discussing effective components of
leadership capacity-building programs and the need for support structures for principals.

History of the Principal’s Role
The role of the school principal has changed over time. From the 1920s to the
1960s, schools were consolidating and principals were expected to function like corporate

3

management (Hallinger, 1992). The 1960s and 1970s were decades of curriculum reform
in science and mathematics. Principal roles changed to include monitoring compliance
with federal regulations, assisting in staff development, and supporting teachers in the
classroom (Hallinger, 1992). These changes revealed that principals could, in fact, be
change agents in schools. Studies of change implementation started to show that
principals make a difference in the quality of schools as experienced by both teachers and
students (Hallinger, 1992). The two problems at that time were that principals were
implementing solutions conceived by policymakers outside of the local schools and thus
were focused on meeting the criteria of the federal regulations instead of program
outcomes (Hallinger, 1992).
In that era of school reform, Ron Edmonds, (as quoted by Hallinger, 1992),
argued that instructionally effective schools had strong leadership. As such,
policymakers made an effort to change principals’ behavior from a focus on management
to a focus on curriculum and instruction. They provided professional development
through separate agencies to offer the missing pieces these leaders needed. The
expectations of principals shifted from compliance monitoring to leading the school’s
instructional programs and working with staff to a focus on student outcomes. Principals
were expected to be knowledgeable about curriculum and to get these changes in
teachers’ classrooms (Hallinger, 1992). The problems with this movement were that (a)
there was no “blueprint” to becoming an effective school, (b) it was a top-down
adaptation to change, and (c) principals were taught that the practices of effective
teaching could be standardized and controlled (Hallinger, 1992). Recent evaluations of

4

state leadership centers found that few resources were actually allocated for coaching and
on-site assistance (Hallinger, 1992). Little support was given to principals to be
successful in their new role as instructional leaders. With little support and little training,
little change came to principals’ behavior.
In the 1990s, educational reform shifted attention to the inadequate preparation of
students in educational systems (Hallinger, 1992). The Carnegie Report on Education
and the Economy found that major changes were needed in the organizational structure,
professional roles, and goals of American public education (Hallinger, 1992). Reformers
began to recommend that more decisions be made at the site level and should expand the
roles for teachers. For the first time, the school was responsible for initiating change
instead of receiving direction from outside sources (Hallinger, 1992).
The principal’s role was redefined in Burn’s (1978) classic work titled
Leadership. With this work, transformational leadership emerged as an important
approach to leadership. Instructional leadership, which was very top-down and did not
rely on administrative collaboration with teachers, provoked feelings among teachers that
they were not valued as professionals. Conversely, transformational leadership was a
process in which the leader engaged with others and created connections that raised the
level of motivation in leader and follower alike. In the mid-1980s, Bass (1985) expanded
transformational leadership by giving more attention to followers’ (rather than leaders’)
needs. The focus was not just on the leader getting followers to accomplish a task, but
also on supporting followers to feel fulfilled themselves. Leithwood & Duke (1999)
described six dimensions of transformational leadership:

5

1) Building school vision and goals;
2) Providing intellectual stimulation;
3) Offering individualized support;
4) Symbolizing professional practices and values;
5) Demonstrating high-performance expectations; and
6) Developing structures to foster participation in school decisions.
Transformational leadership fit the needs of the urban context because of its ability to
inspire and empower teachers in times of uncertainty.
Transformational leadership improved leader collaboration with followers, but
lacked focus on curriculum. Accountability pressure for student learning was the norm,
requiring that school leaders take an integrated approach to school leadership. Learning-
Centered Leadership Theory (Murphy et al., 2006) by design took an integrated approach
to the practice of leadership, integrating key concepts from instructional leadership
theory, transformational leadership, and leadership for social justice. The leadership
behaviors in the learning-centered leadership framework is comprised of eight
dimensions:
1) Vision for learning;
2) Instructional program;
3) Curricular program;
4) Assessment program;
5) Communities for learning;
6) Resource acquisition and use;

6

7) Organizational culture and
8) Social advocacy. (Murphy et al., 2006)
This theory includes collaboration among teachers on common assessments and in
developing interventions within professional learning communities.
Though the Learning-Centered Leadership Theory (Murphy et al., 2006) is a
strong theory with the potential to focus leader attention on meeting the needs of
students, wide-spread improvement in student outcomes is not occurring as rapidly in the
urban context. The urban context is complex. Work in the urban context requires an
additional set of skills and knowledge for principals to be successful. The Social Justice
Theory (Theoharis, 2007) actively works to address and eliminate marginalization in
schools for students with disabilities, English language learners, and other students
traditionally segregated in schools (Theoharis, 2007). Marginalized students need
schools to change on their behalf with both equity and justice consciously in mind.
Principals must develop a reflective consciousness to accomplish this task.
Urban schools require far more tenacity, skills, and political cunning of their
leaders than do schools in middle class, racially isolated suburbs (Cuban, 2001).
Therefore, it is even more important that leadership capacity-building programs focus
their attention on these standards in preparing principals for success in the urban setting.
Leithwood et al., (2004) found that the combined direct and indirect effects of
leadership on student achievement explain about 25% of total school effects. This data
support the need for increased involvement of school leadership in the implementation of
large-scale reform (Leithwood et al., 2004). School effects literature (Pitner, 1986)

7

concludes that effective school principals indirectly impact student achievement through
two significant avenues: the support and development of effective teachers and the
implementation of effective organizational processes (Davis et al., 2005). Leadership
capacity-building programs can use this knowledge to design programs that can
strengthen the ability of leaders to change the status quo.
Research on leadership capacity-building programs proposes that certain program
aspects are essential for developing effective school leaders (Davis et al., 2005). The
features of effective leadership capacity-building programs cited in the study conducted
by Davis et al. (2005) were that (a) content is research-based and has curricular
coherence, (b) methods contain field-based internships, problem-based learning, cohort
groups, and mentors, and (c) the structure has collaboration between the university
program and the school district (Davis et al., 2005).
Leaders need a strong foundation in knowledge and skills as well as policy, but
they also need support. Leaders do not emerge from leadership capacity programs, even
good ones, fully prepared to lead (Gray et al., in press). The days of allowing new
principals to flounder must end if they are going to have any chance of improving schools
(Mattis, Mitgang, &Spiro, 2007). The sources of support for ongoing professional
learning and developing a learning-focused approach to leadership include strategies such
as mentoring, coaching, leadership supervision, and interactions with peers (Knapp,
Copland, Plecki, & Portin, 2006).

8

Problem Statement
Notable researchers, including Davis et al. (2005), Hallinger and Heck (1996),
Hallinger, Bickman, and Davis (1996), Leithwood, et al., (2004), and Murphy et al.
(2006), agree that effective school principals influence student achievement through
indirect but important pathways; they are: (a) the support and development of effective
teachers and (b) the implementation of effective organizational processes. Hallinger and
Heck (1996) also acknowledge that context matters, describing the principal’s role as a
“web of environmental, personal, and in-school relationships” (p. 6) that merge to affect
student achievement and organizational outcomes. Given the research reviewed, the
knowledge gap resides in the “essential ingredients of successful leadership” (Leithwood
et al., 2004, p. 3). The extant research does not provide definitive information about
which experiences of leaders are helpful and why (Leithwood et al., 2004). Hallinger and
Heck (1996) explain that principal leadership makes a difference in internal processes:
school policies, norms, and the practices of teachers indirectly impact student learning.
Studies indicate that principals influence school improvement, but a knowledge gap
exists between how principals learn how to make a difference in improving their school
and student achievement itself (Davis et al., 2005).
School leaders today are not prepared with the skills and strategies needed to take
on the challenges of urban schools (Cuban, 2001; Darling-Hammond, LaPointe,
Meyerson, & Orr, 2007; Davis et al., 2005). Widespread consensus exists in the literature
and in professional standards and guidelines about the necessary features of leadership
capacity-building programs (Davis et al., 2005). However, urban school leaders must

9

lead for social justice and be prepared to address and eliminate “marginalization in
schools” (Theoharis, 2007, p. 223). According to Theoharis (2007), a gap in the
knowledge base has lead to failures in “address[ing] the ways in which leaders enact
social justice” (p. 222).
Principals must have an effective support structure in place to sustain their effort
to assure that poor and minority students achieve at high levels (Davis et al., 2005).
There is a knowledge gap demonstrating a positive link between support structures for
school leaders and student achievement (Leithwood et al., 2004). Mentoring has been
identified as an essential ingredient of leadership capacity-building programs designed to
improve school and student performance (Gray et al., in press). To strengthen the
effectiveness of new principals, support must be part of all leadership capacity-building
programs.

Purpose of Study
This study sought to redress the lack of connection between support and student
achievement. This research study focused on the principal practice and support required
for school leaders to be successful in the urban context. The purpose of this case study
was to contribute to the knowledge base about effective components of leadership
capacity-building programs and support structures that enable and sustain school leader
practice. Specifically, it investigated the impact of principal participation in a fully
developed, research and standards-based executive leadership development program on
leader practice and professional practice of teachers. The study sought to identify two

10

principals who participated in the Achieving Principal Coaching Initiative (APCI)
respectively of the AchievingResults! and took a comprehensive look at the practices
they enacted that had the potential to lead to the attainment of the Education Plan Goals
and Principals for Learning outcomes. The case study focused on how participation in
the APCI prepared leaders to create organizational structures and practices that promote
effective teacher practices and improve student outcomes in the urban context. The
proposed study sought to expand the knowledge base with regard to components of
effective leadership support structures at the school and district levels to enable
principals’ leadership practice in creating and sustaining the conditions for effective
teacher practice and promoting a more equitable and effective student learning
environment in the urban school setting. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected
to determine the leader’s change in practice and how these factors were shaped or
reshaped by participation and experiences in the APCI.

Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to find out how principal participation in the APCI
influences leadership practices in the urban school context. There were five research
questions for this study:
1. How does participation in the APCI prepare principals to become effective
instructional leaders?
2. How does APCI influence the knowledge, beliefs, and leadership practices
of urban school principals?

11

3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practices and
improve student outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
5. How can the VAL-ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist
principals to become effective instructional leaders?

Significance of the Study
With the daunting challenges of NCLB (2001) and the urban context, having
well-prepared, effective leaders to help schools support all students to succeed is critical.
Principals must participate in comprehensive capacity-building programs that include all
components that the literature identifies as necessary to building principal capacity for
effectively leading in the urban setting. As a result of this study, practitioners,
policymakers, and developers of leadership preparation and support programs will gain
new knowledge of specific features that are effective in building and sustaining leaders’
capacity to reshape the teaching and learning environment in our urban schools in ways
that promote expert teacher practice and improved outcomes for students.
From this study, practitioners will gain new knowledge about how a well-defined
set of leadership practices can be used to help them raise student performance. They will
have more information about leadership practices that are directly linked to teacher
practice and organizational structures. Finally, they will learn how leadership support
structures can be used to help them stay the course in urban schools.

12

From this study, policymakers will gain additional information regarding the type
of training needed for urban school leaders to turnaround the low-performing pattern of
student achievement for low-income and minority students. As a result of this study,
practitioners, policymakers, and developers of leadership preparation and support
programs will gain new knowledge of specific program features that are effective in
building and sustaining leader capacity to reshape the teaching and learning environment
in our urban schools in ways that promote expert teacher practice and improved outcomes
for students.
The conceptual framework that guides the study, depicted in Figure 1, below, is
based on the model of leaders’ indirect effects on student achievement (Murphy, Cravens,
Elliot, Goldring, & Porter, 2007). The educational leader is informed and influenced by
antecedent factors, including previous knowledge, values and beliefs, and personal
characteristics. Therefore, the leader contributes to effective, standards-based teacher
practice and promotes an equitable and safe school environment. In short, leaders
influence the factors that influence the outcomes (Murphy et al., 2007).

13

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

Assumptions
Five key assumptions frame this research study. The first assumption was that
leadership is a key variable in the process of improving outcomes for students. Second,
was the belief that the context in which leadership is practiced matters and determines the
actions leaders take. Third, leadership was defined as “the process of influencing others
to achieve mutually agreed upon purposes for the organization” (Patterson, 1993, p. 3).
Embodied within this definition was the notion that leadership is not a personal trait or a
characteristic of an effective school leader. Part of a process, effective leadership
practice can, in fact, be taught (Northouse, 2003). The exercise of leadership involves
influence and thus requires interactions and relationships among constituents. Leadership
involves purpose and focus upon helping organizations and constituents reach identified
goals. Fourth, this study conceptualized the effects of principal leadership in promoting

14

and sustaining valued outcomes in terms of the antecedent with indirect-effects model
(e.g., Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Heck et al., 1990; Leithwood et al., 1990; Murphy et
al., 2007, Boyan, 1988; Silins, 1994). Leadership behavior is
shaped by four major conditions: (a) the previous experiences of a leader (e.g.,
experience as a curriculum coordinator in a district office will likely lead to the
use of behaviors different than those featured by a leader who has had
considerable experience as an assistant principal); (b) the knowledge base the
leader amasses over time; (c) the types of personal characteristics a leader brings
to the job (e.g., achievement need, energy level); and (d) the set of values and
beliefs that help define a leader (e.g., beliefs about the appropriate role for
subordinates in decision processes).(Murphy et al., 2007, p. 2)

Leadership effects occur indirectly through principals’ behaviors that influence teacher
practice and organizational structures and processes (Hallinger et al., 1996; Murphy et al.,
2007). A principal’s practice of effective leadership behaviors is situated within the
learning-centered leadership framework (Murphy et al., 2007). Fifth, the APCI, along
with the Achieving Results!, is an effective leadership capacity-building program. The
major components of this leadership development program align with those found in the
literature (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007) to develop skilled leaders. These programs (a)
have well-articulated goals rooted in the theory of leadership,(b) use preparation
strategies that maximize learning, transfer of learning, and leadership identification,
and(c) provide strong content and field experience during leadership preparation.

15

Delimitations
The focus of this study was limited to investigating the impact of APCI on leader
practice. This study did not look at the impact of leader practice on student outcomes.
Participants in this study were limited to secondary principals in the state of Texas who
are involved in elbow-to-elbow coaching. Although the focus of the study was on
principals that participate in the APCI, this study was not an evaluation of the APCI
itself. Because the urban context is the setting for this study, participants for this study
were limited to principals and teachers that work in urban public schools.

Limitations
The following areas should be considered when looking at the limitations of the
study:
Length of the Study: The principals in the study have only completed one
semester with their assigned coach during the period of the study. That the post
assessment of the VAL-ED survey came relatively soon after the pre assessment
(approximately six months) limits the degree to which it can fully measure the principal’s
growth in the areas assessed. In addition, time for the fieldwork in this study is limited to
six months.
Pretest Intervention Interaction: The pre-post design of the administration of the
VAL-ED has inherent issues of validity in that changes reflected in the second
administration of the VAL-ED could reflect the results of factors other than the
participants’ participation in APCI.

16

The “halo effect”: Due to the nature of the measures used in the VAL-ED (ratings
of self and colleagues), raters may have a tendency to assume specific traits or behaviors
based on a general impression. However, to mitigate this phenomenon, the VAL-ED
survey design required that raters identify the primary source of evidence for their rating
on each item (i.e., personal observation, documents, etc.).
The participation rate on the VAL-ED survey: the participation rate for the fall
administration for Case Study One was only 48%; the participation rate for the spring
administration for Case Study Two was only 53%.

Definition of Terms
ISLLC: Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium: The national standards
of principal and leadership behavior.
Social Justice Theory: the exercise of altering organizational arrangements by
actively engaging in reclaiming, appropriating, sustaining, and advancing inherent human
rights of equity, equality, and fairness in social, economic, educational, and personal
dimensions (Goldfarb & Grinberg, as quoted by Theoharis, pg. 225, 2007).
VAL-ED: The data collection instrument that will be used to quantify leadership
practice, which is based on the ISLLC standards and developed by Joseph Murphy at
Vanderbilt University. It is a 360-degree survey assessment.

17

Chapter Summary
Though it has yielded greater descriptions of effective leadership practices and
behavior, researchers still lack understanding of how these leadership practices and
behaviors were developed and determined, especially in urban settings. The purpose of
this investigation was to examine changes in leadership behavior as a result of their
participation in the Achieving Principals Coaching Initiative (APCI) and investigate the
impact of leadership practice on teacher professional practice and organizational
structures.

Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One gave an overview of the
problem for the proposed study. Chapter Two will review the empirical and non-
empirical literature on effective leadership practices; the evolution of contemporary
leadership theories; leadership effects on student achievement; and the effective
components of leadership capacity-building programs and support structures. Chapter
Three will outline the research methodology for the study including the design of the
study, sample selection, data collection and analysis procedures, and ethical
considerations. Chapter Four will explain the data collected and Chapter Five will
discuss conclusions made from the research.

18

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction
No Child Left Behind legislation (NCLB 2001) requires that all students reach the
proficient level by the 2013 school year. Reaching this goal will require strong, well-
trained leadership because the links among the quality of principal leadership, caliber of
teaching, and levels of student achievement is inextricable. School leadership is a key
factor in the recruitment and retention of quality teachers, and teaching quality positively
influences student learning and achievement (http://www.cftl.org/publications.pnp,
2009). This chapter will present a review of the literature relevant to the development of
strong educational leaders and the leadership support required to be able to do their jobs
successfully.
First, the term leadership will be defined as it is commonly used in education; an
examination of the literature on effective leadership will follow. Analysis will include
the literature on the standards for professional leaders (ISLLC). Second, leadership
theories will be examined including instructional leadership, transformational leadership,
learning-centered leadership, and the social justice theory of leadership. These theories
will be examined to gain an understanding of the history of leadership and how the
expectations of leaders have changed over time. As the history is discussed the onset of
standards based accountability will be introduced. Third, leadership preparation programs
will be discussed in the context of preparing effective leaders.

19

The goal of this section is to identify components of effective leadership
preparation programs. The AchievingResults! and the Achieving Principals Coaching
Initiative will also be introduced in this section. Fourth, support structures will be
discussed with respect to mentoring and coaching principals. Fifth, leader effects on
teachers, organization and culture, and students will be discussed. Leader effects on
teachers, the organization and culture, and student achievement will be discussed in order
to strengthen the argument for the importance of effectively training principals and
supporting principals for success. The last section will look at how leadership must be
different in an urban context.

Definition of Leadership and Effective Leadership
This section will discuss the definition of leadership as it pertains to education
and the principal and then describe what effective leadership looks like, based on the
standards for leaders, in an effort to provide a picture of what we are looking to produce
through leadership capacity-building programs and support structures for urban schools.
Definition of Leadership
Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to
achieve a common goal (Leithwood et al., 2004; Northouse, 2007). First, leadership is a
process, which is to say that leadership is not a trait inherent to the leader but rather an
interaction among the leader, helpers, and followers (Murphy et al., 2007; Northouse,
2007). Defining leadership as a process acknowledges it as a set of skills that can be
learned. Leadership is available to everyone, not restricted to the person in the leadership

20

position. Secondly, leadership has to do with influence. Without influence there is no
leadership (Northouse, 2007). Leadership does not exist outside of a group setting and
leadership includes moving toward a goal (Northouse, 2007). Leithwood et al. (2004)
have added that leadership helps the organization set a direction (2004). Thirdly,
leadership involves purpose; it helps set the direction to be pursued (Murphy et al., 2007).
“Leadership is widely regarded as a key factor in accounting for differences in the
success with which schools foster the learning of their students” (Leithwood et al., 2004,
p. 17). So, what constitutes an effective leader practice? For most of the last century,
educational leadership concentrated on managing the organization, fostering
bureaucracies, and making routines of teaching and learning. Society needs to evolve.
The leadership we have had has not been supporting all children(regardless of race,
ethnicity, and language background) in learning rigorous content and being equitably
equipped to participate and succeed in intellectual, occupational, and civic life (Knapp et
al., 2006).
Effective Leadership
Effective leaders make a commitment to create, share, put into action, and
manage a vision of achievement that all stakeholders shared and support. Creating a
vision is a collaborative effort among the stakeholders and the leader, empowering others
to make significant decisions. Effective leaders model the importance of collaborating
with parents and others in the extended school community. They include in the school
vision clear and focused high standards for all students. Then these leaders communicate
the vision to all stakeholders, modeling their beliefs to staff, students, and the

21

community. Effective leaders implement the vision and monitor progress toward the
schools goals and praise and celebrate success throughout the process (Murphy et al.,
2007).
Effective leaders are highly involved in the instructional program; are familiar
with what high quality teaching and rigorous curriculum look like; and are involved with
ongoing classroom observations. Effective leaders also support their teachers in their
efforts to improve and to remove obstacles; they have high expectations of teachers and
are available to them. They work to hire excellent teachers and assign them duties based
on student needs. They build collaborative communities and encourage professional
development; build the capacity of staff members to accomplish the vision, and monitor
the effectiveness of the professional development.
Effective leaders build a comprehensive assessment system that draws upon an
assortment of techniques. They promote the triangulation of data from multiple sources
in order to make decisions about the effectiveness of curricular and instructional
programs. They also find and use resources in ways that bring about student achievement
(Murphy et al., 2007). Effective leaders plan staff learning activities and conduct
curriculum planning and data collection.
Leaders create a culture that is outcome-based. Effective leaders have an
awareness of the school contexts their students exist in and work in all possible ways to
bring equitable success to the populations of students who have not succeeded
(Leithwood et al., 2004). They also communicate regularly with families and community
members (Leithwood et al, 2004; Murphy et al., 2007).

22

Since 1996 states have had leadership standards to guide leadership practices that
positively impact teaching and learning. The Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO) revised these standards in the publication, Educational Leadership Policy
Standards: Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC, 2008). These
standards are as follows: An education leader promotes the success of every student by:
1. Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and
stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by all
stakeholders.
2. Advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional
program conductive to student learning and staff professional growth.
3. Ensuring management of the organization, operation, and resources for a
safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.
4. Collaborating with faculty and community members, responding to
diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community
resources.
5. Acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.
6. Understanding, responding to, and influencing the political, social,
economic, legal, and cultural context (ISLLC, 2008).

Standards-Based Reform Movement
NCLB (2001) requires schools and school districts to make adequate yearly
progress (AYP). Title 1 is a federal aid program in which school districts receive funding

23

to provide supplemental instruction for students who qualify. The allocation of these
funds for each school district is based on a legislative formula dependent upon the
distribution of low-income children and state per-pupil expenditures. Urban public
schools receive Title 1 funds and therefore are required to meet their AYP. Schools that
fail to make AYP toward statewide proficiency goals are subject to improvement and
corrective action measures. In California, Program Improvement (PI) is the formal
designation for Title 1-funded schools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years.
Once in PI, a school that fails to make AYP will advance further in PI status. Advancing
further constitutes increased professional development for staff, then proceeds to
additional educational services for students, replacing school staff, implementing new
curriculum, extending the school day, restructuring the organization, and possibly
appointing an outside expert. The further a school moves into PI the less control the
administration maintains over the school.

Leadership Theories
Instructional Leadership Theory
“Leaders gain the means, the plan, and the process to react thoroughly to difficult
and opposing claims on schools by understanding leadership from varied
standpoints”(Jones, Neumann, &Webb, 2004, p. 261). From the beginning of the 1900s
to the present, the role of the principal has changed markedly. To be effective, principals
must understand the expectations of them and some of the history of how those
expectations evolved. The 1900s to the 1970s demanded that the principal be a program

24

manager. The public wanted principals to make education routine and to produce
educated students, factory style. In the 1970s, the public wanted principals to emulate
corporate management. In the 1980s the principal’s central role was in educational
improvement. Instructional leadership was a reaction to studies conducted in the 1970s
and early 1980s in urban communities where students were succeeding despite the odds.
These schools had strong instructional leadership, a learning climate free of
disruption, a system of clear teaching objectives and high teacher expectations for
students (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). Instructional leadership became the new
expectation for principals. As the instructional leader, principals were viewed as the
primary source of knowledge for development of the school’s educational program
(Hallinger, 1992). Aimed at standardizing the practice of effective teaching, the
principal’s role was to maintain high expectations for teachers and students, supervise
classroom instruction, coordinate the school’s curriculum, and monitor student progress.
Principals emphasized sets of activities with implications for instruction: (a)
developing the school mission and goals, (b) coordinating, monitoring, and evaluating
curriculum, instruction and assessment, (c) promoting a climate for learning, and (d)
creating a supportive work environment (Marks & Printy, 2003).
For principals who lacked the skills to accomplish these tasks, coaching and
assistance were not readily available (Marks & Printy, 2003). One weakness of the
instructional leadership concept is its exclusive focus on the principal and to the neglect
of contributions of other staff with regard to instructional goal-setting, oversight of the
teaching programs, and the development of a positive academic and learning climate

25

(Robinson et al., 2008). The hierarchical orientation of instructional leadership conflicted
with the democratic and participative feel of schools in the late 1980s and the move to
involve teachers in shared management. To accomplish the reforms pivotal to schools,
scholars of education turned to a model of transformational leadership (Marks & Printy,
2003).
Table 1
Dimensions of Instructional Management
Defines the Mission Manages Instructional
Program
Promotes School
Climate
Framing school goals
Communicating school
goals

Supervising and evaluating
instruction

Coordinating curriculum
Monitoring student
progress
Protecting instructional time

Promoting professional
development

Maintaining high visibility
Providing incentives for
teachers

Enforcing academic
standards

Providing incentives for
students
Note. Source: Hallinger, &Murphy, J. (1985)
Transformational Leadership Theory
In the 1990s, the United States acknowledged that the current system of education
was not adequately preparing students. The school was then viewed as the unit
responsible for the initiation of change. The basis for school leadership expanded to
include teachers as well as the principal, which led to restructuring schools and
transformational leadership (Hallinger, 1992). The principal’s role was redefined in

26

Burn’s (1978) classic work titled Leadership, from which transformational leadership
emerged as an important approach to headship. Transformational leadership seeks to
raise participants’ level of energy, commitment, and moral purpose to encourage them to
reach their fullest potential, and to support them in transcending their own self-interest
for the sake of the organization (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Marks & Printy, 2003;
Robinson et al, 2008). According to Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) and Smith, Kuzmenko,
and Montagno (2004), there are six transformational leadership dimensions; they are:
1) idealized influence to build a school vision and the motivation to achieve it
2) providing intellectual stimulation;
3) offering individualized support and needs
4) symbolizing professional practices and values
5) demonstrating high performance expectations
6) developing structures to foster participation in school decisions
Transformational leadership is a model in which a person engages with others and
creates a connection that raises the level of motivation in both the leader and the follower.
In the mid-1980s, Bass (1985) expanded transformational leadership by giving more
attention to followers’ than leaders’ needs.
Transformational leadership affirms that the principal is the center of reform,
particularly in introducing innovation and shaping organizational culture. A
transformational leader attempts to recreate and fortify the organization for survival in a
challenging external environment. The external environment is usually more dynamic
and challenging, thus requiring quick decisions and correct reactions. The leader must

27

lead first, and then get the organization into shape to adapt effectively to external
requirements (Smith et al., 2004). Transformational leadership fits the needs of the urban
context due to its ability to inspire and empower teachers in uncertain times.
School climate has an effect on the adults who work there and, therefore can
influence the academic success of the students. The principal’s role as leader of the
school has a profound effect on school climate. Teachers who characterized their
principals as supportive found work more rewarding; enjoyed a productive, motivating
work environment; demonstrated lower attrition rates and experienced less job-related
stress and burnout. This change in turn affected how successful their students were. The
principal’s role must serve to facilitate the teaching and learning process so that student
and teachers will succeed in their endeavors (Hamilton, Thomas, & Pepper, 2001).
In a study completed by Leithwood and Jantzi (2000), transformational leadership
effects were significant on student engagement in schools. Transformational leadership
lacked, however, an explicit focus on curriculum and instruction. When principals who
are transformational leaders accept their instructional role and exercise it in collaboration
with teachers, they practice an integrated form of leadership. Principals who share
leadership responsibilities with others are less subject to burnout than principal heroes
who attempt to meet the challenges of leadership alone. When the principal elicits high
levels of commitment and professionalism from teachers and works interactively with
teachers in a shared instructional leadership capacity, schools have the benefit of
integrated leadership; they are organizations that learn and perform at high levels (Marks
& Printy, 2003).

28

Learning-Centered Leadership Theory
In the late 1990s, a more outcome-based learning theory emerged. Learning-
Centered Leadership Theory (Murphy et al., 2006) took an integrated approach to the
practice of leadership and combined the key concepts from instructional leadership
theory with transformational leadership and leadership with social justice. The leadership
behaviors in the learning-centered leadership framework fall into eight categories:
1) Vision for learning: leaders create a vision with all stakeholders based on
high standards for student learning and then keep the vision at the
forefront for the school.
2) Instructional program: Leaders work to support teachers with resources and
time to better their practice and are in classrooms to support both rigorous
curriculum and strong instructional strategies for students.
3) Curricular program: Leaders work with teachers to have rigorous
curriculum and common assessment including rubrics for further student
learning.
4) Assessment program: Leaders are also aware of effective assessment
methods for student achievement and work with staff to provide support
for all teachers to use varied methods of assessment.
5) Communities for learning: Leaders build communities for learning,
teaching staff how to collaborate and protecting the time for teachers to
work together.

29

6) Resource acquisition and use: Leaders actively work to gain resources for
their school and then are careful that their use supports the vision and
goals of the school.
7) Organizational culture: Leaders are organized in the manner that they work
towards a collaborative culture and support teachers to gain a culture of
high standards for both staff and students: and
8) Social advocacy: Leaders work toward the equality of all their students and
reducing the marginalization of students (Murphy et al., 2006).
The learning-focused approach to leadership pays close attention to the
connections among educational leader knowledge and skills, their core values, their
theories of action and leadership practice, and the potential connections between practice
and learning (Knapp et al., 2006).
Principals help to build collaborative teams that work on clarifying universal
outcomes of all courses on campus (Farmer, 1999) and then break them down to
outcomes for every unit. Teachers work together to narrow their focus to essential units.
Teachers teaching the same course develop common assessments. Discussions occur to
determine how the teachers will know when their students have learned the desired
outcomes. There must be student-centered teaching strategies to bring about active
learning (Farmer, 1999). Teachers must deliver a rigorous curriculum in ways that
actively engage students (Murphy et al., 2007).
Leaders need to assist, facilitate, and sustain the process. The principal also needs
to focus teams and provide training; they need to assist, coach, encourage, recognize, and

30

confront those not participating (Farmer, 1999). Trust must be built to gain a positive
attitude toward change (Farmer, 1999).
The movement to improve student learning involves two other learning agendas:
the professional learning of teachers and administrators and developing new policies,
practices, and structures that alter and hopefully enhance performance. All three learning
agendas are potential targets of leadership influence. Leaders are more likely to address
these learning agendas if they have developed theories of action and related skill-sets that
help them see and realize these connections between leadership and learning (Knapp et
al., 2006).
Social Justice Theory
When leadership theories are examined and put into a 21
st
century urban context
social justice theory becomes a necessary element. Students of color, students of low
socioeconomic status, students who speak languages other than English, and students
with disabilities fall into a category set for school failure and social inequity (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2007). They are left behind without hope, vision, or equal access to a
quality of education to which all children are entitled. The literature on leadership for
social justice identifies schools that are demonstrating success for students from these
backgrounds. Principals are facing these challenges and transforming schools (Brown,
2006). Social justice leadership means that these principals make issues of race, class,
gender, disability, sexual orientation, and other historically marginalizing conditions in
the United States central to their advocacy, leadership practice, and vision. This
definition centers on addressing and eliminating marginalization in school, linking

31

inclusive schooling and social justice (Theoharis, 2007). Educational leaders committed
to equity understand and create opportunities for the learning of all students by dealing
with issues of context and achievement. Leaders for social justice examine power
relations within schools and societies, scrutinize differential schooling, and critique social
class stratifications (Brown, 2006). Per Theoharis (2007) the following are ways
principals can work to enact social justice:
• Raising student achievement: they provide and use both state test data and
local assessments, making sure that high percentages of students
participate in testing.
• Improving school structures: work toward the elimination of pullout and
segregated programs at their schools, de-track math, increase rigor,
increase advanced level classes, and increase accountability for students to
succeed.
• Re-center and enhance staff capacity-principals seeking to increase staff
capacity by addressing issues of race, providing ongoing staff
development, focusing on building equity, developing staff investment in
social justice, hiring and supervising for justice, and empowering staff.
• Strengthen school culture and community: principals work to create a
warm and welcoming school climate and reach out to the community and
to marginalized families.
Social justice activists are committed to an agenda where past practices grounded
in racism, gender exclusivity, homophobia, class discrimination, and religious intolerance

32

are confronted and changed overtime (Brown, 2006). Marginalized students do not
receive the education they deserve unless purposeful steps are taken to change schools on
their behalf with both equity and justice consciously in mind (Theoharis, 2007).
Administrators must be at the front of the line in transforming schools into more
equitable and just places (Theoharis, 2007).

Components of Effective Leadership Preparation Programs
Davis et al. (2005) acknowledged that principals play an important and integral
role in schools for teachers and children, but that existing knowledge on the best ways to
develop these effective leaders was insufficient. Leaders must develop a deep
understanding of how to support teachers, manage the curriculum in ways that promote
student learning and develop the ability to transform schools into more effective
organizations that foster powerful teaching and learning for all students (Davis et al.,
2005). Scholars have asserted that the values, beliefs, and experiences of principals are
noteworthy in understanding how they exercise educational leadership. Principals’
personal values have also been identified as potentially important because they shape
what principals pay attention to within the educational program (Hallinger et al., 1996).

33

Table 2
Effective Components of Leadership Preparation Programs

Curriculum

Program

Accountability

Faculty

Clear focus on specific
knowledge and skills
linked to a set of
values and beliefs.

Provide experience in
authentic contexts.

Research-based and
rigorous.

Curricular coherence
Foster self-reflection
Cohort groupings and
mentors.

Structured to enable
collaborative activity
between the program and
area schools.

Effective selection
strategies.

Enable principals to
become more effective
in their practice.

Supportive
organizational structures
Increase their capacity to
gauge their impact.

Have better evaluation
models.

Incorporate evaluation
research

Database of evidence
for benchmarking
performance.
Low student-faculty
ratio.

Full-time tenure-
track faculty
members and
professional growth
opportunities for
staff.

Adequate resources
and staffing.
Note. Source: Brewer, Carpenter, Fuller, Mansfield, & Young, 2007, Fall; Davis, Darling-Hammond,
LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005; Preis, Grogan, Sherman, & Beaty, 2008.
Successful principals exercise more higher-order thinking in their leadership role
than their typical or less successful counterparts (Hallinger et al., 1996). Instructional
leaders connect their daily on-the-job practice with the needs and resources of the school
and its environment (Hallinger et al., 1996). Goals form a central part of the vision
principals use to bring consistency to an otherwise unmanageably diverse set of demands
(Hallinger et al., 1996).
In the study conducted by Copland and Blum (2007), pre- and postassessment of
principals’ and district coaches’ abilities to analyze a classroom lesson through
observation were conducted. Principals were provided with training on 13
subdimensions organized under four broad headings: (a) lesson purpose, (b) student

34

engagement, (c) curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment, and (d) classroom environment
and culture. The principals and coaches in the two districts improved in their ability to
analyze instruction and consider comments to teachers about what they observed. The
data clearly suggested that this group of leaders from two districts made significant
knowledge and skill gains in the areas assessed by the rubric (Copland & Blum, 2007).
This study showed that school leaders can, in fact, be taught to be instructional leaders
through strategies designed to increase their knowledge and skills in instruction.
The knowledge, skills, and values leaders bring to leadership programs and the
components of effective capacity-building programs have been discussed; however, in
preparing school leaders to meet the challenges of urban schools, issues related to the
context must be identified and addressed in leadership preparation programs to more
completely prepare leaders for this work.

Achieving Results! and Achieving Principal Coaching Initiative
According to the Plan for Student Achievement:
In November 2005, the Board of Trustees set the vision for Achieving
Independent School District (Achieving ISD) to be the premier urban district by
2010 and established the expectation that all students will graduate college and
workforce ready. (p. 1)

The district committed itself to systemic redesign of the teaching and learning
systems, adopting a theory of action based on collaboration with University of
Pittsburgh’s Institute for Learning (IFL) and the curriculum audit recommendations from
the National Center for Educational Accountability. The theory of action is based on the
concept of managed instruction with earned empowerment; the central office accepts

35

responsibility for directly managing the district’s teaching and learning, being flexible
and balancing accountability with empowerment. The theory of action is built on the
expectation that all students will experience a college-ready-level curriculum in
prekindergarten through 12
th
grade. The Educational Plan goals include five
components: (a) academic rigor and student engagement, (b) professional
development/capacity building, (c) leadership, (d) accountability for learning and results,
and (e) parent/community engagement.
The Institute for Learning has identified nine Principals of Learning: (a)
Organizing for Effort, (b) Clear Expectations, (c) Fair and Credible Evaluations, (d)
Recognition of Accomplishment, (e) Academic Rigor in a Thinking Curriculum, (f)
Accountable Talk, (g) Socializing Intelligence, (h) Self-management of Learning, (i)
Learning as Apprenticeship (See Appendix G Principles of Learning).
The district’s initiative to become the best urban school district in America by
2010 has three parts:
1. Adopt annual and five-year performance targets for all students and
student groups in academic achievement, graduation, and college
readiness. Implement district and campus improvement plans.
2. Compare the district in five areas of student achievement to five other
urban school districts in Texas and to student performance statewide.
3. Strategically align the district to meet these goals and targets:
• Implement best practices based on a curriculum and instruction audit
by the National Center for Educational Accountability.

36

• More rigorous learning expectations for students
• Clearer curriculum guidelines for teachers.
• Content-based professional development for all teachers and parents.
• Additional expectations for monitoring and supporting student
learning.
• Reallocate resources based on recommendations of the
AchievingResults! Commission to meet learning expectations for
students.
Under the umbrella of AchievingResults!, the district added an initiative to help
attain its goals for capacity-building and leadership. The Achieving ISD Principal
Coaching Initiative (APCI) provides a standards-based capacity-building curriculum and
the support of a leadership coaching structure. The APCI is designed to provide
principals with a principal coach who provides at-elbow coaching and conferring to
enhance instructional leadership development and build leadership capacity to ensure
improved academic success for students. Principals and coaches participate in
professional development focused on data analysis, goal setting related to academic
achievement, leadership practice and establishing systems and structures to support
improved teacher practice and student learning.
As part of the professional development with the Institute for Learning, principals
have been trained on the LearningWalk. The LearningWalk is a tool to help improve
teaching and learning. The role of LearningWalk in the Nested Learning Community is
two-way accountability and making teaching public. The LearningWalk is a structured

37

walk through a school’s halls and classrooms using the Principles of Learning to focus on
the instruction. The focus of a LearningWalk is Elmore’s instructional core: how
teachers teach, how students learn, and what gets taught to whom (Elmore, 1996). In
keeping with effort-based education, the LearningWalk also focuses on how a school is
organized so effort creates ability. One of the trademarks of the LearningWalk is
observation of the instructional core through the eyes of the students. Walkers examine
student work and question students about their work and about classroom practice.
Through these observations, walkers collect evidence about learning as well as teaching,
and about how a teacher’s work impacts student learning. Walkers obtain a “picture” of
the learning at the school. Rather than drawing conclusions from the evidence, walkers
prepare wonderings or thought-provoking questions designed to encourage reflection and
new practices that will lead to increasingly higher quality teaching. LearningWalks are
never stand-alone events. The LearningWalk should be seen as one means of formative
assessment, used in planning next steps of the professional development for both
principals and teachers. The most distinct feature of the LearningWalk is its connection
to the creation and maintenance of a Nested Learning Community. The two key features
of Nested Learning Communities are that they are learning organizations (meaning that
all adult professionals continually advance their competency) and that the adhesive of
these organizations is two-way accountability. As walkers learn to identify excellent
instruction, they obtain a deeper understanding of goals for every educator in the district.
Teachers observe other teachers and are observed by both teachers and administrators.
The open door policy of the Nested Learning Community is not simply a matter of

38

accountability, though it is that, but is also one element of the professional development
cycle of the Nested Learning Community. After each classroom visit, the walkers gather
in the hallway to discuss the evidence they have gathered. After all the classrooms have
been visited, walkers reconvene for a debriefing session. In some cases, teachers join in
debriefing. Otherwise the principal communicates the observations of the LearningWalk
team to the staff through a feedback letter or through discussion at a staff meeting
(University of Pittsburgh, 2006).

Leadership Support Structures
The idea of providing novices entering any field or profession with a wise,
experienced guide and role model dates to ancient times and has gained widespread
acceptance in many walks of life: law, medicine, nursing, business, engineering,
architecture, and library work (Mattis et al., 2007). Helping new principals to schedule
their workday to keep learning and instruction at the forefront is priority setting. At other
times, the challenge of putting learning first is far tougher and may involve helping the
new leader weigh choices that could place them painfully at odds with teachers, parents,
or others in the school community. How new leaders perform in such circumstances can
literally shape how they will behave throughout their career. The mentor can help a new
principal develop moral courage—the willingness and ability to stand alone when
necessary and do what’s best for children (Mattis et al., 2007).
Districts have adopted coaching as a model for the professional development of
teachers and principals. The goal is to engage educators in collaborative work designed

39

to contribute to the development of intellectual capacity in schools. Coaching helps
educators make informed decisions about instruction and school organization that will
lead teachers to teach in ways that help students gain a deep knowledge of subject matter
so that they can bring that knowledge to bear on problems and questions that matter
(Neufeld & Roper, 2003). Coaching can support improved teaching and student
achievement when it is embedded in a sustained, coherent, district-wide effort to improve
instruction. Change coaches help principals focus on instruction, make the best use of
school-based resources, and nurture teacher leadership (Neufeld & Roper, 2003). The
coach’s influence brings a whole-school focus. Change coaches provide principals with
the help they need to take on their newly defined roles. Change coaches help principals
understand the importance of recruiting teachers to assume instructional leadership roles
to drive whole-school change. They act as strategists and assistants in building capacity
for shared decision making. They model leadership skills for principals as well as for
teachers. They assist in scheduling teachers to work in specific curricular areas or
common planning time (Neufeld & Roper, 2003). Coaches help principals organize
their time so that they are able to visit classrooms regularly to observe instruction and
offer feedback to teachers. Coaching holds a great deal of promise for districts willing to
meet the practical challenges of this difficult work (Neufeld & Roper, 2003).
Getting new principals trained and ready to perform at high levels is the essential
function of university educational leadership programs working in partnership with local
school districts. What we need is high-quality school-based experiences for aspiring
principals, organized around student achievement problems that can jump-start their

40

mastery of the skills needed to lead change in teaching and learning (Gray et al., in
press). Mentoring should be provided for at least a year, and ideally two or more years,
in order to give new leaders the necessary support as they develop from novices to self-
assured leaders of change (Gray et al., in press; Mattis et al., 2007).
The professional approval process of internship programs is just the practitioner’s
willingness to affix his or her signature to the requisite forms of internship completion.
Too many new leaders are left to learn on the job. This sink-or-swim, stumble through it
approach to principal leadership development not only is counterproductive but also
explains why school reform efforts so often sputter and die out (Bottoms et al., in press;
Mattis et al., 2007).
Good mentors know how to structure opportunities for interns to solve a range of
school problems including leading teams in identifying, implementing, and evaluating
improvement interventions. Both studies (2007, in press) by Wallace Foundation, found
that:
• States, universities, and districts allow interns to select mentors and
internship sites and there is no structure for how mentors and interns are to
interact, therefore, most principal interns experience a narrow range of
school environments and ways to solve pressing school problems.
• States, universities and school districts do not invest adequate finances,
staff, time, and training in quality mentoring. There are vague policies
that fail to ensure high-quality experiences with consistent outcomes.
Most mentors receive no training, tools or resources to provide effective

41

mentoring and there is little oversight by the university. Most mentors are
not evaluated on their performance, and the quality of mentoring is
compromised when mentoring goes unrewarded and is perceived as an
add-on duty.
• Mentoring focuses on the wrong things. Most mentors indicated that their
responsibility was to help interns complete a list of tasks rather than to
help them implement a project focusing on school improvement.
Mentoring is about observing not practicing leadership.
• School districts have not claimed ownership of the mentor selection
process and are not capitalizing on mentoring as a means of securing a
reliable supply of well-prepared new principals. Investing in high-quality
mentoring is an effective way for districts to secure a ready supply of
capable school leaders who know how to implement school reform
strategies.
• Experienced practitioners’ judgment about aspiring principals’
competencies carries little weight. Most of the mentors stated that they
were not asked to make a recommendation regarding their interns’
qualifications for licensure (Gray et al., in press; Mattis et al., 2007).
The primary goal of mentoring should be prioritizing learning and attention and
rallying the school around this goal; looking at what fundamental change in the status quo
is needed to make better teaching and learning; having the courage to keep the needs of

42

all children first and not to shrink from confronting opposition to change (Mattis et al.,
2007).
Leadership preparation programs are important to building a solid foundation for
successful school leadership. School leaders have the potential to effect change in
organizational structure, school culture, teacher practice, and thus to impact student
outcomes.

Leader Effects
Leadership is second only to classroom instruction among all school-related
factors that contribute to what students learn at school (Leithwood et al., 2004). Davis et
al., (2005) stated that successful school leaders influence student achievement through
their influence on other people or features of their organization, and through their
influence on school processes. Four avenues of influence were identified in the study
done by Brewer et al. (2007): (a) purposes and goals of the school, (b) the school
structure and social networks,(c) the people, and (d) the school culture. Then the study
broke down a principal’s largest influence on the school to be(a) the creation of the
culture focused on learning and high expectations for all students and (b) recruiting and
retaining high-quality teachers. “Quality principals result in quality schools that produce
higher student performance” (Gray et al., in press).
A study by Leithwood et al. (2004) lists leadership practices that influence student
learning: (a) a leader must help the organization set directions and influence members to
move in those directions,(b) leaders need to manage the instructional program and

43

promote a positive learning climate,(c) principals cannot do the whole job by
themselves,(d) organizational conditions sometimes wear down educators’ good
intentions,(e) successful educational leaders develop their schools as effective
organizations that support and sustain the performance of administrators and teachers as
well as students, and(f) leaders need a large repertoire of practices and the capacity to
choose from that repertoire as needed.
In the learning-centered leadership framework (Murphy et al., 2006) illustrated in
Figure 2, below, the leader’s behaviors are affected by their experience, previous
knowledge, personal characteristics, values, and beliefs. The leader then directly affects
the organizational structure and teacher practice, which affects student outcomes
(Murphy et al., 2006).

44

Figure 2
Learning-Centered Leadership Framework

Note. Source: Murphy et al. (2006)
Educational leadership comes from many sources but superintendents and
principals are still the most influential (Leithwood et al., 2004). Efforts to improve
recruitment, training, evaluating, and ongoing development should be considered highly
cost-effective approaches to successful school improvement (Leithwood et al., 2004).
One way principals shape school conditions and teaching practice is through their
beliefs and actions regarding teacher professional development (Youngs & King, 2002).
Some examples are establishing regular meeting times for teams of teachers to plan and
reflect, aligning school-wide professional development activities with school goals, and
practicing distributed leadership. Schools with strong professional communities are

45

associated with higher student achievement (Youngs &King, 2002). Professional
development for principals can help them understand the main elements of school
capacity and how teacher development can enhance, neglect, or even diminish aspects of
capacity (Youngs &King, 2002).
Studies of teacher expectations by Hallinger et al. (1996) have also shown that
principals play a key instructional leadership role by shaping teachers’ attitudes
concerning students’ ability to master school subject matter. This study revealed a
positive relationship between principal leadership and the school climate variables
(Hallinger et al., 1996). The model indicates a strong relationship between the degree of
instructional leadership provided by the principal and the existence of a clear school
mission (Hallinger et al., 1996). Hallinger et al., (1996) believe that exploration of
indirect student learning represents the most potentially productive approach to
understanding the principal’s role in school effectiveness (Hallinger et al., 1996).
The impact of instructional leadership on student outcomes is three to four times
greater than that of transformational leadership (Robinson et al., 2008). This study by
Robinson et al. (2008) suggested that the impact of instructional leadership on student
outcomes is notably greater than that of transformational leadership. The study also
looked at specific dimensions of leadership for their effect size on student outcomes. The
first dimension was establishing goals and expectations, which yielded a moderately large
effect size and has an educationally significant effect. The second dimension was
securing resources aligned with instructional purposes, which had a small indirect impact
on student outcomes. The third dimension was planning, coordinating, and evaluating

46

teaching and the curriculum, which had a moderate impact on student outcomes. The
fourth dimension was promoting and participating in teacher learning and development.
This dimension had a large effect. The more active teachers reported their school leaders
to be as participants in teacher learning and development, the higher the student
outcomes. The fifth dimension was ensuring an orderly and supportive environment.
This dimension had a small effect. The research study concluded that the closer
educational leaders got to the core business of teaching and learning, the more likely they
were to have a positive impact on student outcomes (Robinson et al., 2008).
The research study by Leithwood and Mascall (2008) discussed distributed
leadership and its effects on teacher motivation, teacher capacity, and work setting on
student achievement. Collective leadership is significantly related to all three teacher
variables and all variables except teacher capacity significantly relate to student
achievement. Collective leadership influences student achievement through teacher
motivation and work settings. The model in this article explains a significant proportion
of variation in student achievement across schools. Collective leadership has modest but
significant indirect effects on student achievement (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008), because
when teachers are motivated and in a positive work setting, student achievement
increases.
A study by Coburn (2005) has discussed a principal’s effect on teacher sense-
making. The study shows how principals influence teachers’ sense-making about
instructional policy, both directly and indirectly. Directly, they influence what teachers
find themselves making sense about by shaping access to some policy messages and not

47

others. As they interact with these policy messages, principals make key decisions that
shape what messages they bring in, what messages they emphasize with the staff, and
what they filter out (Coburn, 2005). Principals bring in and intensify some policy
messages that emphasize one approach rather than another (Coburn, 2005). School
leaders mediate state policies such that teachers in different schools may encounter the
same policy in ways that differ substantially in content, focus, and intensity. School
principals also influence teacher sense-making indirectly as they participate with teachers
in socially constructing the meaning and implications of policy ideas (Coburn, 2005).
School leaders shaped the course, focus, and direction of sense-making between teachers
rather than directly shaping the resulting understandings or enactment in the classroom
(Coburn, 2005). Principals influence teacher sense-making indirectly by drawing on their
knowledge about how teachers learn to create conditions that are more or less conducive
for engaging with policy messages in consequential ways. The nature of the messages
principals promoted to teachers, and the conditions for conversation they created shaped
what teachers learned about policy ideas and how they subsequently enacted them in the
classroom. When school leaders had a superficial understanding of policy ideas, they, at
times, promoted approaches that were incongruous with policy or with other approaches
they were simultaneously promoting (Coburn, 2005).
The purpose of the study conducted by Vanderhaar, Munoz, and Rodosky (2007)
was to examine the relationship between preparation programs and student achievement
in urban settings. Principals who had between 9 and 17 years of teaching experience had
higher achievement scores than schools with principals who had between 3 and 8 years of

48

teaching experience. Schools with principals who had between 18 and 32 years of
teaching experience had the lowest mean scores. Principals who had served at their
school for 7 or more years had higher mean achievement scores than schools where the
principals had served from 4 and 6 years and 2 and 3 years. Achievement scores
increased as the average teaching experience increased. Principals who participated in
district-driven preparation scored slightly higher averages than the schools with
principals who did not participate (Vanderhaar et al., 2007). District and university
partnerships can have a positive effect on key educational indicators related to teaching
and learning outcomes (Vanderhaar et al., 2007). This study reinforces the idea that our
most needy schools need the best teachers and most experienced principals. Leadership
effects are usually largest where and when they are needed most (Leithwood et al., 2004).
So, to create these effects districts must make sure they are doing what they need to place
highly skilled leaders into urban settings to create the effects needed.
This section spoke to the effect of leaders on teacher practice, organizational
structures, and culture, and indirectly on student achievement. The effect leaders have on
a school and its people depends upon their training, background, and beliefs. This next
section will focus specifically on the urban context, which differs greatly from the rural
or suburban context. The urban context needs to be examined to be able to identify
precisely what these differences are.

49

Urban Context
Students from diverse backgrounds experience cultural insensitivities in school
and research suggests that racism is behind it (Hallinger et al., 1996). In order to
eliminate the marginalizing, oppressive, and self-destructive impact of racism, school
personnel is encouraged to engage in antiracism education in place of multicultural
policies and practices. School leaders should expect all staff to work toward equity,
democracy, and social justice for all students (Leithwood et al., 2004). The context in
which principals work present different constraints, needs, and opportunities and
principals adapt their instructional leadership to the community context in which they
work (Hallinger et al., 1996).
Our nation’s urban schools, particularly those most in need, are poorly matched to
current popular reforms for schools across the country. For those who lead urban
schools, different expectations, different obligations, and different city histories require
far more fortitude, skills, and political finesse than for their colleagues in middle and
upper-class, racially isolated suburbs. All public schools are hardly alike. Leading urban
districts demands a keener sensitivity to inequalities and a well-developed capacity to
deal with racial isolation, ethnic conflict, and economic disparities as they affect
academic achievement both in the schools and the city itself. An urban school is deeply
influenced by the neighborhoods from which it draws its students. Schools are expected
to build respect for differences in ideas and cultures. Families lack personal and
institutional resources and depend upon the school and other public agencies. In cities,
schools can’t do it alone (Cuban, 2001).

50

Americans often forget that as late as the 1960s most African American, Latino,
and Native American students were educated in completely segregated schools funded
much lower than those serving Whites and were excluded from many higher education
institutions entirely. On every major national test, including the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, the gap in minority and White students’ test scores narrowed
substantially between 1970 and 1990, especially for elementary school students (Darling-
Hammond, 1998). On the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) the scores of African
American students’ climbed 54 points between 1976 and 1994, while those of white
students remained stable (Darling-Hammond, 1998).
Minority children have unequal access to highly qualified teachers and rigorous
curriculum, which is the reason for their educational low achievement. Race is not the
reason (Darling-Hammond, 1998). Two-thirds of minority students still attends schools
that are predominantly minority— most of them located in central cities and funded
below those in neighboring suburban districts (Darling-Hammond, 1998). On every
verifiable measure, from qualified teachers to curriculum offerings, schools with greater
numbers of students of color had substantially fewer resources than schools with mostly
White students (Darling-Hammond, 1998). Tracking systems intensify these inequalities
by segregating many low-income and minority students within schools (Darling-
Hammond, 1998). Many schools serving low-income and minority students do not offer
the math and science courses needed for college, and they provide lower-quality teaching
in the classes they do offer (Darling-Hammond, 1998). Four factors consistently
influence student achievement: students perform better if they are (a) educated in smaller

51

schools, where they are well known, (b) have smaller class sizes, (c) receive a
challenging curriculum, and (d) have more highly qualified teachers (Darling-Hammond,
1998). In predominately minority schools, schools are large, class sizes are 15% larger
overall, and teachers are much less qualified in terms of levels of education, certification,
and training in the fields they teach.
Teacher preparation makes a tremendous difference to learning. Teacher
expertise accounted for roughly 40%of the measured variance in student reading and
math achievement gains in grades 1-12 (Darling-Hammond, 1998). More of the
difference between the high- and low-scoring districts was explained by teacher
qualifications and class sizes than by poverty, race, and parent education (Darling-
Hammond, 1998). Elementary school students who are assigned to ineffective teachers
for three years in a row score nearly 50 percentile points lower on achievement tests than
those assigned to highly effective teachers over the same period (Darling-Hammond,
1998). Minority students are about half as likely to be assigned to the most effective
teachers and twice as likely to be assigned to the least effective (Darling-Hammond,
1998). In a comparative study African American and White students who had
comparative instruction achieved comparable levels of reading skill (Darling-Hammond,
1998). The schools with highly qualified teachers serving large numbers of minority and
low-income students performed as well as much more advantaged schools.
Federal policymakers can develop incentives, as they have in medicine, to
guarantee well-prepared teachers in shortage fields and high-need locations. States can
equalize education spending, enforce higher teaching standards, and reduce teacher

52

shortages, as some states have. School districts can reallocate resources from
administrative superstructures and special add-on programs to support better-educated
teachers who offer a challenging curriculum in smaller schools and classes, as
restructured schools as far apart as New York and San Diego have done. Educational
resources do make a difference, particularly when funds are used for well-qualified
teachers and high-quality curriculum and for creating personalized learning communities
in which children are well known (Darling-Hammond, 1998).

Summary
Learning-Centered Leadership Theory (Murphy et al., 2006) is an integrated
theory of instructional, transformational, and the beginning of social justice theory.
Leadership capacity-building programs and support structures built on this theory need to
be in place to be able to change the status quo for marginalized students in our urban
schools. The context in which students are not reaching a proficient level is the urban
setting. Leader preparation programs must integrate the knowledge and skills inherent in
the social justice theory into their programs to help leaders be successful in these
contexts. Coaching, mentoring, and/or field-work must be authentic and work toward
accommodating what leaders will need to know and be able to do to change schools and
work with teachers toward success. To enable all students to reach the proficient level in
math and reading, leaders need support and a good leadership foundation to create and
sustain the changes needed.

53

Chapter Three will discuss the methodology used in this study. The sample and
population will be discussed followed by the data collection methods. Data analysis will
be discussed and the chapter will finish with the ethical considerations and a summary.

54

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY

Introduction
This chapter describes the design, sample, instrumentation, data collection, and
data analysis process employed in this study. The purpose of this case study was to fill in
the gaps in the literature regarding effective components of leadership capacity-building
programs and support structures that enable and sustain urban school leader practice.
Specifically, the study investigated the impact of principal participation in a fully
developed, research and standards-based executive leadership development program on
leader practice and professional practice of teachers.
This research is part of a study by the University of Southern California in
partnership with the Achieving Independent School District through a grant from the
Meadows Foundation, an Achieving area private philanthropic foundation. Achieving
ISD offered 14 principals the opportunity to work with a principal coach for the 2009-
2010 school year. The dissertation chair for my committee was instrumental in securing
access to the district and schools principals within the Achieving ISD. A research
proposal was designed to have graduate student researchers from the University of
Southern California study the impact of the State’s APCI program on leader practice and
teacher professional practice.

55

Intervention
“AchievingResults,” the district’s initiative to become the best urban school
district in the country by 2010, provided both principal training and coaching
components. The Achieving Principal Coaching Initiative (APCI), a facet of the larger
Achieving Results movement, provided coaches for principals in District 10. These
coaches were experienced, often retired principals, committed to offering support to
active principals during the 2009-2010 school year. The APCI, which began in January
2009, provides professional development sessions, which principals and coaches attend
together. The Institute for Learning at the University of Pittsburg (IFL) helped design
and implement much of the curriculum for these sessions. The IFL and Achieving ISD,
2009-2010 is their fourth year of association, offered 17 leadership institutes for
principals, beginning with an introduction to the IFLs Principles of Learning (POLs).
Those principles were: (a) Organizing for Effort, (b) Accountable Talk, (c) Clear
Expectations, (d) Fair and Credible, (e) Evaluations, (f) Socializing Intelligence, (g)
Recognition of Accomplishment, (h) Self-management of Learning, (i) Academic Rigor
in a Thinking Curriculum, and (j) Learning as Apprenticeship. Additionally, the content
received by the principals included professional development evaluation using
LearningWalks, Nested Professional Learning Communities, and Disciplinary Literacy.
Beyond the basic tenets of the IFL, the Achieving Results! Leadership Institutes included
ongoing information for principals regarding best practices in teaching and learning,
school and district operations updates, and administrator leadership principles. The
Achieving Results! Initiative was designed to offer a comprehensive program focused on

56

providing principals with the skills, resources, and support necessary to implement the
district’s goals (Achieving ISD, 2009).

Study Design
The study sought to identify two principals who were participating in the APCI.
Each case study focused on how the program prepares leaders to create organizational
structures and practices that promote effective leader practice and professional teacher
practices that improve student outcomes in the urban context. The study took a
comprehensive look at the enacted leadership practices that have the potential to lead to
attainment Achieving Results! Initiatives and sought to determine (a) the relationship
between principal participation in the program and their leadership practice, and (b) if the
practice of the two principals varies, what accounts for that variance. The study sought to
expand the knowledge base with regard to components of effective leadership support
structures at the school and district levels, which enables a principal’s leadership practice
to create and sustain the conditions for effective teacher practice and thus to promote a
more equitable and effective student learning environment in the urban school context.
Qualitative as well as quantitative data was collected in a pre intervention and post
intervention design to determine the leader’s change in practice and how these factors
were shaped or reshaped by participation and experiences in the program over time.
The case study design is appropriate for this study because it is particularly suited
to situations in which it is impossible to separate the phenomenon’s variables (e.g.,
leadership practice, leader knowledge, etc.) from context (Yin, 1994), as is the case in the

57

study of leadership practice in schools. In case study research, data collection usually
“involves all three strategies of interviewing, observing, and analyzing documents”
(Merriam, 1998, p.136). Patton (2002) has contended that multiple sources of
information are sought and used because no single source of information can be trusted to
provide a comprehensive perspective. Drawing upon a combination of observations,
interviews, and document analysis allows the researcher to use different data sources to
validate and cross-check findings.
This study was designed to address the following research questions:
1. How does participation in the Achieving ISD Principal Coaching Initiative
(APCI) prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders?
2. How does APCI influence the knowledge, beliefs, and leadership practices
of urban school principals?
3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
5. How can the VAL-ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist
principals to become effective instructional leaders?

Sample and Population
The unit of analysis for this study was urban school leadership practice. Non
probability sampling, specifically, purposeful (Patton, 1990) sampling, was the strategy

58

used to identify participants for this study. This strategy was appropriate because the
intent was to discover and gain a better understanding as well as insight into the nature of
leadership practice. Therefore, it was important to identify a sample from which the most
can be learned. Patton (1990) has contended that:
the logic and power of purposeful sampling lies in selecting information-rich
cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases are those from which one can
learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the
research, thus the term purposeful sampling. (p. 169)

Selection Criteria
For this multi-case, comparative, qualitative study, the first level of sampling
involved selection of the “case.” Two schools that meet predetermined criteria were
identified for participation in the study. Schools identified for participation in each case
were purposefully selected based on the following criteria:
1. Percent minority population is greater than or equal to 50%
2. Percent low-income student population is greater than or equal 50%
3. Percent English language learner is greater than or equal to 5%
4. Principal experience is fewer than or equal to five years
5. School level is secondary
6. Percent of minority population proficient in math and reading is less than
or equal to 50%.
7. Gap in math and reading proficiency among student groups is greater than
or equal to 20%
8. Principal participation in APCI in fall 2009-10

59

To strengthen the validity of the study, teacher participants identified for the
within case sampling were randomly identified. Each participant, principals and their
teachers, were asked to participate in pre intervention and post intervention interview and
observation data collection activities. A minimum of six teachers who teaches high-
stakes accountability subjects, math and/or reading, was identified for this level of
sampling; in addition (a) a principal (b) teacher participants, (c) regional coordinators, (d)
mentors, and (e) course instructors were purposefully identified for the qualitative portion
of the study so that information specific to the program could be collected from those
responsible for the design and delivery of the program components.

Gaining Access to Participants
In August 2009, Dr. Margaret Reed, Associate Researcher and Faculty Adviser,
met with Achieving Independent School District administrators, potential case study
school principals, leadership coaches, and the Achieving Principal Coaching Initiative
Key Planners team to discuss the University of Southern California’s research study
proposal and to secure the district’s participation in the study. As a result of this meeting,
case study school principals were identified and participated in an overview of the
APCI/USC research proposal, which outlined their role in the study, the methodology to
be used, and benefits of participation; additionally, the identified case study school
principals completed the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-Ed)
on-line survey, the primary data-collection tool to be used in the study.

60

In September 2009, student researchers/primary investigators sent introductory
letters via e-mail to each of their assigned case study school principals to provide an
overview of the proposed research, and to identify the data that would be collected upon
our visit to Achieving. Follow-up phone calls were then placed to confirm travel plans
and visitation schedules. Principals were also asked to identify a lead teacher to
coordinate the distribution of the VAL-Ed survey IDs to teacher participants so as to
maintain their anonymity and to protect the confidentiality of the information collected;
the lead teacher was also responsible to assist in securing a list of teachers from which to
randomly select case study participants. To further assist in maintaining anonymity, case
study participants were given a pseudonym.

Data Collection Procedures
This study utilized a qualitative comparative case study design. In general, case
studies focus on discovery and exploration rather than hypothesis testing and the
development of deductive inferences (Merriam, 1998). Case studies are most appropriate
in situations where the researcher has little control over the events in the context
surrounding the phenomenon (Yin, 2003). Therefore the focus of this study centered on
descriptive questions that revealed information about the “hows” and “whys” of changes
in principal leadership behavior through participation in the program as well as the
impact of the leader’s practice on teacher practice and organizational structures.
Yin (1984) defined a case study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between

61

phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of
evidence are used” (p. 23). For this study, analyzing the phenomenon of educational
leadership in a real-life context was critical to gaining a better understanding of what
factors about the context seemed to influence principal behavior. As such, a multiple case
study design was the best methodological approach for this study. The design of this
study supports the ability to identify and purposefully collect data for analysis of the
leadership phenomenon from two contexts: two different middle schools within the
Achieving Independent School District. Not only did a comparative case study design
contribute to the robustness of the study, but it also contributed to the base of knowledge
supporting the importance of context in change in professional practice. According to Patton
(2002):
multiple sources of information are sought and used because no single source of
information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive perspective on the
program. By using a combination of observations, interviewing, and document
analysis, the fieldworker is able to use different data sources to validate and
crosscheck findings. (p. 306)

In addition, Patton (2002) has pointed out that each type of data source has its strengths
and weaknesses. Triangulation (the use of multiple data sources) increases validity
because the strengths of one approach can compensate for the weaknesses of another.

Instrumentation
Multiple sources of data were collected for analysis in this study. For both case
studies the following sources will be used to gather descriptive data: pre and post
intervention interviews with each principal and a subset of their teachers; pre and post

62

intervention observations of the principal interacting with teachers and classroom
observations of teachers interacting with their students and with other teachers; and a
collection of documents (e.g., those that are publicly available) and artifacts (e.g., those
that are generated in conjunction Principals for Learning) relevant to the study.
In addition, pre and post intervention data were collected from the administration
of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) survey to each
principal, his/her supervisor and all of their teachers. The first administration took place
prior to the principals’ participation in APCI (fall 2009).
Patton (1990) has contended that, “multiple sources of information are sought and
used because no single source of information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive
perspective” (p.244). Data collected in response to each research question was
triangulated to facilitate the data analysis process and to substantiate any inferences made
with regard to changes in leader practice and teacher professional practice. The VAL-ED
survey was administered as a part of the overarching longitudinal study as well as the
case studies.
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED)
The VAL-ED (Murphy et al., 2007) is a standards-based survey of educational
leadership that is closely aligned with the Interstate School Leaders Licensure
Consortium (ISLLC) standards. Learning-centered leadership theory is the framework for
the VAL-ED. The learning-centered leader establishes clear vision, exhibits instructional
proficiency, aligns the curriculum to assessment, personally knows his or her staff,
implements a culture of learning for adults and children, encourages a safe and orderly

63

environment, and communicates with all actors in the teaching and learning process. It is
through this leadership perspective that the behaviors for this instrument were developed.
The survey is composed of 72 items, which are broken down into six core
component subscales and six process subscales, as seen in Table 3, below.
Table 3
Key Processes and Core Components
Key Processes Core Components
Planning High standards for student performance
Implementing Rigorous curriculum
Supporting Quality instruction
Advocating Culture of learning and professional behavior
Communicating Connections to external communities
Monitoring Systemic performance accountability

The VAL-ED was funded by a grant from the Wallace Foundation and developed by a
team of well-respected researchers in educational leadership (Murphy et al., 2007).
Survey respondents indicated their perceptions of how well the principal engages in
actions (the key processes) that impact effective school activities supported by research
(the core components). The survey respondents were also asked to identify the source(s)
of evidence that support these perceptions. The instrument is designed to provide a 360-
degree evidence-based assessment of leadership. It is designed for completion by the
principal, supervisor, and all teachers at the school. For purposes of this study,
supervisors will not be asked to participate to avoid the perception of principal
evaluation. Respondents will rate the perceived effectiveness of the principal on a scale
of 1-5 (1= Ineffective to 5= Outstandingly Effective) for each of the 72 items. Parallel
forms of the assessment will be used to measure growth over time, from the pre
intervention assessment to the post intervention period. Both principal and teacher

64

surveys are designed to take from 30 to 45 minutes to complete. The VAL-ED survey is
designed to yield both criterion-referenced and norm-referenced scores. Figure 3, below,
illustrates a sample of the VAL-ED survey.
Figure 3
Sample VAL-ED Survey

The VAL-ED is a new instrument in the research of educational leadership,
(2008) and has gone through extensive field-testing to establish high standards of content
validity and reliability. The conceptual framework is based on the literature on school
leadership effects on student achievement (Porter, Murphy, Goldring, Elliott, Polikoff &
May, 2008). The developers completed a nine-school pilot test in the fall (2007) to
establish both face and content validity. Estimated reliability coefficients for each of the
12subscales were also established as a result of this pilot. Overall, the investigation
revealed high reliability coefficients for the 72-item scales (α = >.98). Confirmatory

65

factor analysis was conducted to investigate data fit to the conceptual model. The factor
analytic model was designed to parallel the conceptual framework for the VAL-ED by
incorporating higher-order factors for core components, key processes, and an overall
score (Murphy et al., 2008).
Because each item contributed to both a core component and a key process, the
factor analytic model was split into two separate analyses: one on core components and
the other on key processes. Results from the confirmatory factor analyses revealed that
both the core components and the key processes models fit the data very well, having
goodness of fit indices between .96 and .99. A primary source of validity evidence is the
core component and key process inter-correlations. The correlations were high, both for
core components and for key processes, though they appeared somewhat higher for key
processes. For core components, correlations ranged from a low of .73 (Connections to
External Communities and High Standards for Student Learning) to a high of .90 (Quality
Instruction and High Standards for Student Learning). For key processes, correlations
ranged from a low of .89 (Supporting and Monitoring) to a high of .94 (Monitoring and
Communicating). Correlations of core components and key processes with total score
were all quite high, with none lower than .9. These high inter-correlations, along with the
factor analysis results described above, suggest that the instrument is measuring a strong
underlying construct, principal leadership. A full description of the VAL-ED reliabilities
and psychometric properties is found in Appendix F. In the winter of 2008, a 300-school
field test was completed. The purposes of this test were (a) to replicate reliability and
validity tests from the initial nine-school pilot in the fall of 2007, (b) to conduct

66

differential item functioning to determine biases, and (c) to establish norms (Murphyet
al., 2008).
For this study, all survey respondents took the on-line version. All respondents
were assigned a unique ID to protect the confidentiality of each participant. The
distribution survey IDs by a lead teacher identified by the researcher in cooperation with
the principal (responsible for providing the master list of teachers and their contact
information) avoided the possibility of retaliation against teachers for their responses.
Through this process, the exact responses of all participants and their contribution to the
overall survey results remained unknown to the principal.
Interviews
Semistructured interviews were conducted with each principal (N = 2) and a
subset of teachers (N=3) from each principal’s school site. Principal and teacher
interview protocols had a mixture of predetermined as well as open-ended questions. The
pre intervention principal interviews took place in the fall (2009) prior to participation in
APCI for approximately 45 minutes with principals and 30 minutes with teachers. The
post intervention principal interviews took place in the spring (2010) after each principal
had a minimum of six months of APCI. In addition, probing questions were asked when
the responses required more elaboration or clarification. The interviews were recorded
and later transcribed for analysis.
Teachers were chosen by the principal and were core subject teachers. A
minimum of three teachers will participate in both pre and postintervention interviews at
each school. The interview protocols were designed to elicit responses that could

67

evidence a change in principal and teacher practice in alignment with the outcomes of
value to this study, which are aligned with the Achieving Results! Initiative, and the
learning-centered leadership framework (Murphy et al., 2008). Table 4, below, illustrates
the alignment of outcomes across three guiding frameworks.

68

Table 4
Leadership Behavioral Outcomes
Achieving ISD Adopted
tools and protocols
Achieving 2020: Secondary Education
Strategic Plan
Murphy’s Learner-Centered
Framework
Collaborative Planning
Mydata Portal
LearningWalks
TTLP (Thinking Through a
Lesson Protocol)
Learning on the Diagonal
Principal Lab
Refrigerated Curriculum
Observation Protocol
SSW (Studying Student
Work)
PLC (Professional
Learning Community)
PLC Handbook
Disciplinary Literacy
Principals of Learning
Halverson’s Rubrics
CPGs (Curriculum
Planning Guides

Key Strategies
Ensuring access to academic rigor for all
students.
Creating learning environments and
opportunities that engage students.
Using data and student work in
formative and summative processes.
Building instructional capacity.
Developing a college-going culture K-
12, and providing college access
supports.
Engaging all comprehensive high
schools in a redesign process.
Providing tiered supports for under-
performing schools and autonomy for
higher performing schools.
Supporting successful, seamless
transitions from middle school to high
school to post secondary/workforce.
Ensuring schools of choice opportunities
and alternate pathways to graduation.
Ensuring Academic Excellence Indicator
System (AEIS) and Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) compliance
requirements are met.
Core Components
High Standards for Stu dent
Learning
Rigorous Curriculum (Content)
Quality Instruction (Pedagogy)
Culture of Learning and
Professional Behavior
Connections to External
Communities
Systemic Performance
Accountability
Key Processes
Planning

Implementing
Supporting
Advocating
Communicating
Monitoring
Note.Source: Murphyet al., 2008; Val Ed Technical Manual, 2020 Achieving: Secondary Education
Strategic Plan, 2009-2010 Curriculum Council

69

Observations and Documents
In addition to interviews, four types of pre/post intervention observations were
conducted at each school to gather data. Observational data were necessary to strengthen
data obtained through interviews and the VAL-Ed. Interview and survey data are based
solely on individual perceptions. Observations and document analysis provide additional
data that are somewhat removed from individual perceptions and, in some cases, bias of
those working at the school site. Additionally, these observational data added to the
strength of the study as they provided another source of data for triangulation.
Observations included the following:
1. Principal and teacher interactions in both individual and group settings
(i.e., staff meetings, professional learning community meetings)
2. Teachers instructing students in core subjects
3. Principal interactions during day-to-day responsibilities
4. School-level professional learning opportunities in which the principal
guided the learning process
In total, one day will be devoted to collecting qualitative data during both the pre
intervention and post intervention period at each school site. Reflective field notes from
these observations were recorded using an observation protocol designed for each type of
observation. The notes will be transcribed for analysis used to facilitate organization for
analysis. Table 5, below, details the triangulation of data in relation to each research
question identified at the beginning of this chapter.

70

Table 5

Triangulation Table
Research Questions Data Collection Instruments
Pre-Post
Interviews
Observations Artifacts Documents Val-Ed
Survey
Demographics/
Context/
Background
How does participation
in the APCI prepare
principals to become
effective instructional
leaders?
Principals,
Teachers,
NISL
Facilitator
Principals,
Teacher
Classrooms
Vision,
Mission,
Goals,
Policy
X X X
How does APCI
influence the knowledge,
beliefs, and leadership
practices of urban school
principals?
Principals,
Teachers
Staff Mtgs,
PD, Grade
Level Mtgs
X X X X
How do urban school
principals create and
sustain organic structure
and processes that
promote effective teacher
practice & improve
student outcomes?
Principals,
Teachers
X X X X X
What leadersupport
structures enable leader
practice?
Principals,
Teachers
X X X
How can VAL-ED serve
as a coaching tool to
assist principals to
become effective
instructional leaders?
Principals,
Teachers
X

71

Data Analysis Procedures
There is no single, accepted approach to analyzing qualitative data, although
several guidelines exist for this process (Creswell, 2005). Data collected for this study
will be analyzed in accordance with two levels of analysis, formative and summative. To
protect its integrity, each case will be fully analyzed (i.e., coding, pattern matching,
organization by themes, and summative data analysis) prior to the cross-case comparative
analysis. Once the data for the two case studies have been individually analyzed, data
from both cases will be analyzed again in search of patterns and themes that help to make
inferences regarding variance between the two cases.
Formative Data Analysis Procedures
A formative data analysis of this study will be completed utilizing Creswell’s (2003)
generic six-step process:
1. Organize and prepare the data for analysis, which involves transcribing
interviews, field notes, and reviewing documents.
2. Read through all the data in order to obtain a general sense of the information
and to reflect on its overall meaning.
3. Begin detailed analysis with a coding process—organizing the material into
chunks or categories.
4. Use the coding process from Step 3 to organize the categories into themes for
analysis and look for connections between the themes.
5. Define how the themes will be represented in the qualitative narrative.
6. Formulate an interpretation or meaning of the data (Creswell, 2003)

72

Summative Data Analysis

Emphasizing the theoretical implications from the conceptual framework that
guided this study for each research question, the data from this study was analyzed
through the lenses of the literature discussed in Chapters One and Two of this proposal to
determine if there has been a change in perceptions of leader behavior and, if so, what its
impact has been on teacher practice and organizational structures. For the quantitative
data collected from the Val-Ed survey, the mean difference between the results of the pre
and post administrations of the assessment was used. A positive value was considered a
change in the direction toward effective learning-centered leadership practices. A
negative value was considered a loss. These data were triangulated with the qualitative
data and used to further support the descriptive analysis of the case study data.
The researcher anticipated that this study would be completed over a six-month
period of time. Table 6, below, illustrates the timeline for the study.

73

Table 6
Timeline for Data Collection
Task Timeline

Achieving Program Participants Identified September 2009

VAL-ED Survey Administered to APCI Participants September 2009

Conducted Principal and Teacher Interviews October 2009/January 2010
Conducted On-Site Observations October 2009/January 2010
Conducted Document Analysis September 2000- March 2010
Administered VAL-ED Survey to Case Study
Participants
February 2010

Data Analysis January-March 2010

Validity

Validity strategies were used to determine the trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba,
1985 as cited in Creswell, 2005) and accuracy of interpretations and findings. The
accuracy and credibility of the findings of this study were established using the validation
strategies of data triangulation and peer debriefing. Triangulation is the process of
corroborating evidence from various individuals, sources, and methods. Data collected in
this study came from a variety of individuals (i.e., principals, supervisors, and teachers),
sources and methods (i.e., survey, interviews, observations, and review of artifacts). Peer
debriefing was also utilized through a process of identifying a colleague to whom
responsibility for reviewing and asking questions about the interpretations and findings

74

was given. This process anticipated that clarity could be gained from someone other than
the researcher.
Though various limitations and delimitations of the study were addressed in
Chapter One, recognizing additional threats to validity is important. Some potential
threats to internal validity are include:
• Length of the Study: Time for collecting qualitative data from fieldwork
for this study was limited to six months.
• That the post-assessment of the VAL-ED survey came relatively soon
after the pre assessment (approximately six months) limits the degree to
which it could fully measure the principal’s growth in the areas assessed.
• Pretest Treatment Interaction: The pre-post design of the administration of
the VAL-ED has inherent issues of validity, in that changes reflected in
the second administration of the VAL-ED could reflect results of factors
other than the participants’ participation in APCI.
• The “halo effect”: Due to the nature of the measures used in the VAL-ED
(ratings of self and colleagues), participants may have a tendency to
assume specific traits or behaviors based on a general impression.
However, to mitigate the effect of this phenomenon, by design, the VAL-
ED survey required raters to identify the primary source of evidence for
their ration on each item (i.e., personal observation, documents, etc.).

75

• Participation Rates for the VAL-ED survey: Case Study One only had
48% of its teachers participate for the fall administration; Case Study Two
only had 53% of its teachers participate for the spring administration.

Ethical Considerations
The University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program
policies and procedures for conducting research were utilized in the development of this
research design. Prior to participation in this study, each participant was given an
explanation of the purpose, procedures, and scope of the study. In addition, each principal
participant was given an informed consent form, which outlined the nature of the study,
to read and sign indicating voluntary participation. To protect the anonymity of each
participant, pseudonyms were assigned to the principal and teacher participants. In
addition, the names of the districts and schools with which the participants were
associated were changed to avoid any possible association that might lead to the
identification of participants in this study. All data were stored in a secure location with
restricted access to the data to the researcher only. The proposal for this study underwent
the rigorous approval process for the conduct of human subjects research through the
University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), and was approved,
prior to the start of data collection in the fall (2009).

76

Summary

In summary, this chapter reviewed the purpose of the study and the research
methodology that will be used to accomplish that purpose. Justification for the use of a
descriptive qualitative analysis to address the research questions was presented at the
beginning of the chapter. The research design included a detailed description of the
sample and how the individual cases were selected for study. Data collection and analysis
procedures were explained, as were instrumentation considerations. Due to its infancy
and limited use in research of educational leadership to date, a brief review of the VAL-
ED survey and its psychometric properties was given to assure readers of its validity and
reliability in assessing leader behavior in this study. Other topics covered in this chapter
included ethical considerations of the study.

77

CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS

Introduction
The primary focus for this study was to explore the effects of participation in
Achieving ISD’s comprehensive leadership capacity-building program on principals’
leadership practice. The APCI is aligned to the district’s leadership standards and school
improvement initiatives. Case study research methods were used to collect the data
presented and analyzed in this chapter.
The purpose of this chapter is to (a) present and analyze the data collected for this
study and to (b) report on the findings for each research question presented in the study.
The data for this study were collected during a four-month period during the 2009-2010
school year and were comprised of the following: (a) interviews with the school
principal and three teachers, (b) classroom observations, (c) the results from the online
Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) survey, (d) field
observation of the school principal (i.e., conducting professional development), and
finally, (e) analysis of school documents: School Improvement Plan (SIP) 2008, School
Accountability Report Card, Achieving Results Initiative (2007).
This chapter discusses the findings from two qualitative case studies that
investigated how a focused district-wide leadership capacity-building and support
initiative carried out in a large, urban school district prepared principals to become
effective instructional leaders; and how, as a result, those principals put into practice

78

behaviors that focused upon creating and sustaining organizational structures and
processes that promoted effective teacher practice and positively impacted student
outcomes. The rigorous design of this study included the pre/post collection of both
qualitative and quantitative data to be used in descriptive analysis of the findings from
this study. Data collected from each case study school are presented and analyzed in this
chapter to determine the impact that participating in the Achieving ISD Principal
Coaching Initiative (APCI) had on leadership practice. The chapter is organized with a
brief discussion of the components of the Achieving ISD leadership capacity-building
and support initiative followed by a presentation of each case study school. Each case
study includes an introduction to the principal staffing, the school context, student
demographics, student achievement patterns in math and language arts, leadership
challenges and vision/mission/school goals. Each case study school will be followed by a
discussion and analysis of the findings in relation to each of the five research questions
that guided this study. Next, for each case study school, the chapter will present a
summary of the findings. The chapter will conclude with a comparison of the findings
for each case study school and an analysis of the variance between the two with a
discussion relating to the possible cause(s) for variance.
The following five research questions were the focus for the study:
1. How does participation in the Achieving ISD Principal Coaching Initiative
(APCI) prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders?
2. How does APCI influence the knowledge, beliefs, and leadership practices
of urban school principal?

79

3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
5. How can the VAL-ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist
principals to become effective instructional leaders?

Achieving Results and Achieving Principals’ Coaching Initiative (APCI)
In 2005, the Board of Trustees set the vision for Achieving ISD to be the premier
urban district by 2010. The district has engaged in a systemic redesign of the teaching
and learning systems. Their education plan was based on the vision of the Board of
Trustees, the curriculum audit of the National Center for Educational Accountability, the
recommendations of a citywide commission committed to supporting education and the
desire of Achieving ISD to provide a high-quality education for all students. The
district’s theory of action for improving schools began by providing schools with a
mandated curriculum, and as they improved performance the administration granted them
increased independence. The core components of the educational plans and goals
developed were academic rigor and student engagement, professional
development/capacity building, leadership, accountability for learning and results, and
parent/community involvement (District Plan for Student Achievement, 2006).

80

Capacity-Building: The Institute for Learning
Under the umbrella of “Achieving Results!” the district has promoted an
improvement initiative across all schools to help build the capacity of principals to lead
this work. There are two components: One component focuses on professional learning
opportunities and the other focuses on leadership coaching to support implementation of
the professional learning. AISD engaged with the Institute for Learning (IFL) at the
University of Pittsburg three years ago to design a leadership capacity-building
curriculum based on research that would promote student learning and professional
practice. The IFL has been working with school systems across the country to prepare
school leaders and their teachers to integrate what is known about how people learn in
their professional practice and programs. A core set of Principles of Learning guided
their work: (a) organize for effort, (b) clear expectations, (c) recognition of
accomplishment, (d) fair and credible evaluations, (e) academic rigor in a thinking
curriculum, (f) accountable talk, (g) socializing intelligence, (h) learning as
apprenticeship, and (i) self-management of learning (Resnick, 1999).
The curriculum focused on preparing leaders to lead teachers in integrating the
Principles of Learning into their instructional practices. In addition their work enables
leaders to restructure their schools around practices that create effective teaching and
learning environments. Core components of this comprehensive professional
development are “Disciplinary Literacy,” The LearningWalks, and Professional Learning
Communities.

81

Coaching Component
The APCI is designed to provide 14 principals with a coach who provides at-
elbow coaching and conferring to enhance instructional leadership development and build
leadership capacity to ensure improved academic success for students. Principals and
coaches participate in professional development opportunities focused on data analysis,
goal setting related to academic achievement, leadership practice, and establishing
systems and structures to support improved teacher practice and student learning.

Case Study One: Success Middle School
History of the School
The site chosen for Success Middle School is perfectly located to be a hub in a
network of neighborhood schools. Success was a new school starting its third year. The
school was modern and equipped with three stories, a gym, a media center, and a
theater/auditorium. It is very clean and has metal detectors at entrances. Academically,
the school was organized to allow nine academic teams to support classroom instruction,
sciences, and technology for traditional, interdisciplinary, and project-based instruction.
School Context and Culture
The school is urban; 96% of the 954 students enrolled at the school during the
time of data collection was Hispanic, 3% was African American, 1% was White, and 1%
was other. Ninety-four percent of the students participated in the free and reduced lunch
program and 7% participated in the school’s special education program. Enrollment has
grown each year starting at 830 the first year, to 930 the second year, to 1032 during

82

2009-2010. It is a large school with a large disjointed staff. There are three stories
divided by grade levels but many staff members only know the staff in their department
or POD. The district had layoffs last school 2008-2009 and teachers were moved
involuntarily to Success due to bumping issues associated with seniority rights within the
union. This problem contributed to some of the morale issues at the site and to the
noncohesive staff.
Principal Avina
Mr. Avina, the principal, originally went into the field of special education. He
taught special education for six years at the elementary level and worked very hard to
send students out to inclusion classes. He taught students to fix computers as support for
the staff. The students and staff adjusted to the special needs of these students and made
integration more successful. Because he worked for the good of his students, his
principal suggested he get into administration. The district had a program with the
University of Texas and the district paid for his whole master's degree program. He
worked as a middle school assistant principal for three years, then a high school assistant
principal for three years. He then became an elementary principal for four years. He
opened Success Middle School and 2009-2010 is his third year.
Academic Achievement
The 2009 test scores for Success Middle School were a slight improvement except
in social studies. In mathematics 68% met minimum standards, but only 24% met the
college-ready standards. In language arts/reading 85% met the minimum standards, but
only 38% met the college-ready standards. In science 48% met the minimum standards,

83

but only 11% met the college-ready standards. In social studies 87% met the minimum
standard, which is down a couple of percentage points, but only 45% met the college-
ready standards. For writing 89% met the minimum standard, but only 36% met the
college-ready standard. The goal by 2010 for each of these subjects is to have 90% of
students reach the minimum standards and 60% of students reach the college-ready
standard. The science scores were among the bottom 25% of the district’s middle
schools and the principal’s supervisor placed him on an improvement plan to attempt to
bring up these scores. The rest of the scores placed the school at average, with 50% of
middle schools behind them and 50% above them.

Research Question One: How Does Participation in The Achieving ISD Principal
Coaching Initiative (APCI) Prepare Principals to Become Effective Instructional
Leaders?
The following is a discussion and analysis of how the APCI prepared principals to
become effective instructional leaders. The data will be analyzed from the research
perspective of the design of effective leadership capacity-building and support structures
for improving and sustaining effective leadership practice (Hallinger, 1992; Murphy et
al., 2006; Murphy et al., 2007; Neufeld &Roper, 2003). Principal and teacher interviews
(pre/post) provided the primary data in response to research question one. Data
collection from principal and classroom observations (pre/post) was also used.

84

Key Finding: System-Wide Comprehensive Professional Development
Some evidence supports the finding that system-wide professional development
prepared school leaders to lead professional learning around the district’s initiatives on
their school campuses. Based upon data collected during the fall data collection period, I
found that through the work with the IFL, principals were preparing to lead professional
learning on their campuses with their teachers focused on implementing the district’s
initiatives. A key area of focus for their leadership was preparing teachers to integrate
the POLs into their instructional practices.
In addition to principals having participated in professional development
opportunities at the district level, teachers were engaged in professional learning at the
district and school levels. Leadership coaches and content coaches also participated in
the trainings. The trainings focused upon implementation of the district’s initiatives.
These groups were also a part of district-wide training to build their capacity to co-lead
this work.
During the fall interview Principal Avina described his training in the following
way: “I have had trainings on the Principles of Learning: academic rigor, learning as
apprenticeship, and clear expectations. I’ve also had training on the instructional strategy
of disciplinary literacy for math, science and reading.” Principal Avina also discussed
the scope of professional development for principals provided by the district: “We meet
as area principals twice a month, once as a professional learning community to bring
forward any challenges and support each other as leaders and the other time we receive
professional development on POLs.”

85

During the spring interview Principal Avina said: “I’ve got all kinds of PD.” Mr.
Avina also discussed being in charge of the math department and the district-provided
training: “Teachers and I are pulled out for a half day to overview the next six weeks’
curriculum. It helps me keep the teachers on track. I’ve had differentiated instruction
training which was online.” The teachers interviewed in the spring corroborated Principal
Avina’s comments on staff development. Ms. Bills, a math teacher, stated, “We get a lot
of training, especially in the Math Department, and they do provide us with a lot of
activities and things that are rigorous that helps us.” Ms. Frost, the science teacher,
during her interview said, “We go to science academies so we have updates, and make
sure we’re on point as far as our curriculum. Also, anything that comes open we’re
offered to go. The opportunity is always there if we need it.” Principal Avina also
discussed the professional development he received as a result of being placed on an
improvement plan. He discussed his interactions with the partner principal he was
assigned to: “I was instructed to observe a math department meeting, his interactions
during collaborative time, him running a faculty meeting, and CILT meeting. We have a
good partnership and I have been stealing many things he does for my site.”
Analysis of findings. AISD has a goal to ensure all students have equal access to
a rigorous curriculum. The district plans to support implementation of the curriculum
through technology, resource allocation, and professional development (Plan for Student
Achievement, 2005). The district has provided rigorous professional development.
The components of AISD’s comprehensive professional development align with
those found in the research by Davis et al. (2005) on effective programs for principal

86

preparation. Components found in effective programs are that they (a) are research-
based, (b) have curricular coherence, (c) provide experience in authentic contexts, (d) use
cohort groupings and mentors, and (e) are structured to enable collaborative activity
between the program and area schools. The program devised by AISD for principals has
all of these characteristics. The professional development provided by the University of
Pittsburg, Institute for Learning is research-based. The district provides the curriculum,
which is consistent throughout the district. The principals return to their urban schools,
which are authentic settings, with the expectation that they will lead the training for staff.
Area principals meet for professional development and collaboration as professional
learning communities twice a month. The changes from fall to spring appeared to expand
the principal’s knowledge base beyond the basic POLs and disciplinary literacy to
trainings that supported him in working with his teachers and helping them to implement
the POLs and disciplinary literacy in their instruction.
Key Finding: APCI Leadership Coach
Some evidence supported the finding that the Achieving Principal Coaching
Initiative was designed to help prepare school leaders to lead professional learning
around the district’s initiatives on their school campuses. The APCI is designed to have
principals and coaches participate in professional development focused on data analysis,
goal-setting related to academic achievement, leadership practice and establishing
systems and structures to support improved teacher practice and student learning (AISD
Executive Summary, 2009).

87

During the fall 2009 interview Principal Avina discussed being asked to
participate in the coaching initiative:
My area superintendent approached me and asked me and because I’m looking to
improve my skill as a principal, to become more effective, I thought the coaching
would give me the opportunity to have that extra person come in and help me
figure out how or what I need to do to make sure that I’m being accountable for
what I’m saying I’m doing.

Principal Avina shared this enthusiasm about receiving a coach: “I’m looking to improve
my skill-to have that extra person come in and help me figure out how or what I need to
do to make sure that I’m being accountable for what I’m saying I’m doing.”
Principal Avina began working with a leadership coach all of 2008-2009 and
continued 2009-2010. Principal Avina spoke about how his coach worked with him last
school year:
We set goals using the Halverson Rubric; I have high-priority goals that I needed
to work on so we looked at the data and I am working on math and science. She
would brainstorm with me and say; you probably need to do this.

He shared other ways that she helped him last year: “She got me organized. We
looked at data and developed high-priority goals.” Mr. Avina spoke about his coach’s
level of involvement 2008-2009:
We were having problems with math and she called up the math director and the
next day I had three math people here and we sat down and decided what we need
to do. This year she says: “I’m not doing that you need to do it.”

This year they have continued with their progress: “She has helped me create
notebooks of evidence of what I am working on.” He continued describing how she
helped him:

88

Through her coaching practices she’s helping me think about where I need to go
and makes me accountable for what I say. We meet regularly and we call each
other and she’s there. She’s also another person I vent to.

When asked if anything has changed for this year, he responded:
She has taken a step back. Last year she would brainstorm with me let me know
what to do. Then she attended coaching school, she’s taking a reflective
approach. She will now ask what I think I should do about the problem. So she
gets me to think about my next steps. That helps me.

This change placed a greater emphasis on the principal’s ability to be reflective about his
practice and to consider the next steps. Principal Avina described what the coach did:
“She keeps me focused, she’s an encourager. That’s the big thing; she’s my
cheerleader.” He continued with the changes in his practice: “I’ve been working on:
being more organized, cleaner office, better communication with staff, concentrating on
articulating the school goals and actively holding teachers accountable for interventions
they are doing for at-risk students in their notebooks.” When asked how working with
the coach impacted working with staff, he responded: “She feels comfortable going in
and observing and doing Learning Walks. She talks with staff, she asks them hard
questions. In that respect she works very well with the staff, they receive her very well.”
When asked about her influence on the CILT team or departments, he responded: “I think
she has had a minor influence on the CILT team. With departments she is not here often
enough to influence but has helped me develop agendas and offered suggestions to
improve my interactions with the departments.” When asked if he felt he was getting
support through the coaching initiative, he stated: “Last year there was a lot of support.
This year I meet with my coach a lot but we don’t meet as a group.” Mr. Badders, when
asked if he noticed greater support for the principal since he had had a coach, stated:

89

“District office, yes, campus, no. Again, it’s the communication. It’s always been the
communication aspect.” When asked if the principal felt he was increasing his support of
his staff as he worked on the strategies his coach, he stated: “I’ll be honest, I don’t
know.”
Analysis of finding. Principal Avina’s work with his coach aligned with the
research by Davis et al. (2005), which stated that the primary role of the mentor or coach
is to guide the learner in his search for strategies to resolve dilemmas, to boost self-
confidence, and to construct a broad repertoire of leadership skills. Competent mentors
actualize these aims through modeling, coaching, gradually removing support as the
mentee’s competence increases, questioning and probing to promote self-reflection and
problem-solving skills, and providing feedback and counsel. The above evidence shows
that the leadership coach focused on all of these areas with Mr. Avina; by supporting
him, encouraging him, guiding him to build organizational structures, and even pulling
back involvement this year. Along these lines, Neufeld and Roper (2003) have stated:
“Coaching adheres to these principles: it is grounded in inquiry, collaborative, sustained
and tied explicitly to improving practice.” This notion also supports the leadership coach
changing her practice while working with the principal during 2009-2010, after having
attended further training. This change placed a greater emphasis on the principal’s ability
to be reflective on his practice and consider next steps. The changes from the fall data
collection to the spring data collection reflect that Principal Avina did not need the coach
to tell him what to do but rather had to put to use what she had shown him. He became
more organized by using the supports she worked with him on.

90

Research Question Two: How Does APCI Influence the Knowledge, Beliefs and
Leadership Practices of Urban School Principal?
The following is a discussion and analysis of how the APCI influenced leader
practice, knowledge, and beliefs in implementing the district’s reform initiatives. To
determine the value added from participation in the APCI for five months, the data will
be analyzed from the learning-centered leadership practices perspective, which focuses
on instructional leadership behaviors that promote change in leader practice (Hallinger &
Heck, 1996; Murphy et al., in print). Observations of and interviews with the principal
and teachers provided the primary data for evaluation of how principals were influenced.
The agendas of professional development for the principal and the Val-Ed survey
contributed to the data collected.
Key Finding: Implementation of District-Managed Instruction
Some evidence supports the finding that district-managed instruction influenced
leader knowledge, beliefs, and practice. Achieving ISD district office accepts
responsibility for providing college-ready curriculum and holds schools accountable for
preparing students to be successful in college or the workplace (Plan for Student
Achievement, 2006).
This influence was evident when, during the fall visit, Principal Avina shared the
ways he implemented the district initiatives by working with staff to support LEP
students, reading teacher lesson plans, going on Learning Walks, being involved in
collaborative time, and providing professional development for staff. Mr. Avina revealed
how he made sure that the school provided intervention strategies for his lowest

91

achieving group of students: “Our LEP students are not achieving at the rates of our other
Hispanic students. We sought out new strategies and had training on how to meet LEP
student needs. Sheltered classes are not mixed to better support the students.” The
district-mandated intervention strategies, standards, and training helped the principal
focus on supporting his teachers to serve the needs of their LEP students.
Principal Avina spoke about integrating the POLs into teacher lesson plans:
“When we read lesson plans, interventions were not included. We’ve trained, given
models and are seeing better quality. The new form will include the POL, previously
accountable talk, now it will be rigor and making relevancy for students.” Principal
Avina continued his discussion about professional development for staff, stating: “We’re
having constant PD around our CIP (campus improvement plan), as it relates to the POL:
academic rigor. The new one is self-management of learning. I’ve conducted three staff
developments recently on effort-based learning and growth mindset.” Another way he
worked toward implementation of district initiatives was through Learning Walks: “The
goal is 10 per week. Recently it’s been five. Administration met, holds each other
accountable to the goal and developed a feedback sheet.”
Some of the AISD training was not effective for Principal Avina in that he was
not able to use it to train his staff and had to have others provide the training. During the
fall interview Mr. Avina stated:
Most my trainings took place in large groups, not individualized, where content
gets lost. It is difficult to lead if I don’t understand it. So we ask the specialist to
come out; the reading department just had training on disciplinary literacy,
someone from the data department taught teachers to use data through my data
portal.

92

Principal Avina was still developing the skills to lead the training on all of the district’s
initiatives.
During the fall (2009) administration of the VAL-ED survey Principal Avina
scored 2.98 out of 5.0 in overall effectiveness; for the spring (2010) administration, he
scored a 3.05— only a very small improvement. Notably, both scores classify as Below
Basic in effectiveness. The principal scored himself highest in the category of Rigorous
Curriculum on both fall and spring administrations but his scores were 3.25 for fall and
3.33 for spring; neither score is in the high or outstanding range. In the area he felt he
was strongest Principal Avina did not score himself in the high range.
During the spring visit Principal Avina shared how he implemented the district
initiatives by working with staff on Learning Walks, supporting collaborative time,
working with teachers during department time and professional development to support
teachers, along with how his leadership coach changed his beliefs. Principal Avina
discussed how Learning Walks progressed: “We focus on a particular thing. We’ll let
teachers know what we are focusing on for that week’s Learning Walks. When we
focused on academic rigor we gave the teachers the principles of learning academic rigor
components.”
During collaborative time Principal Avina worked to implement district
initiatives: “We’re looking through lesson protocol, and dissecting the lesson. We’re
working on really developing the lesson, going to teach it and come back and analyze
what worked and what didn’t? We are working on anticipating student questions.”
Principal Avina discussed ways different departments worked toward district goals: “First

93

is making sure all departments are delivering rigorous curriculum: science is working on
hand-on activities; social studies had a school-wide History Day, and writing across the
curriculum instead of only for the 7
th
grade writing test.” Principal Avina expressed
frustration about attempting to move his staff toward the district initiatives: “We’ve been
doing the work for three years now, and we still need to get teachers to understand that
we have to do more authentic student work. They are stuck on direct teaching.” He
continued to explain how he was seeking to improve instruction:
We are trying to get teachers to understand that through the growth mindset,
students can learn. You can expand their knowledge if you give them the
opportunities. We’re doing professional development and giving them the
opportunity to observe other teachers that are doing it.

Principal Avina spoke of his attempts to convey the districts initiatives to his staff: “I
work on leading the work: the principles of learning, academic rigor, moving students
forward, effort based learning, giving students opportunities to stretch their minds, and
getting away from the old way of teaching.” Teacher Badders shared one way that Mr.
Avina fell short in creating a cohesive staff: “Our POD has great ideas, but they’re in
seclusion. We need to come back and talk to each other and share good ideas across the
school celebrating what different groups are doing.”
Teachers who participated in the interview process indicated that they had seen a
change in Principal Avina’s practice since he had begun working with his leadership
coach. Ms. Bills stated: “I think it’s [having a coach] given him a confidence boost.”
Mr. Badders stated: “He’s been more willing to admit that things haven’t worked, and
he’s done well about admitting things need to change.” Ms. Bills spoke about the
improvement in collaboration practices between Mr. Avina and teachers in her spring

94

interview: “He’s been more involved in department time, and I’ve seen him in the
classrooms more; it’s been a very positive involvement.” She continued speaking about
his communication with her department: “We are revamping our intervention plans,
because last year we had a large percentage of 8
th
graders that did not succeed the first
time around on the State test, so we’re working with Mr. Avina to develop a better plan.”
Mr. Avina elaborated on ways he was working with departments: “We’ve done a lot of
discussion about feedback, constructive feedback, and growth mindset.” Ms. Bills
continued about how Mr. Avina worked with staff to promote success for students: “He’s
working with teachers: emphasizing that students can learn and making sure students are
getting support. He’s listening to us, students are not very motivated. So, he is looking
at ways to try to get the motivation up.” During the spring data collection, Mr. Badders
discussed how Mr. Avina had implemented a district initiative in an effective way:
The presentation on failure notices; he made a checklist and template and that
respected our time. Having all teachers write them is positive; before only those
failing more than 15% of their students had to write the notices and it made you
feel like a bad teacher. This has done a lot to connect the gap; it’s inclusive
instead of exclusive.

During the spring (2010) administration of the VAL-ED survey, Principal Avina
scored 3.05 out of 5.0 in overall effectiveness, which was a slight increase over the fall of
2.98, but both scores are considered Below Basic. Within the category of planning, the
principal scored himself a 3.08 in the fall and a 3.0 in the spring for a decrease for his
planning. The teachers scored him a 3.32 in the fall and a 2.78 for the spring, which is a
significant decrease in score. The decrease could have been attributed to the fact that

95

only 48% of teachers took the survey in the fall and could have been more supportive
members of the staff. The spring could have been a more accurate teacher rating.
Some evidence indicated that lack of preplanning for teacher professional
development made it more difficult for the staff to buy into district initiatives. Mr.
Badders stated: “At training, discrepancy between the presenters and the assistant
principals show the lack of communication. Then teachers feel they do not have to buy-
into something new because it will change when not even the administration is together.”
Analysis of finding. The principal’s implementation of the districts managed
curriculum aligned with Murphy’s (2006) Learning-Centered Framework within the
dimension of curricular program. Effective leaders establish high standards and
expectations in the various curricular domains consistent with blueprints crafted by
professional associations and learned societies (Murphy et al., 2006). The district
provided the school with a rigorous curriculum. Mr. Avina worked to implement the
district’s curriculum. The principal’s practice was changed by the district’s managed
instruction, which provided him direction and structures that helped him implement the
district’s goals; the district provided the LEP strategies, district-mandated Learning
Walks, teacher provided collaborative time and principles of learning to be integrated
into instruction. The principal supported his teachers in receiving the training they needed
to improve their practice. Supporting is the third key process in Murphy’s Learning-
Centered Framework (Murphy et al., 2007). The principal needed to continue working
on the key process by Murphy et al. (2007) of planning for professional development for
teachers, as evidenced by Mr. Badders’ comment. Based upon review of the data, a

96

future goal for Principal Avina was to continue to work toward gaining the confidence to
facilitate all of the trainings for his staff.
These practices aligned with Hallinger and Heck’s (1996) findings that principal
leadership that makes a difference is aimed toward influencing internal school processes
directly linked to student learning. After reviewing the data on teacher frustration due to
discrepancies of training, Mr. Avina worked on influencing internal processes but was
not being successful school-wide.
Professional development for teachers aligned with Hallinger’s (1992) view of
principals valuing and modeling ongoing growth and development for all members of the
school community. Mr. Avina believed in ongoing growth for his staff. Offering an
abundance of professional development for teachers aligned with findings from research
conducted by Neufeld and Roper (2003), which contended that to teach for
understanding, teachers need new learning as well. For the difference of results for the
VAL-ED survey, a slight increase occurred overall but a decrease occurred in rigorous
curriculum.
Key Finding: Staff Involvement and Student Intervention Programs
Some evidence indicates that staff involvement and intervention programs at the
school, supported by the principal, worked toward effective teacher practice and positive
student outcomes, or broke down effective organizational structures and processes.
Principal Avina, during his fall interview, discussed programs at the school: “We
have Education is Freedom. It is geared to get students prepared for college. Mentors
talk to students and we celebrate student successes. The program feeds to the high school

97

and helps them get into college.” Principal Avina stated that the school also has AVID:
“We have tons of AVID strategies we use school-wide: organizational skills, Cornell note
taking, 3” notebooks.” Principal Avina also shared the increasingly rigorous classes they
offered: “We have increased the pre-APIB program, which in turn increases student
achievement. Algebra I classes have increased from two classes last year to five this
year. We have pre-AP science, social studies, and other pre-APIB programs.”
Teacher Badders, during his fall interview, stated: “Mr. Avina supports teachers
having after school tutoring and Saturday schools to support students.” Ms. Bills stated:
“Many teachers, especially in math have peer tutoring in class. I have my students
specifically paired in class by the data to support learning.”
For the fall (2009) administration of the VAL-ED survey, Principal Avina’s
teachers scored him 3.49 out of 5.0 for High Standards for Student Learning and a 3.0 in
the spring. For Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior, they scored 3.46 out of
5.0 for fall and 2.87 in the spring; for Connections to External Communities, 3.31 out of
5.0 for fall, and 2.78 in the spring. The lower scores in the spring may be a more
accurate picture of how the teachers viewed Principal Avina due to 48% taking the
survey in the fall and 77% taking it in the spring. For the spring administration the
teachers scored Principal Avina between 2.51 and 3.0 on the Core Components and
between 2.78 and 2.94 for the Key Processes; 3.0 represents satisfactory. The scores
indicated that overall the teachers did not feel the principal was doing a satisfactory job.
During his spring interview Principal Avina spoke about interventions for
students:

98

I’m not seeing tutoring logs; they complain students don’t come, I reiterate
relationships with students. 8
th
grade teachers are working to get students to pass
the state test or there are mandated consequences, possibly retention, so that has
helped. But our interventions are not as strong as they should be.

Analysis of finding. The idea of principals working with teachers to create
programs and get involved with students is supported by Murphy’s Learner-Centered
Framework. This focus on improving students falls under the vision for learning
dimension. Effective leaders emphasize ambitious goals, ones that call for improvement
over the status quo (Murphy et al., 2006). In the fall the data shows that programs were
set up and staff was involved but the spring data showed that staff and principals were
frustrated and the programs were not working to improve student achievement.
The principal collaborating with staff and building programs for student success
align with the research from Davis et al. (2005), which stated that successful school
leaders influence student achievement through the support and development of effective
teachers and the implementation of effective organizational processes. The programs
being set up are positive but they need to be examined by both by the administration and
teachers to make sure they are being effective. Principal leadership that makes a
difference influences internal processes like instructional organization, academic learning
time, and the practices of teachers (Hallinger & Heck, 1996). In the beginning of the
year, positive structures were put in place but needed to be reexamined to continue to be
useful.

99

Research Question Three: How Does An Urban School Principal Create and
Sustain Organizational Structures and Processes That Promote Effective Teacher
Practice And Improve Student Outcomes?
The following is a discussion from the investigation of the strategies that
principals put into place to create and sustain organizational structures and processes to
promote effective teacher practice and improve student outcomes. The data will be
analyzed from the perspective of the direct effect that leader practice has on creating the
structures and learning environment that can potentially have a positive influence on
student outcomes (Davis et al., 2005; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Murphy, et al., 2006;
Murphy, et al., 2007). Observations and interviews of the principal and teachers
provided the primary data available for evaluation of this question.
Key Finding: Resources Allocation Structure
Some evidence indicated that the principal’s use of resources affected the
organizational structures and processes at the school that work toward effective teacher
practice and positive student outcomes. In 2009, Success Middle School had an $83
million budget and100 staff members.
During the fall interview Principal Avina discussed the use of funds to support his
underachieving subgroup of LEP students and to integrate technology into the
classrooms. Principal Avina stated: “With our Title 1 and our stimulus money we were
able to hire seven Title I assistants, five of them bilingual. And so they’re specifically
assigned to sheltered classes to service those students during class.” This move was the
principal’s strategy for meeting the needs of this population.

100

Principal Avina discussed supporting teachers by purchasing technology to help
keep students engaged: “We have clickers, an instant feedback system: kids love to graph
and discuss it. We have interactive whiteboards; slates to get teachers mobile and
document readers. All these to improve engagement in cooperative and discovery
learning, and using accountable talk.” Teacher Bills spoke about Principal Avina
purchasing technology but didn’t necessarily think the decisions about which teachers
received it were equitable: “Basic resources have been fairly distributed. I would love a
SMART Board and math teachers should get it before not-tested content area teachers.
Some departments have resources we don't, so it would be nice if things were more
even.”
During the spring interview Mr. Badders discussed that Principal Avina used
resources to support teachers with both training and technology: “He goes out of his way
to make sure that if we want training, doesn’t matter how much it costs, he gets it for us.
Same as resources, the technology, he really pushes for that.” Per my observation,
training on new technology was offered at the site on the professional development day I
was there during my spring visit.
During the spring interview Principal Avina spoke of grants being offered to the
school:
We are receiving additional resources. The NASA grant is to help with our
science due to being identified as in need. They’re going to contribute wireless
notebooks for kids, microscopes and field trips. We’ve also been asked to join the
Bill Gates Foundation grant, improving effective teaching. So I’m looking
forward to it looking at teaching practices.

101

Analysis of finding. The principal’s use of resources aligns with Murphy’s
(2006) Learning-Centered Framework dimension of communities of learning. “They
furnish needed resources to teachers, including support to help teachers gain new
knowledge and they provide the materials teachers require to implement new skills in the
classroom” (Murphy et al., 2006, p. 8). Mr. Avina supported his teachers to get training
and attempted to get them the technology to support their classrooms and the new skills
being learned in training. This effort represents the key process of supporting within
Murphy’s Learning-Centered Framework (Murphy et al., 2007). The principal’s use of
resources also aligns with the dimension of resource allocation and use. “They also show
adeptness in attracting additional funds and materials from the larger school community”
(Murphy et al., 2006, p. 10). Mr. Avina’s use of funds from the grants was within the
implementation key process from Murphy’s Learning-Centered Framework (Murphy et
al., 2007).
During the fall data collection, the principal and teachers spoke about supporting
LEP students and integrating technology into classrooms. During the spring data
collection, the principal and teachers discussed more across-the-board training for
teachers, including technology training and grants being added to the school’s resources.
Key Finding: Learning Walks to Monitor Classroom Instruction
Some evidence indicates that the Learning Walk promotes effective teacher
practice and improves student outcomes. During the fall data collection, Principal Avina
stated the expectation from the district: “The goal is ten observations a week. Recently
it’s probably been five.” During his fall interview, Principal Avina was asked how he

102

ensured that the vision and its goals got implemented; he responded: “You inspect what
you expect.” He then discussed how gaining an additional administrator would support
the school: “That’s going to support my goals of getting in the classrooms and monitoring
instruction.”
During the spring data collection, Principal Avina discussed how administration
used the mandated learning walks to collaborate with teachers: “We let teachers know the
focus for the week. Then we go in, observe and give feedback. Last year that was one of
the things that we didn’t do well.” Mr. Badders shared his feelings about the change this
year in feedback: “I like the new feedback format and receiving things quicker. We’ve
been told what to expect, given a rubric and had practice Learning Walks. It’s no longer
administration trying to catch you but a feeling of working together.” Teacher Bills
stated: “The administrators are in the classrooms a lot more often and we’re getting
immediate feedback, within a day or two.” Teacher Frost agreed when she stated: “I do
see administration in the classrooms more and I am getting feedback.”
Analysis of finding. That the administration conducted learning walks and
provided feedback on both instructional practices in an understandable format and in a
timely manner demonstrated a focus on Murphy’s Learning-Centered Framework within
the dimension of instructional program. Leaders in high-performing schools are diligent
about providing feedback to colleagues on a consistent basis and in a timely manner
(Murphy et al., 2006). Some evidence indicated that this area was where the principal
made large improvements. The Learning Walks also align with Murphy’s (2007) key
process of monitoring. “Learning-centered leadership also undertakes an array of

103

activities to monitor the quality of instruction, such as ongoing classroom observations”
(Murphy et al., 2007, p. 20).
Key Finding: Principal’s Communication Structure
Some evidence indicated that the principal’s communication structures
established to support the implementation of district goals promoted effective teaching
practice and improved student outcomes. The administration attempted to respond to staff
concerns by creating a committee to clarify communication, discuss non negotiables, and
communication on the T drive.
Principal Avina, during his fall interview, discussed how he communicated with
staff to get support: “I am honest and open with people and let them know why we are
doing this and the importance of it, helping them to understand I’m trying to improve my
craft and hoping they will support me through it.” During fall data collection, Mr.
Badders discussed the T drive: “This T drive idea is awesome. I can go in and look at
another teacher’s lesson plan and see what they’re doing. Hopefully, it starts
conversation.”
But during the spring data collection Teacher Badders spoke of a breakdown with
school communication, saying:
It’s about lack of communication and a common goal. We speak to one team, one
goal but not everyone has the same goal. The new AP says things that show she
hasn’t been allowed in completely. If administration is not talking then it gives
teachers an excuse not to buy-in. Everyone needs to talk and connect.

Continuing during the spring interview, Mr. Badders stated: “Mr. Avina has been more
willing to admit that things have not worked and that things need to change. The next
step would be to take ideas from staff besides the core administration.” Principal Avina

104

stated: “I think we still have staff resistance,” and continued with: “I try to be honest with
them [staff]. I don’t understand why they’re afraid to come talk to me.”
During the spring data collection Principal Avina admitted: “I probably delegated
to the wrong person [the Val-Ed survey]. I have an alliance with the person I gave it to
but there’s some resentment from the staff because of that.” Mr. Badders continued with
difficulties on campus: “Communication must be broadened. We can tell he [Mr. Avina]
is attempting to change his practices but there is no reporting out of his plans or progress.
He does not understand; what he perceives is not what the teachers perceive.” Mr.
Badders raised another concern, stating: “I know that the communication has been
increased but it is not completely transparent what the intentions are.”
Analysis of finding. Murphy et al. (2006) have found that “Effective principals
articulate the vision through personal modeling and by communicating with others in and
around the organization” (p. 2). Principal Avina felt he was conveying why teachers
should implement district initiatives but teachers did not feel that there was effective
communication and a common vision, as indicated by Mr. Badders’ statements above.
Some evidence indicated that the principal needed to improve staff perception concerning
the equity of resources. “Leaders in effective schools actively promote the formation of a
learning organization, the development of staff cohesion and support the growth of
communities of professional practice” (Murphy et al., 2006, p. 9,). Mr. Avina attempted
to set up communities of learning but had not developed staff cohesion, as Mr. Badders
said: “The us and them barrier has not been dropped, and that’s the detriment.” Within
the dimension of communities of learning, effective leaders are particularly attentive to

105

ensuring a variety of mechanisms for teachers to communicate among themselves. Also,
they involve others in the crafting and implementation of important decisions. They
empower others and provide faculty with voice, both formal and informal, in running the
school, not simply their own classrooms. They delegate often and effectively and
frequently form leadership teams to assist in shaping the vision and in managing the
operations of the school, especially in and around the core technology (Murphy et al.,
2006). Mr. Avina fell short in this area by not giving his staff a voice or building a
cohesive team.
Key Finding: Foundations Committee
Some evidence indicated that the creation of the Foundations Committee
promoted effective teacher practice and improved student outcomes. During the fall
interview Mr. Avina discussed the enactment of the Foundations Committee. He
discussed working with staff to keep the school safe: “We have a Foundations Committee
to discuss if the school is safe, orderly, clean place. We give out surveys to students and
parents to find out what needs to be addressed and fix the problems.” During the spring
data collection, Teacher Frost stated: “I know he [Mr. Avina] works with the Foundations
Committee to make sure that students are safe here at school, therefore they can learn.”
Analysis of finding. The principal’s creation and work with the Foundation
Committee aligns with Murphy Framework et al. (2006) within the dimension of
communities of learning. They found that effective leaders involve others in making
important decisions and empower others to help run the school, not simply their own
classrooms. In the formation of the foundation’s committee, the principal worked within

106

the dimension of communities of learning. These leaders endeavor to create a culture of
collaboration and the systems, operations, and policies that provide the infrastructure for
collegial culture (Murphy et al., 2006). Working toward a safe campus as the Foundation
Committee aligns with Murphy et al.’s (2006) dimension of organizational culture.
“Instructionally grounded leaders ensure that the school systematically reviews and
adopts more productive strategies to accomplish important goals” (Murphy et al., 2006,
p.12).
Key Finding: Professional Learning Communities
Some evidence indicated that collaborative time being provided by the district and
supported and monitored by the principal promoted effective teacher practice and
improves student outcomes. During his fall interview, Principal Avina was asked about
opportunities provided for teachers to work collaboratively; he responded: “We have
district-mandated collaborative planning time and we’re very fortunate to have that time
whereas other school districts may not have.” He clarified who was included in the
collaborative time: “We have pod planning, which is grade level and we have department
planning.” Principal Avina, during his fall interview, spoke about equitable access for
students: “You have to be consistent and that’s part of our department and collaborative
planning, to ensure that teachers may not teach it the same but will teach the same
concepts in a way that you are providing quality instruction.”
In his spring interview, Principal Avina discussed collaborative time: “We’re
doing common assessments, examining data and best practices. We’re analyzing lesson
protocol; dissecting it, picking a high task lesson, developing it, teaching it, coming back

107

and discussing successes and failures, and anticipating questions from students.”
Principal Avina then spoke about administrators’ roles during collaborative time: “Our
content notebook is brought to every meeting. We facilitate, give input and resources and
listen. The expectation is to stay the entire time: work to move the course and instruction
forward and examine what is being worked on.” Principal Avina responded about how
collaborative staff and administrators are: “With most departments we have a very
collaborative effort. The majority of staff is working collaboratively. I think we need to
utilize our time more effectively but the staff understands this is valued time.”
Analysis of finding. That collaborative time was provided by the district and
supported and monitored by the principal aligns with Murphy’s Learning-Centered
Framework. Instructionally centered leaders demonstrate dedication and willingness to
assist teachers in strengthening their instructional skills. These leaders create systems
and procedures that nurture this type of informal learning throughout the school,
mechanisms that promote the exchange of professional dialogue about strengthening
instruction and improving the school (Murphy et al., 2006). Principal Avina improved in
this area this year and, as a result, teachers felt more supported. Collaborative time,
where teachers better their practice, aligns with the research by Darling-Hammond
(2008), which cites highly qualified teachers as one of the four factors consistently
influencing student achievement.
Professional learning communities can be summarized as school staff taking
collective responsibility for attaining a shared educational objective, and collaborating
with one another to achieve that objective (Newmann, 1994). Principal Avina used the

108

district given collaborative time to attempt to build professional learning communities.
Departments worked together, as did PODs, but little collaboration occurred school-wide.
Mr. Badders spoke to isolation at the school stating: “We have great ideas but they’re in
seclusion, there is no reporting back, no school-wide celebrations of great things different
PODs are doing.” During the fall data collection collaborative time was defined and
discussed in terms of aligning curriculum among teachers. During the spring data
collection collaborative time was discussed in more depth: common assessments, lesson
protocol, administrators attending and facilitating these meetings and how teachers used
the collaborative time.
In the fall administration of the VAL-ED survey, Principal Avina scored Basic in
the area of Supporting Quality Instruction and in the spring he scored a Proficient in this
area. This shift supported the claim that collaboration time became more effective and
teachers were feeling an increase in support.

Research Question Four: What Leadership Support Structures
Enable Leader Practice?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
leadership support structures put in place throughout the system (district, school, and
teacher levels) that enabled leader practice and subsequent movement toward
implementation of the district’s and the school’s improvement initiatives. The data will
be analyzed from the perspective of effective strategies for building and sustaining
learning-centered leadership practice (Murphy et al., 2006; Murphy et al., 2007). The

109

principal interview provided the primary data for the answer to this question. The teacher
interviews, along with observations on campus and the principal’s professional
development schedule, also provided data for this question.
Key Finding: Content Coaches and CILT Team
Some evidence showed that support staff, including content coaches,
administrative team members, and the CILT team enabled leader practice.
During his fall interview, Principal Avina shared the district’s support: “I have
three coaches assigned to me, a reading coach, a science coach, and a math coach and if
they are not comfortable leading a particular training, we bring in a specialist from the
district.”
In researcher observation during the spring visit, I witnessed content coaches
working with Ms. Frost, a science teacher, on a hands-on lab. The students were in
groups working on a velocity lab and the content coach helped monitor and explain what
the students’ results meant.
One of the positive structures that Mr. Avina enacted was how he worked with his
CILT team. When asked how instructional priorities were determined during her fall
interview, Ms. Bills said, “As a group, CILT got together over the summer and worked
with administration. So we looked at our areas of weakness and we talked about what we
needed to improve and we came up with the goals.” Mr. Avina added:
We set high priority goals by looking at areas not working and check on these
periodically to make sure that we’re keeping up on it. The CIP (Campus
Improvement Plan) is a working document so we’re still adding strategies to our
plan.

110

Ms. Bills, during her spring interview, discussed changes in the CILT team: ”It’s
definitely more cohesive than it was last year. Everyone seems to be on the same page
and it’s very structured.”
During his fall interview, Principal Avina discussed how his administrative team
supported him: “If Ms. Smith notices on the sign-in sheet that no one has been to observe
Ms. Slattery’s class, she lets me know and that makes me accountable. Also as an
administrative team we debrief our weekly Learning Walks.” Principal Avina continued,
citing who he approached to try out new ideas: “My associate principal who is in charge
of curriculum, if she says it is a good idea, and then I take it to CILT and try it out on
them.”
Ms. Frost spoke in her spring interview about how the administrator assigned to
the science department worked with them: “She is very hands on, I feel supported
because she understands where we are, what we need to do and she sits down with us to
work it out together.”
Analysis of finding. The principal working collaboratively with the CILT team to
promote effective teaching practice and improve student outcomes aligned with
Murphy’s (2006) Learning-Centered Framework, within the dimension of vision for
learning. “Leaders ensure that the vision and mission of the school are crafted with and
among stakeholders” (Murphy et al., 2006, p. 1). The use of content coaches aligns with
Murphy et al. (2007) key process of supporting. “Leaders create enabling conditions;
they secure and use the human resources necessary to promote academic and social
learning” (Murphy et al., 2007, p.16). Principal Avina‘s work with his administrative

111

team aligned with Murphy et al.’s (2007) key process of communicating.
“Communication is central to developing a culture of learning and professional behavior
in the school” (Murphy et al., 2007, p. 20). The fall data collection about the content
coaches showed some uncertainty about leading professional development and the spring
data collection showed the coach working with teachers to strengthen instruction. The
fall data collection about the CILT showed collaboration on direction for the school and
the spring data collection showed that the CILT team felt more cohesive. The fall data
collection for the administrative team showed administrators supporting and holding each
other accountable to complete Learning Walks and the spring data collection showed the
administrator collaborating with her department to improve instruction.
Key Finding: Principal Improvement Plan
Principal Avina spoke about the basic logistics of being on an improvement plan:
“My office manager blocks planning time with the math and social studies departments,
everything else is scheduled around that. That helps support what I need to do as far as
the vision and goals.” These changes helped him stay focused and working more toward
working his improvement plan. He continued, speaking about specifics of the plan: “I
was assigned a successful principal and told to observe a math department meeting. Our
campus has taken some procedures and his teachers have shared strategies on our
campus.”
Principal Avina spoke about having developed an instructional calendar: “Due to
science scores the last two years, it was mandated to use the district’s instructional

112

calendar; dictating what we do during collaborative time. Much of it we were doing
already and it actually gives additional time to plan.”
Analysis of finding. Being placed on an improvement plan forced the principal to
organize his time and work collaboratively with a successful principal, which aligns with
Murphy’s Learning-Centered Framework. Making time to work with teachers and
departments is part of the instructional program. Leaders in highly productive schools
pay attention to teaching, visiting classrooms, and working with groups of teachers on
instructional issues, both in formal and informal settings (Murphy et al., 2006). A
principal collaborating with a neighboring principal means working within the dimension
of communities of learning. These leaders are active participants in the various school
learning communities; they understand and help others understand that communities of
professional practice offer the most appropriate caldrons for professional learning and
forging new instructional skills (Murphy et al., 2006). Research by Davis et al., (2005)
indicated a trend showing an increasing belief that principals play a significant role in
affecting student achievement and should be held accountable for it.

Research Question Five: How Can the VAL-ED Instrument Serve as a Coaching
Tool to Assist Principals to Become Effective Instructional Leaders?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
potential for the data collected from an instructional leadership assessment instrument,
the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership Practice (VAL ED), to be used as a tool to
inform the coaching support designed to promote effective instructional leadership. The

113

data will be analyzed from the perspective of the research on developing learning-
centered leadership practice and effective leadership coaching practices designed to
promote and support effective leadership practice (Davis et al., 2005;Hallinger, 2005;
Murphy et al., 2006; Neufeld & Roper, 2003). Principal and teacher interviews provided
the data used to answer this question. The Val-ED summarized some of the answer.
Key Finding: Identification of Areas of Strength and Weakness
The Val-Ed could be used as a coaching tool to (a) move principals across
performance levels, (b) identify strengths and weaknesses on the core components and
key processes, and (c) serve as areas of focus for developing performance plans or
improvement plans for individual principals.
In a two-hour, small group session with other members of the APCI principal
cohort, Principal Avina was briefly introduced to the VAL ED survey and its components
prior to the onsite data collection in the fall (2009). During the session, he was given a
sample copy of a principal survey report with a brief overview of its components on the
same day that he was administered the survey. In addition, although time was not
allotted during the session to review the document, he was given a copy of the learning-
centered leadership framework on which the survey is based (Murphy et al., 2006). It is
not clear what information regarding the survey Principal Avina shared with teachers
prior to their having taken the survey in the four weeks following his having taken the
survey. In the fall (2009) Principal Avina shared that he thought it would provide him
with areas where he could improve his practice; however, he shared no specifics beyond
that.

114

Fall (2009) and Spring (2010) VAL-ED Survey Results
Based on a 5-point effectiveness scale and the averaged ratings of all respondents,
Principal Avina’s “Overall Total Effectiveness” score from fall (2009) survey
administration was 2.98. The Performance Level for this score is “Below Basic.” The
National Percentile Rank was 4.5. An examination of the principal’s Core Components
mean item ratings ranged from a low 2.76 for Connections to External Communities to a
high of 3.13 for Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior. Similarly the principal’s
Key Processes mean item ratings indicated they ranged from a low 2.91for Monitoring to
a high of 3.11 for Supporting. In contrast, the Principal’s “Overall Total Effectiveness”
score from the spring administration of the survey, after having participated in the APCI
for five months, rose slightly from 2.98 to 3.05. Although still performing overall at
“Below Basic,” his percentile rank rose slightly from 4.5 to 5.9. An examination of the
principal’s Core Components mean item ratings ranged from a low of 2.84 for
Performance Accountability to a high of 3.16 for Quality Instruction. Similarly the
principal’s Key Processes mean item ratings indicated they ranged from a low of 2.96 for
Planning to a high of 3.19 for Supporting.
Forty-eight percent of the teachers responded for the fall (2009) survey
administration. In contrast, on the spring administration, 77% of the teachers responded.
A response rate of below 50% on the VAL-ED survey should be interpreted with caution.
For both fall (2009) and spring (2010) survey administrations, the principal and his
supervisor responded.

115

Intersection of Core Components and Key Processes
In comparing the principal’s fall (2009) performance with his spring (2010)
performance, based upon the mean item scores for the intersection of Core Components
and Key Processes, some evidence indicated that his performance rose slightly. Based
upon the fall (2009) results, the principal performed at the “Proficient” level in no areas,
but at the “Basic” level in three areas, and “Below Basic in the remaining 33 areas.
Based on the spring (2010) results, the principal performed at the “Proficient” level in
one area, but at the “Basic” level in five areas and “Below Basic” in the remaining 30
areas. In one area (Planning Quality Instruction) the principal scored at the “Basic” level
for the fall (2009) administration and at the “Proficient” level for the spring (2010)
administration. In the two areas (Planning for High Standards for Student Learning and
Implementing a Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior) the principal scored at
the “Basic” level for the fall (2009) administration he then scored “Below Basic” in those
areas for the spring (2010) administration. On the other hand, for the five areas
(Monitoring High Standards for Student Learning, Supporting Rigorous Curriculum,
Advocating for Rigorous Curriculum, Advocating for a Culture of Learning and
Professional Behavior and Communicating Connections to External Communities) the
principal scored “Below Basic” on the fall (2009) administration and improved to score
“Basic” level on the spring (2010) administration.
Whereas in the fall (2009) the principal rated himself higher than his teachers in
no categories and higher than his supervisor in six categories (Total Effectiveness, High
Standards for Student Learning, Rigorous Curriculum, Quality Instruction, Culture of

116

Learning and Professional Behavior and Performance Accountability), in the spring
(2010), the principal rated himself higher than the teachers in every category and higher
than his supervisor in one area (Rigorous Curriculum). More discrepancies emerged
regarding the perceptions of the principal’s practice across all areas among the
respondent groups than areas of agreement.
Sources of Evidence
With regard to sources of evidence, in the fall (2009) “personal observation” was
cited by a higher percentage of teachers more often than by the principal or supervisor.
The principal and supervisor cite “school documents” as the highest percentage of source
of evidence, with the next highest percentage used by the supervisor being “reports from
others.”
In the spring (2010), the teachers continued to cite “personal observations.” The
principal and supervisor continued to cite “school documents” as primary sources of
evidence but the supervisor’s secondary source was “other sources.”
Leadership Behaviors for Possible Improvement
With regard to the specific leadership behaviors for possible improvement, in the
fall (2009), four of those areas were in Connections to External Communities whereas in
the spring (2010) only one area was found in this category. In the fall (2009), one area
was found in Rigorous Curriculum, whereas the spring (2010) showed no areas of
weakness in this category. In the fall (2009) one area of weakness was in Quality
Instruction, whereas in the spring (2010) no areas of weakness were found in this
category. In the spring (2010) five additional areas were identified as areas of weakness

117

that were not found to be areas of weakness in the fall (2009): Performance
Accountability.
Again, due to the low response rate in the fall (2009), the results are reported with
caution. In addition, the survey data should not be the sole indicator of the principal’s
performance. To increase the validity of these results, the survey must be used in
conjunction with additional evidence of leadership practice (e.g., observation data of
principal performance and artifacts of his practice.
Analysis of data. This data could be used between the principal and his
instructional coach by conferring about the results then reflecting on how to use the
results. The coach could point out ways to improve practice one step at a time so as to
not overwhelm the principal but rather keep him on track to improvement. Using the
Val-Ed survey as a coaching tool aligned with the research of Hallinger (2005), which
says that instructionally effective schools develop a culture of continuous improvement in
which rewards are aligned with purposes and practices. Examining areas to improve
aligns with the work of Davis et al. (2005), which says that principals’ abilities are
central to the task of building schools that promote powerful teaching and learning for all
students. Using the Val-Ed survey as a coaching tool aligned with the research by
Neufeld and Roper (2003), which states that coaching helps educators make informed
decisions about instruction and school organization, leading teachers to teach in ways that
help students gain a deep knowledge of subject matter so that they can bring that
knowledge to bear on problems and questions that matter. The principal focusing his/her
learning and continual growth on issues of school improvement aligned with Murphy’s

118

Learning-Centered Framework within the communities of learning dimension (Murphy et
al., 2006).

119

Case Study Two: College and Career Magnet
At Career and College Magnet, the mission was to provide an environment that
motivates students to excel both academically and socially in a climate of mutual respect.
Students were prepared for the academic rigor of high school so that they could graduate
college and career-ready. Through coursework, guest speakers, and field trips, students
were exposed to a wide variety of career fields. Achieving future career goals often
requires making informed decisions at an early age; therefore, the staff worked with
students and families to investigate and understand the preparation necessary for their
careers of interest. The College and Career Magnet was created as part of the Achieving
ISD desegregation order. The school was a "free-standing" academy in that the only
students who attended school at College and Career were those accepted into the
program. After graduating from College and Career, some students elect to return to their
neighborhood schools for 9
th
grade, but they were well prepared to compete for
acceptance into early college programs or magnet programs.
College and Career required students to wear a uniform daily. Dress "The College
and Career Way" meant shirts tucked in, no shorts, no saggy, baggy pants, no flip-flops
or inappropriate skirt lengths. Character education posters were hanging in the cafeteria
and on the bulletin board in the hall. Posters in the cafeteria asked students if they have a
belt, their ID badge, if their shirts are tucked in, and if they are ready to learn.
College and Career was the only school in the State with a complete Synergistics
Lab with all 63 modules! The Synergistics Lab was designed to allow students to develop
skills critical to everyday life. In the lab, learning units, called modules, were developed

120

to allow students to explore and learn skills such as critical thinking, conflict resolution,
and setting career goals to succeed in the workplace. In Technology Education, students
could explore the following Career Pathways: Arts, Communication and Media,
Agricultural Science and Technology, Business and Marketing, Engineering and
Industrial Technology, Health Science, and Human Developments, Management and
Services.
Enrollment during 2009-2010 school year was 394 students consisting of
demographics of 66% Hispanic, 27% African American, 5% White, and 2% other.
College and Career Magnet had 5% English Language learners, with 74% of students on
free and reduced lunch, and 1% special education students. College and Career Magnet
had an experienced staff that worked together and enjoyed coming to work.
Ms. Thomas, the principal, was raised in the Achieving area. She attended
college at Texas A & M, earning a bachelor’s degree in animal science. She received her
teaching certificate at University of Texas at Achieving. She taught at Carter High
School. She shared that this experience was valuable differing as it did from her
upbringing. She learned to try multiple strategies and be more innovative. She felt that
Carter High School was where she learned to differentiate instruction. She taught for six
years at the high school level. She then began working on her master’s in educational
administration and became an assistant principal. She was an assistant principal for
seven years: four at the high school and three at the middle school level. After
completion of her master’s she started her doctorate. At the point of this research, Ms.
Thomas was at the point where she needed to take an exam, called the superintendent

121

certification exam, which she planned to take the fall of 2010. After passing this exam,
she needs two more courses to be able to begin her dissertation. This was her first
principalship and it was her second year. She shared that it had been difficult to run a
school and continue with her doctorate at the same time.
The 2009 test scores for College and Career Magnet were strong in all areas. For
reading/language arts 99% met the minimum standard and 74% met the college-ready
standards. College and Career met the 2010 goals of 90% passing minimum standards
and 60% passing college-ready standards for reading/language arts. For writing 99% met
the minimum standards and 78% met the college-ready standard. College and Career met
the 2010 goal of 90% reaching minimum standards and 60% reaching the college-ready
standard. For social studies 100% met minimum standards and 84% met college-ready
standards. College and Career achieved the 2010 goal of 90% reaching the minimum
standard and 60% reaching the college-ready standard in social studies. In mathematics
97% met the minimum standards but only 51% made the college-ready standard. College
and Career met the 2010 goal for minimum standards but not the 60% goal for college-
ready standards for mathematics. For science 89% met the minimum standards but only
43% met the college-ready standard. College and Career met neither the 2010 goals of
90% reaching minimum standard nor the 60% college-ready standard in science. In all
areas College and Career placed in the top 25% of the district middle schools.

122

Research Question One: How Does Participation in the Achieving ISD Principal
Coaching Initiative (APCI) Prepare Principals to Become Effective
Instructional Leaders?
The following is a discussion and analysis of how the APCI prepared principals to
become effective instructional leaders. The data will be analyzed from the research
perspective of the design of effective leadership capacity-building and support structures
for improving and sustaining effective leadership practice (Davis et al., 2005; Murphy et
al., 2006; Murphy et al., 2007). Principal interviews provided the primary data available
for evaluation of the Coaching Initiatives influence on the principal.
Key Finding: Comprehensive Professional Development
Some evidence indicates that the APCI professional development, which focused
upon the District’s Achieving Results! improvement initiatives, was helping to prepare
the principal to become an instructional leader.
During her fall interview Principal Thomas spoke about the basic foundation of
professional development offered within the APCI: “Coming from another district, last
year was a big learning year with the district’s initiatives and all of the IFL (Institute for
Learning) work. There are seven different POLs, and specific tools or protocols you use
with them.” Principal Thomas continued with applications of this year’s learning: “One
of the IFL ideas for us to develop is Disciplinary Literacy, apprenticeship-type learning
and there are many components. The district is also talking about effort-based education
and socialized intelligence, training your brain to function at a higher level.” Continuing
during her fall interview, Principal Thomas said: “The training I receive from the central

123

office has been real positive. They present it in ways that you can do it yourself at your
school. They actually model, show you how to do it and give you copies.”
During her spring interview Teacher Jenkins was asked if she had seen a change
in principal practice with increased professional development; she said: “She’s always
been very informative, giving us information and working with us on district initiatives.”
Teacher Filingame, when asked the same question in the spring, stated: “I think she is
just more comfortable with the changes we started last year and the staff is too.”
The Professional Development Calendar for 2009-2010 indicated that a lot of
training had been planned for principals. June 2009 had four full days: a Leadership
Institute, a Learning Community Day, and a two-day Leadership team training. July
2009 had two, two-day trainings: one Leadership Institute and one on Human
Development and Business services and three one-day trainings: one on Rigorous
Instruction Best Practices for Special Education one for English Language Learners, and
another for Mathematics for African American Students. August 2009 offered a four-day
training for CILT Planning Days. November 2009had a two-day training for principals:
Leadership Institute. January 2010 had a one-day training: District-wide Principal’s
Meeting. February 2010 had a one-day training professional development for principals
and CILT members. Finally, June 2010 had another Leadership Institute planned for
principals (Professional Development Calendar, 2009).
From the Research Study Proposal (2009), “the Achieving ISD Principal
Coaching Initiative (APCI) provides a standards-based capacity building curriculum and
the support of a leadership coaching structure” (p. 4).

124

Analysis of finding. According to the APCI Executive Summary:
The AISD is focused upon building capacity in school leaders by focusing on
what they need to know and be able to do in order to provide the guidance and
direction of sustained instructional improvement leading to higher student
achievement (2009, pg. 3).

Principal Thomas received a great deal of professional development, which she felt had
been presented in a way that she could return to her site and implement the ideas with her
staff.
The AISD designed instructional leadership professional development aligns with
Murphy’s (2006) Learning-Centered Framework in the dimension of vision for learning.
The AISD helped to build the principal’s capacity to facilitate the creation of a school
vision that reflects high and appropriate standards of learning, a belief in the educability
of all students, and high levels of personal and organizational performance (Murphy et
al., 2006). The professional development also aligns with the dimension of instructional
program. Leaders in highly productive schools are knowledgeable in the area of
pedagogy and deeply involved in the instructional program of the school (Murphy et al.,
2006). Principal Thomas engaged in the process of planning when she worked with her
staff on data and the need for professional development. She also exhibited the key
process of implementing by training her staff on the training she has received (Murphy et
al., 2007). The AISD supporting the principal with professional development aligns with
the research by Davis et al. (2005), which states that principals’ abilities are central to the
task of building schools that promote powerful teaching and learning for all students.
The components of AISD’s comprehensive professional development align with
those found in the research by Davis et al. (2005) on effective programs for principal

125

preparation. Effective programs are (a) are research-based, (b) have curricular coherence,
(c) provide experience in authentic contexts, (d) use cohort groupings and mentors, and
(e) are structured to enable collaborative activity between the program and area schools.
The program devised by AISD for principals had all of these characteristics. The
professional development provided by the University of Pittsburg, Institute for Learning
is research-based. The district provided the curriculum, which was consistent throughout
the district. The principals returned to their urban schools, which were authentic settings,
with the district’s expectation that they lead the training for staff. Area principals met for
professional development and collaboration as professional learning communities twice a
month.
During the fall interview Principal Thomas outlined the professional development
offered around the POLs, disciplinary literacy, and the format in which the trainings were
offered. During her spring interview she continued to attend the professional learning
community offered by her area, which brought principals together to further their
learning.
Key Finding: APCI Leadership Coach
Some evidence supports the finding that the APCI’s leadership coaching structure
was designed to help prepare school leaders to lead professional learning on their school
campuses around the district’s improvement initiatives.
During her fall interview Principal Thomas mentioned having only met with her
coach once. She discussed that interaction with her coach, saying: “She did this
reflective questioning and we came up with a good idea for something that I needed to

126

fix.” She continued discussing areas in which she and the coach would working that year:
“One of my weaker areas is monitoring. This building is so small I may not be
developing the skills for a bigger building. I’d like to practice how to set up a task list
and how to monitor it.”
By the time of the spring interview, Principal Thomas had worked with her coach
more and thus had more experiences to discuss. She spoke about interactions with her
coach around planning a professional development day, saying: “So having her there
wasn’t so much about changing what we cover, but helping me think through the delivery
of it. She helps me turn it back and reframe it.” The coach supported the principal by
conferring and helping her problem-solve as well as reflect. Principal Thomas discussed
another way her coach was working with her: “We’re doing a book study on the top ten
things great teachers do differently and it is on how to better mentor people.” This work
helped her to approach certain types of teachers and to further develop a common
language.
Principal Thomas discussed one way she thought she would be influenced by her
coach: “One advantage, she was an assistant superintendent in the district and previously
worked with magnets. She understands the historical background of the district. I don’t
think I am skilled as a political person so she brings that political perspective.” Principal
Thomas, when asked if having interactions with her coach changed her as a leader,
responded: “I don’t really think so.” She also said: “This has been a good fall to have a
coach. It seems like this school year has taken a lot more energy to get the year off the
ground, possible due to having eight less staff.”

127

Analysis of finding. Principal Thomas was involved with the APCI, receiving
professional development, and was her coach. “Principals and coaches participate in
professional development focused on data analysis, goal setting related to academic
achievement, leadership practice and establishing systems and structures to support
improved teacher practice and student learning” (APCI Executive Summary, 2009).
Principal Thomas’s work with her coach aligns with the research by Davis et al. (2005),
which states that the primary role of the mentor or coach is to guide learners in their
search for strategies to resolve dilemmas, to boost self-confidence, and to construct a
broad repertoire of leadership skills. Mrs. Thomas and her coach worked together on
solving a number of problems. The principal’s work with her coach aligns with the
research by Neufeld and Roper (2003), which has stated that coaches engage principals in
discussions before meetings and debrief afterwards to help principals learn to reflect on
their work. They also listen and offer suggestions. The principal’s work is also tied to the
research of Neufeld and Roper (2003), which has stated: “Coaching adheres to these
principles: it is grounded in inquiry, collaborative, sustained and tied explicitly to
improving practice.” Principal Thomas collaborated with her coach, the program was
sustained for at least a year, and they worked together to improve the principal’s practice.
By the fall interview Principal Thomas had only met with her coach one time but was
positive about some reflective questioning she had done with her coach and the direction
they had talked about pursuing. During the spring interview Principal Thomas discussed
another incidence of how the coach helped her reframe professional development as well
as additional ways the coach supported her with a book study, which provided a historical

128

and political perspective of the district and support with less staff after lay-offs. The
interviewed teachers did not credit a change in Principal Thomas’s practice to the leader
but they thought she was great so they may not have credited changes in her practice to
the coach.

Research Question Two: How Does the APCI Influence The Knowledge, Beliefs and
Leadership Practices of Urban School Principals?
The following is a discussion and analysis of how the APCI influenced leader
practice in implementing the district’s reform initiatives. To determine the value added
from participation in the APCI for five months, the data will be analyzed from the
learning-centered leadership practices perspective, which focuses on instructional
leadership behaviors that promote change in leader practice (Hallinger, 1992; Murphy et
al., 2006; Murphy et al., 2007). Observations and interviews of the principal and teachers
provided the primary data available data for evaluation of how principals were
influenced. Data collected from the principal professional development agendas was also
used in responding to this research question.
Key Finding: Professional Development
Some evidence indicated that the APCI influenced the leadership practices in that
the principal implemented district initiatives through professional development for
teachers.
In the fall Principal Thomas spoke about how she got her staff to see the need for
professional development and therefore to work toward AISD’s improvement initiatives:

129

This year was about helping them look at the data in a new way and I did it with
my CILT team first and then with the group at large. When I showed them that
there was a multi-year problem, all of a sudden they had more of a sense of it.
Before they were willing to do staff development but they really didn’t need to
change, then they realized there are some issues we need to work on and we need
to grow. It kind of rekindled a sense of urgency.

Principal Thomas used the training she had received from the district to highlight
data and make her staff want to pursue the district initiatives to be the best they could be.
In her fall interview, Principal Thomas continued her discussion of how her planning
from 2008-2009 had helped set direction for 2009-2010:
We looked at our data, saw a few neighboring schools catching up, and I
selectively picked neighboring schools for my data presentation that were right
with us, and then I pointed to them and said, hey the principals at these schools
tell me these principles of learning have made the difference, we need to do it, we
need to try and find out if that’s going to make the little difference that we need to
get over the hump.

During his fall interview, Mr. Filingame, a teacher, discussed Principal Thomas’s
ability to lead staff, explaining: “She’s a data queen so if there’s a drop or the benchmark
looks low; she’s going to come out with an instructional professional development to
show us how to break the data down and improve upon that.” He then discussed Principal
Thomas’s work with staff: “She’s excellent with instruction because she was such a good
instructor herself, for teachers that do struggle with instruction, she can break down
different ways and she has all kinds of different tactics to get across different things.”
The training she received in turn supported her to support her staff.
During my fall visit, I observed the principal leading a staff development session
on the Principle of Learning, Accountable Talk. The principal looked at test scores to
determine goals. She stated that the school’s weakness was in Academic Rigor and

130

AccountableTalk. The training was meant to encourage staff to think about what teacher
steps were needed to get the students engaged in academic rigor. Another focus was to
get staff to understand how to include strategies for Accountable Talk into their plans.
Also, the principal encouraged her staff to look for evidence of Accountable Talk in each
other’s lessons when observing each other. During the session, the staff took a look at
indicators for what the student was supposed to do in the lesson. Following that step,
they engaged in an activity that required them to use a handout (the Accountability
Rigorous Thinking handout), whose strategies they were to compare to a set of critical
inquiries about the strategy. This activity helped them to understand how indicators of
“Accountable Talk” and “Academic Rigor” could be combined in their classroom lesson
design. Some evidence indicated that the principal had a strong foundation in curriculum,
having internalized her district training, and was organized about providing rigorous
professional development for her staff.
On Principal Thomas’s fall (2009) VAL-ED survey, her teachers scored her 4.29
out of 5.0 on Rigorous Curriculum and a 4.43 in the spring— scoring her distinguished.
In the fall teachers scored her 4.44 out of 5.0 on Quality Instruction and 4.32 in the
spring— also distinguished but a slight decrease. In the fall they scored her 4.37 out of
5.0 on Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior and 4.58 for the spring, also
distinguished and an increase.
During her spring interview Principal Thomas discussed how she worked with
staff: “If I want to see a certain type of instruction, then I model it in our meeting.” She
continued with how she delegated professional development: “I am having more teachers

131

get involved and present professional development. I figure if they teach it the way it
should be taught, then they understand it.” During her spring interview Teacher Jenkins
was asked what her principal had done to promote the success of all students; she replied:
“We have our staff development meetings, really pushing the POLs and the Learning
Walks, to help us help the students.”
During her spring interview Teacher Jenkins was asked if she saw a change in
principal practice with increased professional development and she said: “She’s always
been very informative, giving us information and working with us on district initiatives.”
Teacher Filingame, when asked the same question in the spring, stated: “I think she is
just more comfortable with the changes we started last year and the staff is too.”
Analysis of finding. Providing professional development for teachers aligns with
Murphy’s (2006) Learning-Centered Framework. Within the dimension of vision for
learning, effective leaders are masters in keeping vision, mission, and goals in the
forefront of everyone’s attention and at the center of everyone’s work. The district’s
training and support helped the principal work with her staff to have a stronger vision.
Within the dimension of instructional program, leaders in highly productive schools
model the importance of teaching by being directly involved in the design and
implementation of the instructional program. They pay attention to teaching, visiting
classrooms, and working with groups of teachers on instructional issues, both in formal
and informal settings (Murphy et al., 2006). Principal Thomas used many of the key
processes from Murphy’s (2006) Learning-Centered Framework. She planned where she
was taking her staff, implemented the district’s initiatives, supported her teachers with

132

rigorous professional development, and she communicated with both teachers and her
CILT team (Murphy et al., 2007). Also aligning with the research of Hallinger (1992),
effective principals are leaders of leaders: people who develop instructional leadership in
their teachers.
The increase in scores from the fall (2009) to the spring (2010) administration of
the VAL-ED survey in the areas of Rigorous Curriculum, Quality Instruction, and
Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior showed that the APCI positively affected
the principal’s practice in the areas of curriculum and teacher practice.
Key Finding: Critical Support Programs
Some evidence indicated that the APCI influenced the leadership practices in the
area of the principal implementing district initiatives through critical support programs.
During her fall interview, Principal Thomas spoke about the programs in place for
students who had not met state standards: “Any student who has not met the passing rate
on the State test has an accelerated reading instruction class. If they have not passed in
math they have a math tutoring class, both are within the school day.” She continued by
describing how she set up her master schedule to support students: “The math and science
departments do tutoring at lunch. I made sure when creating the master schedule that the
department heads prep backed up to lunch so tutoring can be available for students at
lunch.” Ms. Jenkins stated in her fall interview: “We have our tutoring and I tutor in the
mornings and after school on Tuesdays.” Ms. Hunter stated in her fall interview: “All the
teachers are available for tutoring. They stay after school, we pull them in at lunch, or we
encourage them to come in the morning.” Principal Thomas continued from her fall

133

interview, sharing how her staff tutors: “Tutoring will go to more of a one-on-one setting.
We try to explain it in a different way to help students who are struggling and who are
behind.”
In his fall interview, Mr. Filingame discussed how he supported struggling
students: “We do a good job of catching it early, I grade papers in class, with the
students, so they get immediate feedback on why they missed the problems they did. If
that doesn’t work, we have tutoring and Saturday schools.” In her fall interview Principal
Thomas shared something new they were trying: “We put the students on an academic
contract and it talks about the tiered interventions the school is doing, what the student
needs to do and what the parents are going to do.”
The school worked with students on collaborative grouping, which Mr. Filingame
discussed during his spring interview: “I work at the beginning of the year on how to get
in groups and what roles and responsibilities each member has. I model for students’
appropriate ways to interact and ask questions within their groups.”
During her spring interview Principal Thomas discussed how the language arts
department shared a state rubric to get all teachers to get better writing across the
curriculum:
The English teachers did a writing benchmark and scored it using the holistic
rubric the State of Texas uses and then presented the writing samples and the
rubric to the entire staff during professional development. The staff learned how
to use the rubric and score actual writing samples and the English department got
feedback from their peers that they were scoring correctly and teachers got a
feeling how to move student writing higher on the rubric, across the curriculum.

134

Analysis of finding. Having teachers tutor students, creating a master schedule
that supports department heads tutoring at lunch aligns with Murphy’s (2006) Learning-
Centered Framework. This effort falls into the dimension of communities of learning
saying that leaders in effective schools nurture collaborative processes, forge schedules,
and create organizational structures that permit and encourage shared mission and
direction, collaborative work, and mutual accountability for school goals and student
learning (Murphy et al., 2006). Principal Thomas’s support of student learning aligns
with Murphy’s (2006) Learning-Centered Framework key process of advocating for
students. According to Darling-Hammond (2008) working with students to learn
challenging curriculum falls into two of the four factors that consistently influence
student achievement, which are educating students in smaller schools where they are well
known, from 300-500, and receiving a challenging curriculum.

Research Question Three: How Does an Urban School Principal Create and
Sustain Organizational Structures and Processes That Promote Effective Teacher
Practice And Improve Student Outcomes?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
strategies that the principal put into place to create and sustain organizational structures
and processes to promote effective teacher practice and improve student outcomes. The
data will be analyzed from the perspective of the direct effect that leader practice has on
creating the structures and learning environment that can potentially have a positive
influence on student outcomes (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005; Hallinger & Heck, 1996;

135

Kruse, Seashore Louis & Bryk, 1994; Murphy et al., 2006, 2007). Observations and
interviews of the principal and teachers provided the primary data available for
evaluation of this question. The test scores and the Val-Ed survey also provided data for
this question. Murphy’s (2006) learning-centered framework provided a background for
effective principal actions that lead to effective schools.
Key Finding: Building Relationships and Empowering Staff
Some evidence indicated that the principal put into place organizational structures
and processes, through a focus on building relationships and empowering her staff that
created an environment conducive to teaching and learning.
In her fall interview Principal Thomas spoke about coming to College and Career
last year: “When I got here they were in good shape. I needed to get morale up, get
involved, get the building clean and not a lot with the instructional program.” She
continued in the same interview speaking about her first year: “I wanted to see if I
empowered, encouraged them and put the goals out there, what they were able to do on
their own.” During his fall interview, Mr. Filingame, a teacher, spoke about how
Principal Thomas worked with the staffing: “She’s built a very strong community and not
by forcing it. She makes you want to be part of the bigger picture. I can’t say enough
about her, she’s excellent and she does so much, she’s always doing something.” Ms.
Jenkins, a teacher, spoke about the support she received from Principal Thomas in her fall
interview: “She makes sure that we have everything we need, she gets those things for us.
She’s very helpful.” Ms. Hunter, a teacher, spoke about her perceptions of Principal
Thomas her fall interview: “There’s always support to get something if we need it. She’s

136

there for us. She is capable and comfortable in going and asking questions and she fights
for us.”
During her spring interview Principal Thomas discussed building on what she had
started in 2008-2009, stating: “The groundwork was laid last year: building trust, valuing
them, and watching to see people’s strengths, and then this fall helping them see a reason
to use these research-based IFL POLs, giving them motivation or rationale.” Principal
Thomas discussed her leadership style in her spring interview: “It has to do with
relationships, showing you care and modeling expectations. I’m more directive now but I
still want to explain why I want it done a particular way because I would want to know
myself.” During her spring interview Principal Thomas discussed what changes had been
made: “What’s grown out of what we’ve put in place are that teachers are teaching each
other so that it isn’t just me doing it. They’re also leading activities at the quality I’d
want it if I was doing it myself.”
When asked about any changes with Principal Thomas, during her spring
interview, Ms. Hunter said: “No, she’s still top. She just gets better. She’s always
looking for things for us. We think she’s wonderful.”
Analysis of finding. Ms. Thomas’s support of her staff aligned with the research
by Davis et al. (2005) that states:
developing a deep understanding of how to support teachers, and developing the
ability to transform schools into more effective organizations that foster powerful
teaching and learning are important aspects of an effective principal’s job. (p. 5)

This idea also aligned with the research by Hallinger and Heck (1996), which
states that principal leadership makes a difference when it is aimed toward influencing

137

internal school processes: academic expectations, school mission, student opportunity to
learn, instructional organization, and academic learning time, which are directly linked to
student learning. Ms. Thomas’s commitment to working with her staff aligned with
Murphy’s (2006) Learning-Centered Framework within the communities of learning
dimension. In working with colleagues, instructionally centered leaders establish an
expectation that the continual expansion of one’s knowledge and skills helps students
succeed, which is the norm at the school. These leaders also demonstrate dedication and
willingness to assist teachers in strengthening their instructional skills. They furnish
needed resources to teachers, including support to help teachers gain new knowledge and
they provide the materials teachers require to implement new skills in the classroom
(Murphy et al., 2006). The focus that Principal Thomas honed on building teacher
capacity to take on increased leadership roles on campus aligns with the research by
Neufeld and Roper (2003), which indicates that principals need to understand the
importance of recruiting teachers to assume instructional leadership roles to drive whole-
school change. Principal Thomas’s effort to empower and support her teachers created a
positive culture at her site and a cohesiveness that moved her staff forward.
Key Finding: Learning Walks
Some evidence indicated that the principal practiced Learning Walks as a school
and classroom monitoring structure to promote effective teacher practice and improved
student outcomes.
During her fall interview Principal Thomas spoke about using the Learning Walk
Structure: “The learning walk, we use not as evaluative but to see if we’re all speaking

138

the same language and we can get a good feel for it if we’re seeing what we’re talking
about in our staff development.” During her fall interview Teacher Jenkins said: “We’re
going on Learning Walks, refining what we do, seeing others do it and putting it all
together.” Principal Thomas continued with how she worked to make the Learning Walks
authentic:
We go on Learning Walks. Staff doesn’t want to question what a teacher is
doing; they perceive that as a negative. I’m working on getting them to the point
where we’re all nice but its okay to wonder where the teacher is going next with
their lesson. I think they’re starting to talk to each other more, in terms of
teaching and learning not just friendly support.

During Principal Thomas’s spring interview she said: “Using the learning walk,
the way it was supposed to be, I think people will see each other in action and grow from
it.” During her spring interview Ms. Jenkins discussed how Principal Thomas worked
with staff on Learning Walks: “We started Learning Walks to learn from each other. The
principal initiated them and taught the CILT team to run them and they trained other
department members.” Principal Thomas expanded that idea, saying: “Recently it was a
department member, leading, debriefing, and getting everything organized and keeping
everyone on protocol, we’re seeing more teacher-leader emergence.” Ms. Hunter spoke
about Learning Walks during her spring interview: “We’ve embraced the learning walks
because we’ve done them and everybody is beginning to see they’re valuable. All of our
staff development is geared to make you more cognizant of what you do in your
classroom.”
Analysis of finding. The way the principal worked with her staff on Learning
Walks aligns with Murphy’s (2006) Learning-Centered Framework. Within the

139

dimension of organizational culture, “Effective leaders hold everyone responsible for
achieving school goals and reaching targets in the area of student performance. They
ensure that the school systematically reviews and adopts more productive strategies to
accomplish important goals” (Murphy et al., 2006, p.11-12). The use of Learning Walks
also aligns with the research by Kruse et al. (1994), which has cited it as one of the five
critical elements of a strong professional community: “Teachers share, observe and
discuss each other’s teaching methods and philosophies. By sharing practice ‘in public’,
teachers learn new ways to talk about what they do, and the discussion kindle new
relationships between the participants” (p. 4).

Research Question Four: What Leadership Support
Structures Enable Leader Practice?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
leadership support structures put in place throughout the system (district, school, and
teacher levels) that enabled leader practice and subsequent movement in the direction of
implementation of the district’s and the school’s improvement initiatives. The data will
be analyzed from the perspective of effective strategies for building and sustaining
learning-centered leadership practice (Davis et al., 2005; Murphy et al., 2006; Neufeld &
Roper, 2003). The principal interview provided the primary data for the answer to this
question. The teacher interviews, along with observations on campus and the principal’s
professional development schedule also provided data for this question. Murphy’s (2006)

140

learning-centered framework provided a background for support structures to contribute
to effective leader practice.
Key Finding: District Goals/Protocols/Curriculum
Some evidence indicated that the district goals, protocols, curriculum and
collaborative time provided support for leader practice.
In her fall interview Principal Thomas discussed district goals: “Well, the district
goals are for us to be 95% passing and 50% commended. As far as passing we are there
and then our commended rates in math and science are coming up.” In his fall interview
Teacher Filingame discussed being aligned with district initiatives: “We bought into the
system the district provided with the collaborative and collective learning. It’s very
effective once you’ve implemented it and use it correctly. It was suggested by the
district, but it‘s carried out by the school.” Teacher Jenkins continued with: “We have to
make sure we are teaching what our objectives are, and that we are following the CPG
[Curriculum Planning Guide] provided by the district.” She continued speaking about
district tests: “We have a benchmark that shows me what point I am at in time.” Then she
moved to discussing the district provided collaboration time:
We meet daily at fifth period, we have an agenda and someone is the scribe. We
work together, making sure we’re within the guidelines. We discuss what we’re
going to do and how we want to implement it. Seeing how different people do
their lessons helps a great deal.

Teacher Filingame described collaborative time in the following way,
If we have three brilliant minds, rather than working on your own island—you
come together and you put it together. And that allows for more ideas to come in,
rather than spending 100% on one thing, you're spending 33% on one thing.

141

Teacher Hunter described the math department collaborative schedule in her fall
interview: “We spend a couple of days on our principles of learning. We collaboratively
plan two days a week. And one day we throw in profiling.” She continued, speaking
about how the collaborative time impacted her teaching: “It gives me other ideas and I
have somebody to bounce something off of.” Principal Thomas also discussed teacher
collaborative time during her spring interview: “I think our collaborative time is still a
work in progress. We’re getting better at using it but I would not hold it up as a model at
this time.” She continued by stating: “Some of the things the district wants us to do like
with the IFL work, that’s kind of non-negotiable. I try to work with my staff with data
for them to understand why we should do them.”
During her spring interview Principal Thomas spoke about her principal learning
community:
Secondary West is our learning community for our principal area. We have two
meetings a month: one is instructionally based, one is operationally based. The
instructional meeting is centered on the IFL, the principles of learning, maybe
some sharing from other campuses. Then I’ve gone to a session on disciplinary
literacy, science instruction, language arts, one on improving and growing your
advanced placement program, then another on strategies to help African
American students be more successful in mathematics.

Analysis of finding. The district provided curriculum guides and suggested
instructional strategies that align with Murphy’s (2006) Learning-Centered Framework
within the curricular program dimension. Effective leaders establish high standards and
expectations in the various curricular domains consistent with blueprints crafted by
professional associations and learned societies (Murphy et al., 2006). Principal Thomas
implemented the district’s initiatives and strategies with her staff in a way that her staff

142

did not feel they were being mandated. She showed the staff why these strategies were
effective and therefore had enormous support from her staff. Collaborative time provided
by the district and supported by the principal aligned with the dimension of communities
of learning. Leaders in effective schools endeavor to create a culture of collaboration and
the systems, operations, and policies that provide the infrastructure for that collegial
culture (Murphy et al., 2006). Collaborative time for teachers is supported by the
research of Neufeld and Roper (2003), who have found that helping teachers develop
leadership skills to support the work of their colleagues is needed. Though Principal
Thomas felt that the school’s collaborative time was still a work-in-progress, the staff did
a very good job on the Learning Walks promoted by the district.
Key Finding: CILT Team
Some evidence indicated that the CILT team was a support structure that enabled
the principal’s practice and supported her creating a professional learning community at
her site.
Principal Thomas discussed coming to the school in 2008 in her fall 2009
interview: “I came and recognized that they really are a pretty high-functioning team in a
lot of ways.”
When asked who she goes to to try a new idea, Principal Thomas asserted: “My CILT
members, for sure.” Principal Thomas then spoke to how she worked with her CILT
Team and tasks them with high standards: “After watching instruction, sometimes I just
need to talk with CILT members about trends I’ve seen to offer ideas about collaborative

143

time. They are stepping up and being instructional leaders with their people and holding
them more accountable.”
Principal Thomas discussed what had changed since the fall interview: “I think
we’ve changed a lot of different things. I think the thing that’s grown out of what we’ve
put in place is that teachers are teaching each other more instead of just always me doing
it.” She discussed her continued interaction with her CILT team during her spring
interview: “My CILT, they are really my instructional arm, and I’ve been teaching them.
I can rely on them to be the people leading the instructional work.” During the same
interview she spoke about how CILT members worked with struggling teachers: “Just
like when a first or second year teacher doesn’t have their classes working really well yet,
CILT can help them work on it without being their evaluator, then when the evaluator
comes in, I’ll just see the results.”
Analysis of finding. Principal Thomas’s work with her CILT team to build
professional learning communities aligned with Murphy’s (2006) Learning-Centered
Framework. “In working with colleagues, instructionally centered leaders establish an
expectation that the continual expansion of one’s knowledge and skills focused on
helping students succeed is the norm at the school” (Murphy et al., 2006, p. 8). Principal
Thomas worked with her CILT team toward continuous improvement of both staff and
students. This behavior also aligned with the dimension of organizational culture
(Murphy et al., 2006). “On the front end of this condition, leaders in high performing
schools work ceaselessly to create an environment of high performance expectations for
self, staff and students” (Murphy et al., 2006, p. 11).

144

That Principal Thomas worked with her CILT team to the point at which its
members served as instructional leaders on campus aligns with the research by Davis et
al. (2005) with regard to leaders developing people. One of the three core sets of
leadership practices is “enabling teachers and other staff to do their jobs effectively,
offering intellectual support and stimulation to improve the work and providing models
of practice and support” (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005, p. 5). Her work with the CILT
team also aligned with Murphy’s (2007) Learning-Centered Framework key process of
support. “Support is a key process in ensuring a culture of learning and professional
behavior. Effective leaders support integrated communities of practice by providing the
infrastructure that nurtures informal learning throughout the school” (Murphy et al.,
2007, p.17).

Research Question Five: How Can the VAL-ED Instrument Serve as a Coaching
Tool to Assist Principals to Become Effective Instructional Leaders?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
potential for the data collected from an instructional leadership assessment instrument,
the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership Practice (VAL ED), to be used as a tool to
inform the coaching support designed to promote effective instructional leadership. The
data will be analyzed from the perspective of the research on developing learning-
centered leadership practice and effective leadership coaching practices designed to
promote and support effective leadership practice (Davis et al., 2005; Hallinger, 2005;

145

Murphy et al., 2006; Neufeld & Roper, 2003). Principal and teacher interviews provided
the data used to answer this question. The Val-ED summarized some of the answers.
Key Finding: Identification of Areas of Strength and Weakness
The Val-Ed could be used as a coaching tool (a) to move principals across
performance levels, (b) to identify strengths and weaknesses on the core components and
key processes, and (c) as areas of focus for developing performance plans or
improvement plans for individual principals.
In a two-hour, small group session with other members of the APCI principal
cohort, Principal Thomas was briefly introduced to the VAL-ED survey and its
components prior to the onsite data collection in the fall (2009). During the session, she
was given a sample copy of a principal survey report with a brief overview of its
components on the same day that she was administered the survey. Although time was
not allotted during the session to review the document, she was given a copy of the
learning-centered leadership framework on which the survey is based (Murphy et al.,
2006). It was not clear what information Principal Thomas shared with teachers
regarding the survey prior to their having taken the survey in the four weeks following
having taken the survey herself. In the fall (2009) Principal Thomas shared that she
thought that it would provide her with areas where she could improve her practice.
However, she shared no specifics beyond that.
Fall (2009) and Spring (2010) VAL-ED Survey Results
Based on a 5-point effectiveness scale and the averaged ratings of all respondents,
Principal Thomas’s “Overall Total Effectiveness” score from fall (2009) survey

146

administration was 3.97. The Performance Level for this score is “Proficient.” The
National Percentile Rank was 84.3. An examination of the principal’s Core Components
mean item ratings ranged from a low of 3.71 for Connections to External Communities to
a high of 4.14 for High Standards for Student Learning. Similarly the principal’s Key
Processes mean item ratings indicate they ranged from a low 3.90 for Monitoring to a
high of 4.08 for Communicating. In contrast, the Principal’s “Overall Total
Effectiveness” score from the spring administration of the survey, after having
participated in the APCI for five months, rose slightly from 3.97 to 4.40. Her
performance level rose to “Distinguished” and her percentile rank rose from 84.3 to 98.5.
An examination of the principal’s Core Components mean item ratings ranged from a
low of 4.19 for Connections to External Communities to a high of 4.58 for Culture of
Learning and Professional Behavior. Similarly the principal’s Key Processes mean item
ratings indicate they ranged from a low of 4.23 for Advocating to a high of 4.63 for
Communicating.
Eighty-eight of the teachers responded for the fall (2009) survey administration,
whereas on the spring administration, 53% of the teachers responded. A response rate of
below 50% on the VAL-ED survey should be interpreted with caution. For both fall
(2009) and spring (2010) survey administrations, the principal and his supervisor
responded.
Intersection of Core Components and Key Processes
In comparison to principal’s fall (2009) performance with her spring (2010)
performance, based upon the mean item scores for the intersection of Core Components

147

and Key Processes, some evidence indicates that her performance rose slightly. Based
upon the fall (2009) results, the principal performed at the “Proficient” level in 33 areas,
but at the “Basic” level in three areas. Based on the spring (2010) results, the principal
performed at the “Proficient” level in all 36 areas. In three areas (Monitoring Culture of
Learning and Professional Behavior, Implementing Connections to External
Communities and Supporting Connections to External Communities) the principal scored
at the “Basic” level for the fall (2009) administration and at the “Proficient” level for the
spring (2010) administration.
In both the fall (2009) and the spring (2010) administration the teachers scored
the principal higher than she scored herself in all categories. In the fall (2009)
administration the supervisor scored the principal higher than she scored herself in all
categories. In the spring (2010) administration the supervisor scored the principal higher
in all but one category (Connections to External Communities), where they scored her the
same score. The scores show an improvement in the principal’s effectiveness, however
the lower percentage of teachers who took the spring administration could have slightly
skewed the results.
Sources of Evidence
With regard to sources of evidence, in the fall (2009) “personal observation” was
cited by a higher percentage of teachers more often than by the principal or supervisor.
The principal cited “school documents” as the highest percentage of source of evidence
with “personal observations” close behind. The supervisor cited “reports from others” as
the highest percentage of source of evidence with “school documents” close behind.

148

In the spring (2010), the teachers continued to cite “personal observations.” The
principal and supervisor cited “school documents” as primary sources of evidence and the
supervisor’s secondary source was “other sources.”
Leadership Behaviors for Possible Improvement
With regard to the specific leadership behaviors for possible improvement, in the
fall (2009) two of those areas were in Connections to External Communities, whereas in
the spring (2010) none was found in this category. In the fall (2009), one area was found
in Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior, whereas in the spring (2010) there
were no areas of weakness in this category.
The survey data should not be the sole indicator of the principal’s performance.
To increase the validity of these results, the survey should be used in conjunction with
additional evidence of leadership practice (e.g., observation data of principal performance
and artifacts of his practice).
Analysis of data. This data could be used between the principal and his
instructional coach for conferring about results then reflecting upon how to apply them.
The coach could point out ways to improve practice one step at a time, so as to not
overwhelm the principal but to keep him/her on track to improvement. Using the Val-Ed
survey as a coaching tool aligned with the research of Hallinger (2005), which says that
instructionally effective schools develop a culture of continuous improvement in which
rewards are aligned with purposes and practices. Examining areas to improve aligned
with the work of Davis et al. (2005) that says that principals’ abilities are central to
building schools that promote powerful teaching and learning for all students. Using the

149

Val-Ed survey as a coaching tool aligned with the research by Neufeld and Roper (2003),
which has shown that coaching helps educators make informed decisions about
instruction and school organization that will lead teachers to teach in ways that help
students gain a deep knowledge of subject matter so that they can bring that knowledge to
bear on problems and questions that matter. In focusing learning and continual growth on
issues of school improvement, the principal’s efforts aligned with Murphy’s Learning-
Centered Framework within the communities of learning dimension (Murphy et al.,
2006).

Cross-Case Analysis
The two case studies had many differences and similarities. The schools were
both middle schools within the AISD. Both school staffs had lost employees the previous
year due to budget cuts. Both principals were provided with comprehensive professional
development on research-based curriculum and both were provided with personal
coaches.
Success Middle School was a large neighborhood school of 1000 students in its
third year with all new facilities. Principal Avina opened the school and came from the
elementary level. Principal Avina had a large staff to work with and multiple other
administrators. Being a new school, Success Middle School had no previous test scores
for Principal Avina to work with. Principal Avina had struggled with organization before
working with his district-provided coach last and this year. Principal Avina did not seem
to have the key process of planning ingrained as a part of his leadership style. This

150

shortcoming contributed to his the feeling of haphazardness. He attempted to
implement the district’s initiatives but the lack of planning made it difficult. He
continued to struggle with communication and staff cohesiveness. Principal Avina
supported his teachers through technology and training but his lack of communication
contributed to a disjointed staff. He advocated for students but his lack of common
vision got in the way of his staff knowing what he stood for. He made improvement in
the area of monitoring this year.
College and Career was a magnet with around 400 students with a long history
and older facilities. Principal Thomas was in her second year as principal and had
previously taught and been an assistant principal at the high school level. Principal
Thomas had a small staff and only one assistant principal. She had historical test data.
Principal Thomas’s students were required to have a certain test score to be chosen to
attend College and Career. Principal Thomas was glad to have her district-provided
coach but there no major changes in her leadership took place as a result. However, she
was able to bring up morale by empowering her staff and working collaboratively with its
members. Principal Thomas’s strength in the area of planning helped her work with staff,
implementing the district’s initiatives. She supported her teachers, communicated with
them, monitored them, and advocated for students. She was able to get the staff on board
by building trust and providing them with data and the evidence about why they should
get on board with the district’s initiatives.
Research Question One: How does participation in the Achieving ISD Principal
Coaching Initiative (APCI) prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders?

151

The key findings for both case studies were comprehensive professional
development and district-provided personal coach. Principal Avina received a substantial
amount of professional development but did not feel adept at training his staff in all of the
areas he had been trained. Some evidence indicated that his lack of planning and common
vision for the school contributed to his struggles in implementing all of the district’s
initiatives. Principal Thomas received an abundance of professional training and felt it
was conveyed well and was easy to take back to her school to use to train her staff. She
was strong in the key process of planning and implementing and had an easier time
implementing the district initiatives. The second key finding was the district coach.
Principal Avina had been working with his coach for two school years, from September
to June. He felt he had largely improved his practice due to having worked with his
coach, including being more organized. Principal Thomas enjoyed working with her
coach and appreciated having someone with a political and historical perspective with
whom to discuss issues; however, she did not feel it changed her practice. The third key
finding for Success was the principal’s improvement plan. Principal Avina, having been
placed on an improvement plan, was forced to change and mandated to collaborate with a
neighboring principal, which had a positive effect.
Research Question Two: How does APCI influence the knowledge, beliefs, and
leadership practices of urban school principals?
The first key finding is different for each case study school. Success has a key
finding of district-managed instruction and Longfellow has a key finding of professional
development for teachers. For Success, Principal Avina was given direction to help him

152

implement district initiatives. Principal Avina did not effectively influence internal
processes for 100% of his teachers. For College and Career the training supported the
development of vision for the school. Principal Thomas planned, implemented,
supported, and communicated during her leadership of her school. The second key
finding was the same for both case studies; it was school programs. For Success,
Principal Avina had programs to support student success and tutoring. Principal Avina
needed to increase his planning of professional development days so that everything was
set up on time and he had an agenda for to remember celebrations; he also needed to
develop staff cohesiveness so that there was not a need to review norms at every meeting.
At College and Career, Principal Thomas had tutoring and organized her master schedule
to make sure department heads could offer tutoring at student lunches.
Research Question Three: How does an urban school principal create and sustain
organizational structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
The first key finding is different for each case study. Success had a key finding of
resource allocation and use and College and Career has building relationships and
empowering staff. For Success Principal Avina used resources to support his staff with
training and technology. He also received grants to support students and staff. For
College and Career, Principal Thomas spent considerable time supporting staff and, in
turn, created a positive culture and staff cohesiveness. The second key finding was
Learning Walks for both schools. Success had its administration perform LearningWalks
and then give feedback to teachers. It developed a standard form and they let its teachers

153

know the week before what they are looking for. College and Career performed Learning
Walks as a staff, one department at a time. The teacher started modeling how to conduct
a Learning Walk, then trained a CILT member then moved to members of other
departments. College and Career did a good job of making its practice public and was
having discussions around improving practice. Success’s third key finding was the
principal’s communication structure. Principal Avina increased communication but the
staff still lacked cohesion. The fourth key finding for Success is the Foundations
Committee. Principal Avina developed a committee to work collaboratively with staff to
keep the campus safe and address any issues brought forward by students, staff, or
parents. Success’s fifth key finding is professional learning communities. Principal
Avina and the rest of administration worked with staff during collaborative time to build
professional learning communities. The collaborative time was positive but there did not
seem to be time for all the departments to come together and learn from each other.
Research Question Four: What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
The first key finding for both case study schools is district direction and
provisions. Success was supported by the district curriculum guides and direction but the
staff felt that everything was mandated to them; therefore Principal Avina had a hard time
getting staff support. Supported by data, College and Career’s Principal Thomas took the
time to explain why the district wanted them to implement certain things so her staff
would support the district direction. The second key finding for the two case studies was
not the same. Success had a finding of professional learning communities. Principal
Avina had the administrators attending collaborative time and supporting the

154

departments. The problem was that there is no collaboration between departments.
College and Career’s second key finding was the CILT team. Principal Thomas
supported her CILT team members to work with their departments as instructional
leaders and mentor their teachers. Success had a third key finding of APCI/district coach.
The district coach was a source of considerable large support for Principal Avina and
helped him get more organized.
Research Question Five: How can the VAL-ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to
assist principals to become effective instructional leaders?
Discussions with Principal Avina from Success Middle School revealed some
evidence that he did not reflect on his results. The results from the VAL-ED survey
could possibly be used by his coach and supervisor as they went over the survey with him
to ensure that he took steps to reflect upon and improve leadership practice based on the
results. Principal Thomas at College and Career examined and reflected upon her results.
She considered ways to draw in all of her teachers. Evidence indicated that she used the
survey results to improve her personal practice.

Summary
AISD provided comprehensive professional development to principals and
expected them to train their teachers. AISD provided structures and support to help
principals implement the initiatives. AISD provided coaches to support the principals’
practice. The training of the coaches helped their coaching.

155

Both principals believed students can learn. Both principals worked hard with
staff to implement the district’s initiatives. One of the principals (Principal Thomas) had
a stronger instructional base and therefore had an easier time translating the professional
development she received to her staff. This same principal (Principal Thomas) laid a
foundation of trust and empowered her staff so it was willing to listen when she
explained why what the district was asking them to do had merit. The other principal
(Principal Avina) built a foundation on running from emergency to emergency and lack
of planning. His staff felt that he only collaborated with his CILT team. If this principal
(Principal Avina) is going to be successful at pulling his staff together, consideration
should be given to the role that his coach can play in assisting him build a cohesive staff
and breaking down the barriers that have been built.
AISD had much to offer principals, teachers, and students. Their professional
development for school principals is comprehensive. Some evidence showed that the
leadership coaching component has the potential to influence principal instructional
leadership practice.

156

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction
This chapter provides a summary of the purpose of the study, the key research
questions, and the methodology utilized in this investigation. In addition, it provides a
summary of findings and pertinent implications for policy and practice. Finally, it offers
suggestions for further research in the area of educational leadership.

Statement of the Problem
Notable researchers including Davis et al. (2005), Hallinger and Heck (1996),
Hallinger et al. (1996), Leithwood et al. (2004), and Murphy et al., (2006) agree that
effective school principals influence student achievement through indirect but important
pathways, among them, through (a) the support and development of effective teachers
and (b) the implementation of effective organizational processes. Hallinger and Heck
(1996) describe the principal’s role as enmeshed in a “web of environmental, personal,
and in-school relationships” (p. 6) that affects student achievement and organizational
outcomes. Given the research reviewed, filling the knowledge gap is one of the
“essential ingredients of successful leadership” (Leithwood et al., 2004, p. 3). Notably,
the research does not provide definitive information about what experiences of leaders
are helpful and why (Leithwood et al., 2004). Hallinger and Heck (1996) explain that
principal leadership makes a difference in internal processes such school policies, norms

157

and the practices of teachers, and thus indirectly on student learning. Though studies
exist on how principals influence school improvement, the knowledge gap persists with
regard to how principals learn how to make a difference in improving their schools and
student achievement (Davis et al., 2005).
School leaders today are not prepared with the skills and strategies needed to take
on the challenges of urban schools (Cuban, 2001; Darling-Hammond et al., 2007;Davis et
al., 2005). Widespread consensus in the literature and in professional standards and
guidelines confirms the necessary features of leadership capacity-building programs
(Davis et al., 2005). However, urban school leaders must lead for social justice and be
prepared to address and eliminate “marginalization in schools” (Theoharis, 2007, p. 223).
According to Theoharis (2007), a gap in the knowledge base exists when it comes to
“address[ing] the ways in which leaders enact social justice” (p. 222).
Principals must have an effective support structure in place to sustain their effort
to assure that poor and minority students achieve at high levels (Davis et al., 2005).
There is a knowledge gap in a positive links between support structures for school leaders
and student achievement (Leithwood et al., 2004). Mentoring has been identified as an
essential ingredient of leadership capacity-building programs designed to improve school
and student performance (Gray et al., in press). To strengthen the effectiveness of new
principals, support must exist in all leadership capacity-building programs.

158

Purpose of Study
The purpose of this case study is to contribute to the knowledge base about
effective components of leadership capacity-building programs and support structures
that enable and sustain school leader practice. Specifically, it investigated the impact of
principal participation in a fully developed, research and standards-based executive
leadership development program on leader practice and professional practice of teachers.
The study identified two principals who participated in the Achieving Principal Coaching
Initiative (APCI) and the Achieving Results! and took a comprehensive look at the
practices they enacted that supported the attainment of improved outcomes for
professional practice and student learning. Each case study focused on how participation
in the APCI prepared leaders to create organizational structures and practices that
promote effective teacher practices and improve student outcomes in the urban context.
Qualitative as well as quantitative data were collected to determine the degree of change
in leader practice and how these factors were shaped or reshaped by participation and
experiences in the APCI.

Research Questions
There are five research questions for this study:
1. How does participation in the APCI prepare principals to become effective
instructional leaders?
2. How does APCI influence the knowledge, beliefs, and leadership practices
of urban school principals?

159

3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practices and
improve student outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
5. How can the VAL-ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist
principals to become effective instructional leaders?

Methodology Summary
The study identified two principals, participating in the Achieving Principal
Coaching Initiative (APCI). Each case study focused on how the program prepares
leaders to create organizational structures and instructional practices that promote
effective leader practice and professional teacher practices that improve student outcomes
in the urban context. The study took a comprehensive look at the leadership practices
enacted that have the potential to lead to attainment of the Achieving Results! Initiatives
and to determine (a) the relationship between principal participation in the program and
their leadership practice and (b) if the practice of the two principals varies, what accounts
for that variance. Qualitative as well as quantitative data was collected in a pre
intervention and postintervention design to determine the leader’s change in practice and
how these factors were shaped or reshaped by participation and experiences in the
program over time. This study utilized a qualitative comparative case study design.
Multiple sources of data were collected for analysis in this study. For both case
studies the following sources were used to gather descriptive data: pre and post

160

intervention interviews with each principal and a subset of their teachers; pre and post
intervention observations of the principal interacting with teachers and classroom
observations of teachers interacting with their students and with other teachers; and a
collection of documents (e.g., publicly available) and artifacts (e.g., generated in
conjunction Principals for Learning) relevant to the study.
In addition, pre and post intervention data were collected from the administration
of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) survey to each
principal, their teachers, and their supervisors. The first administration took place prior
to the principals’ participation in APCI (fall 2009).
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each principal (N = 2) and a
subset of teachers (N=3) from each principal’s school site. Principal and teacher
interview protocols had a mixture of predetermined as well as open-ended questions. The
pre intervention principal interviews took place in the fall (2009) prior to participation in
APCI for approximately 45 minutes with principals and 30 minutes with teachers. The
post intervention principal interviews took place in the spring (2010) after each principal
had participated in the APCI for five months. In addition, probing questions were asked
when the responses required more elaboration or clarification. The interviews were
recorded and later transcribed for analysis.
In addition to interviews, four types of pre/post intervention observations were
conducted at each school to gather additional data. Observational data were necessary to
strengthen data obtained through interviews and the VAL-Ed. Interview and survey data
are based solely on individual perceptions. Observations and document analysis provide

161

additional data that are somewhat removed from individual perceptions and, in some
cases, the bias of those working at the school site. Additionally, these observational data
added to the strength of the study as they provided another source of data for
triangulation.
Data collected for this study was analyzed in accordance with two levels of
analysis, formative and summative. To protect the integrity of each case study, each case
was fully analyzed (i.e., coding, pattern matching, organization by themes, and
summative data analysis) prior to the cross-case comparative analysis.

Summary of Findings
Research Question One: How does participation in the APCI prepare principals to
become effective instructional leaders?
Some evidence indicated that the AISD designed comprehensive professional
development assisted in building the capacity of both case study principals to
demonstrate effective leadership practices. The district provides extensive professional
development. Through the work with the IFL, principals were in their third year of
preparation. They were focused on implementing the district’s initiatives by leading
professional learning on their campuses with their teachers. Key areas of focus for their
leadership were preparing teachers to integrate the POLs into their instructional practices.
The components of AISD’s comprehensive professional development align with
those found in the research by Davis et al. (2005) on effective programs for principal
preparation. Davis et al. (2005) found that effective programs are (a) are research-based,

162

(b) have curricular coherence, (c) provide experience in authentic contexts, (e) use cohort
groupings and mentors, and (f) are structured to enable collaborative activity between the
program and area schools. The program developed by AISD for principals has all of
these characteristics. The professional development provided by the University of
Pittsburgh’s, Institute for Learning is research-based. The district provides the
curriculum, which is consistent throughout the district. The principals return to their
urban schools, which are authentic settings. There are 14 principals who have coaches as
a part of APCI, which is a cohort group. Area principals meet for professional
development and collaboration as professional learning communities twice a month.
Some evidence indicated that the APCI leadership coach assisted in building the capacity
of the principals toward becoming effective instructional leaders. The APCI is designed
to have principals and coaches participate in professional development focused on data
analysis, goal setting related to academic achievement, leadership practice, and
establishing systems and structures to support improved teacher practice and student
learning (AISD Executive Summary, 2009). Principal Avina improved his practice
through working with his district coach. Principal Thomas enjoyed reflecting and
conferring with her coach but did not feel it changed her leadership practice.
Principal Avina’s work with his coach aligns with the research by Davis et al.,
(2005) which states that the primary role of the mentor or coach is to guide the learner in
his/her search for strategies to resolve dilemmas, to boost self-confidence, and to
construct a broad repertoire of leadership skills. Competent mentors reach this goals
through modeling, coaching, gradually removing support as the mentee’s competence

163

increases, questioning and probing to promote self-reflection and problem solving skills,
and providing feedback and counsel. Some evidence appeared that the leadership coach
has focused on all of these areas with Mr. Avina. The leadership coach demonstrated a
change in her practice while working with the principal this year after having attended
further training. This change places a greater emphasis on the principal’s ability to be
reflective on his practice and consider next steps.
Some evidence showed that by providing these sessions in a large group setting,
the district has not accomplished the level of skill among the principals they had intended
so that principals could in turn train their teachers. The problem may be a lack of
planning and implementation by Mr. Avina in the area of common vision for his school.
Principal Thomas has received a great deal of professional development, which she felt
was presented in a way that she could come back to her site and implement with her staff.
Principal Thomas engaged in the process of planning when she worked with her staff on
data and the need for professional development. She also exhibits the key process of
implementing by training her staff on the training she has received (Murphy et al., 2007).
Research Question Two: How does APCI influence the knowledge, beliefs, and
leadership practices of urban school principals?
Some evidence supported the finding that district-managed instruction influenced
leader practice. Achieving ISD district office accepts responsibility for providing
college-ready curriculum and holds schools accountable for preparing students to be
ready to be successful in college or the workplace (Plan for Student Achievement, 2006).

164

The district has provided a rigorous curriculum. Principal Avina is working to
implement the district’s curriculum. He is also monitoring how the teachers implement
the curriculum by reading lesson plans and giving feedback and doing learning walks.
The district’s managed instructional program provided Principal Avina with direction and
structures that help him to focus upon implementation of the district’s goals. Principal
Thomas used the training she had received from the district to highlight the data to make
her staff want to follow one of the district initiatives to be the best it can be. The
district’s training and support have helped the principal work with her staff to have a
stronger vision. She plans where she is taking her staff, she implements the district’s
initiatives, she supports her teachers with rigorous professional development and she
communicates effectively both with teachers and her CILT team (Murphy et al., 2007).
During the fall (2009) administration of the VAL-ED survey, Principal Avina
scored 2.98 out of 5.0 in overall effectiveness and his teachers scored him a 3.57 out of
5.0 for Rigorous Curriculum. During the spring (2010) administration of the VAL-ED
survey, Principal Avina scored 3.05 out of 5.0 in overall effectiveness, which is a slight
increase over the fall and his teachers scored him a 2.90 out of 5.0, which is a decrease in
score from the fall for Rigorous Curriculum.
Principal Thomas’s fall (2009) results of the VAL-ED survey her teachers scored
her 4.29 out of 5.0 on Rigorous Curriculum, 4.44 out of 5.0 on Quality Instruction and
4.37 out of 5.0 on Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior. Principal Thomas’s
spring (2010) results of the VAL-ED survey her teachers scored her 4.53, higher than the
4.29 in fall on Rigorous Curriculum, 4.54, higher than the 4.44 in the fall on Quality

165

Instruction and 4.66, higher than the 4.37 in the fall on Culture of Learning and
Professional Behavior.
The district is providing rigorous curriculum. Murphy et al. (2007) contend that
as principals plan, implement, support, advocate, communicate, and monitor their staff,
then they will see quality instruction and an improvement of student achievement
(Murphy et al., 2007).
Research Question Three: How does an urban school principal create and sustain
organizational structures and processes that promote effective teacher practices and
improve student outcomes?
Some evidence showed that Principal Avina’s allocation of school resources
positively impacted the organizational structures and processes at the school, which work
toward effective teacher practice and positive student outcomes. Mr. Avina supports his
teachers to get training and is attempting to get them the technology to support their
classrooms and new skills being training. This effort represents the key process of
supporting within Murphy’s Learning-Centered Framework (Murphy et al., 2007). Mr.
Avina’s use of funds gathered by grants aligns with the key process of implementing
within Murphy’s Learning-Centered Framework (2007), “Learning-centered leaders are
directly involved in implementing policies and practices that further the core components
in their schools” (p. 16).
Some evidence showed that the principal put into place communication structures
to support the implementation of district goals. Some positive structures developed by
Principal Avina included working with the CILT (Campus Instructional Leadership

166

Team), increasing presence in collaboration time, more Learning Walks, attempting to
improve communication with staff, and developing a Foundations committee. The
principal’s work with the CILT team developing instructional priorities falls into the
dimension of vision for learning (Murphy et al., 2006). One of the problems is that
Principal Avina tends to include his CILT team in everything but then does not include
many teachers outside of his CILT team. Having the administrative team read teacher
lesson plans, conduct learning walks, and provide feedback on instructional practices in
an understandable format and in a timely manner demonstrates a focus on the
instructional program dimension. Some evidence indicates that this is an area in which
the principal has made large improvements. Some challenges persists with regard to
communication, such as departments or PODs working in isolation, a lack of school-wide
celebrations, lacking a school-wide goal, and having a non cohesive staff. Some
evidence showed that the principal needs to improve staff perception concerning the lack
of whole-school sharing. Mr. Avina is attempting to set up communities of learning but
has not developed staff cohesion. Mr. Avina is falling short in this area. He works with
his leadership team but does not include others. Some evidence showed that he needs to
build positive relationships between himself and his staff, giving them a voice in the
decision making process and building a cohesive team.
Some evidence showed that staff involvement and programs at the school,
supported by Principal Avina, work toward effective teacher practice and positive student
outcomes, or break down effective organizational structures and processes. Principals
working with teachers to create programs and get involved with students is supported by

167

Murphy’s Learner-Centered Framework. This focus on improving student learning falls
under the vision for learning dimension. Effective leaders emphasize ambitious goals,
ones that call for improvement over the status quo (Murphy et al., 2006).
Some evidence indicated that Principal Thomas was successful in putting into
place organizational structures and processes that have the potential to promote effective
teacher practice and improve student outcomes. Through a focus on building
relationships and empowering her staff before and throughout the study, she created an
environment conducive to teaching and learning. Principal Thomas’s effort to empower
and support her teachers has created a positive culture at her site and a cohesiveness that
moves her staff forward. Ms. Thomas’s building capacity in her teachers to take on
increased leadership roles on campus aligns with the research by Neufeld and Roper
(2003), which says that principals need to understand the importance of recruiting
teachers to assume instructional leadership roles to drive whole-school change. Principal
Thomas’s effort to empower and support her teachers has created a wonderful culture at
her site and a cohesiveness that moves her staff forward. Some evidence showed that the
principal put into practice organizational structures and processes that have the potential
to promote effective teacher practice and improve student outcomes. Principal Thomas’s
collaboration with her CILT team created a professional learning community at her site.
Principal Thomas’s work with her CILT team building professional learning communities
aligns with Murphy’s (2006) Learning-Centered Framework. Principal Thomas works
with her CILT team toward continuous improvement of both staff and students. This
behavior also aligns with the dimension of organizational culture (Murphy et al., 2006).

168

Both principals have set up organizational structures to support teachers’ practice
and student achievement. Principal Thomas has worked with her staff to create a
collaborative culture where her teachers work together, not only with her but also with
each other. Evidence indicated a relationship built upon trust. The principal works to
explain to her staff why it needs to pursue the direction of the district. In contrast,
Principal Avina has put some structures in place that have the potential to improve
outcomes; however, some evidence showed that his school is struggling due to a lack of
staff cohesiveness and trust.
Research Question Five: How can the VAL-ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to
assist principals to become effective instructional leaders?
Principal Avina was disheartened by the results of the Val-Ed survey and did not
indicate undertaking reflection on the areas of suggested growth. Ideally, the survey
results could be used by the AISD leadership coach and his supervisor as a way to reflect
upon the results so he could improve his practice.
The Val-Ed Survey can set organizational goals and objectives for the school
leader, provide summative and formative feedback to the leader, and be used to
benchmark the principal for professional growth (Murphy et al., 2007).
The Val-Ed survey could be a very useful tool in helping principals within the
AISD. Using the Val-Ed survey as a coaching tool aligns with the research of Hallinger
& Heck (2005), which says that instructionally effective schools develop a culture of
continuous improvement in which rewards are aligned with purposes and practices.
Examining areas to improve align with the work of Davis et al. (2005), which says that

169

principals’ abilities are central to the task of building schools that promote powerful
teaching and learning for all students. Using the Val-Ed survey as a coaching tool aligns
with the research by Neufeld and Roper (2003), which states that coaching helps
educators make informed decisions about instruction and school organization that will
lead teachers to teach in ways that help students gain a deep knowledge of subject matter
so that they can bring that knowledge to bear on problems and questions that matter. The
principal’s focusing learning and continual growth on issues of school improvement
aligns with Murphy’s Learning-Centered Framework within the communities of learning
dimension (Murphy et al., 2006).

Implications for Future Research
There is great demand for high-quality principals capable of leading today’s urban
schools. Research on principal preparation and development suggests that certain
program features are essential to developing effective school leaders. The content must
be research-based and have curricular coherence. The methods must include field-based
internships, problem-based learning and include mentors (Davis et al., 2005). AISD’s
professional development program for principals is research-based and has curricular
coherence. The APCI provides a cohort of principals with APCI coaches. These case
studies indicate positive results both for the district’s professional development and for
coaching. The two principals reacted differently to the professional development and the
coaching. One was more effective at attending to professional development and using it
to train her staff (Principal Thomas). The other principal (Principal Avina) had a harder

170

time internalizing some of the professional development taught in a large setting and
therefore did not feel confident enough to train his staff on it. The following provides a
list of research topics needed to enhance the current literature on effective professional
development and mentoring practices as well as to improve its impact on leadership
practice:
• Professional development for leaders including the key processes of
planning, implementing, supporting, advocating, communicating, and
mentoring (Murphy et al., 2007).
• Professional development for leaders that includes empowering staff
and building staff cohesiveness.
• Develop tools to measure leaders’ achievement of program goals and
objectives
• Development and implementation of measurement tools to quantify
and evaluate effective leadership practice
• Evaluate mentor training programs for rigor and research-based
strategies.

Implications for Policy and Practice
These case studies have several implications for policy and practice for
educational leadership in urban school settings. Leader characteristics contributed to the
success of Principal Thomas’s leadership practices in addition to the context in which
leadership was exercised. Principal Avina was not as successful. Hence leaders bring

171

with them varying degrees of leadership knowledge, experience, and skills. A support
program for school leaders must address appropriate types of support for the knowledge
and skills needed to lead in high-poverty urban school settings. Such programs may want
to reevaluate which principals need coaches and only continue coaching for a second year
for principals who feel it greatly improves their practice. In addition, it becomes
increasingly important at the district level to make appropriate placement decisions and
select suitable candidates at the schools in urban settings.
A support structure such as instructional leadership coaching has the potential to
influence and reshape leadership practices for improved student achievement. Therefore,
funding at the state and federal level for support programs is critical if lasting changes are
to take place (i.e., turning around underperforming schools). In addition, professional
development must be ongoing for school leaders, no matter the level of administrative
experience leaders bring with them. A strategic plan that addresses the varying needs of
individual leaders will be critical-- one designed to support school leaders and help
improve the quality of education in public schools in urban school settings. Moreover,
new school leaders need feedback on leadership practice as it is critical for goal setting
and working toward realistic goals. A measurement tool for school leadership needs to
be implemented as well – a 360˚ evaluation tool (teachers, supervisor, and the leader)
geared towards informing and guiding leadership practice, like the Val-Ed survey.

172

Conclusion
Successful schools are complicated, collaborative organizations requiring an
advanced level of functioning from every staff member. Usually, the principal’s
leadership skills establish whether a school becomes a dynamic learning organization or a
failed project. Highly skilled principals are not born, nor do they come out of graduate
programs fully prepared. Almost certainly, effective principals have been thoroughly
prepared and purposely mentored in programs that engross them in authentic leadership
experiences where they are challenged to shine (Gray et al., in print). Good professional
development and mentoring are essential to producing successful leaders for our urban
schools. Both principals in these case studies increased their skills for effective
leadership at their sites through the professional development provided by the Achieving
Results! Principal Coaching Initiative and by interactions with their coaches.
“Principals play a vital and multifaceted role in setting the direction for schools
that are positive and productive workplaces for teachers and vibrant learning
environments for children” (Davis et al., 2005, p. 1). Given this insight, districts must
provide professional development and mentoring for new principals to guide urban
schools in producing successful students.

173

REFERENCES
Bass, B. M. (1985) Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York:Free
Press.
.
Bottoms, G., Fry, B., Gray, C., & O'Neill, K. (In press). Good principals aren't born-
They're mentored: Are we investing enough to get the school leaders we need?
(Rep.). Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/
KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/EducationLeadership/Pages/good-
principals-arent-born-theyre-mentored.aspx.

Boyan, N. (1988). Describing and explaining administrative behavior. In N. Boyan (ed.),
Handbook of research in educational administration (pp. 77-98). New York:
Longman.

Brewer, C., Carpenter, B., Fuller, E., Mansfield, K. C., & Young, M. D. (2007, Fall). The
University Council for Educational Administration (Rep.). Retrieved from
http://www.ucea.org/convention/convention2007/dayonthehill/pdf/UCEA Policy
Brief fall 07.pdf.

Brown, K. M. (2006). Leadership for social justice and equity: Evaluating a
transformative framework and andragogy. Educational Administration Quarterly,
42(5), 700-745.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Capper, C. A., Sebastian, J., & Theoharis, G. (2006). Toward a framework for preparing
leaders for social justice. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(3), 209-224.

Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of
reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476-509.

Copland, M. A., & Blum, D. (2007). Developing district-wide expertise in leaders' ability
to analyze and improve instructional practice. Manuscript, University of
Washington, Seattle.

Creswell, J. W. (2005) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (2
nd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Cuban, L. (2001). Leadership for student learning: Urban school leadership-Different in
kind and degree. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998, Spring). Unequal opportunity: Race and education.
Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/.

174

Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., & Orr, M. (2007).Preparing school
leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development
programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership
Institute.

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School
leadership study: Developing successful principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University.

DuFour, R. (2002). The learning principal. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 12-15.

Eggen, A., Fuglestad, O. L., Langfeldt, G., Moller, J., Presthus, A., Skrovset, S., et al.
(2005). Successful school leadership: The Norwegian case. Journal of
Educational Administration, 43(6), 584-594.

e-Lead. National Institute for School Leadership and National Center on Education and
the Economy (n.d.). Retrieved
fromhttp://www.elead.org/programs/nisl/summary.asp

Farmer, D. W. (1999). Institutional improvement and motivated faculty: A case study.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 78, 87-95.

Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. NY: Teachers College Press.

Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to
instructional to transformational leaders. Journal of Educational Administration,
30(3), 35-49.

Hallinger, P., Bickman, L.& Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership, and
student reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 527-549.

Hallinger, P.,& Heck, R. (1996) A Critical perspective on teacher participation in urban
schools. Educational Administration Quarterly,32(1), 45-79.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2005) The study of educational leadership and management:
Where does the field stand today? Educational Leadership, Management and
Administration, 33, 9-244.

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985) Assessing the instructional management behavior of
principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86, 217-247.

Hamilton Thomas, L., & Pepper, K. (2001). Making a change: The effects of the
leadership role on school climate. Learning Environments Research, 5, 155-166.

175

Jones, L. C., Neumann, M., & Taylor Webb, P. (2004). Politics, school improvement, and
social justice: A triadic model of teacher leadership. The Educational Forum,
68(Spring), 254-262.

Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., Plecki, M. L., & Portin, B. S. (2006). Leading, learning,
and leadership support. WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Kruse, S., Seashore Louis, K.,& Bryk, A. (1994) Building professional community in
schools. Madison: Center on Organization and restructuring of schools.

Leithwood, K.,& Duke, D. (1999) A century’s quest to understand school leadership. In
J. Murphy and K. Seashore Louis (Eds.).Handbook of research on educational
administration (pp. 45-72). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Leithwood, K.,& Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on
organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of
Educational Administration, 38(2), 112-129.

Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student
achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(10), 1-33.

Leithwood, K., Seashore Lewis, K., Anderson, S., & Walstrom, K. (2004). Learning from
Leadership Project (Rep.). Retrieved from
www.learningfromleadership.umn.edu.

Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.

Mattis, M. C., Mitgang, L. D., & Spiro, J. (2007). Getting principal mentoring right:
Lessons from the field. New York: The Wallace Foundation.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Murphy, J. F., Cravens, X. C., Elliot, S. N., Goldring, E. B., & Porter, A. C. (2007,
August). The Vanderbilt assessment of leadership in education: Measuring
learning-centered leadership. East China Normal University Journal, 1-37.

Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2006). Learning
Centered leadership: A conceptual framework. New York: The Wallace
Foundation.

176

Murphy, J., Elliot, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C., (in press). In M. Burndredtt& M.
Crawford (Eds.).Developing school leaders: An international perspective.
London: Routledge.

Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional
capacity.The Aspen Institute Program on Education and The Annenberg Institute
for School Reform.

Newmann, F.M. (1994) School-wide professional community(Spring ed., 6) Issues in
restructuring schools.

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Patton, M. C. (1990). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (2
nd
ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.

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

Patterson, J. L. (1993). Leadership for tomorrow’s schools. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Pitner, N. J. (1986). Substitutes for principal leader behavior: An exploratory
study.Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(2), 23-42.

Porter, A., Murphy, J., Goldring, E., Elliott, S. N., Polikoff, M. S., & May, H. (2008).
Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education: Technical manual version 1.0.
Retrieved from: http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/Documents/pdf/LSI/VAL-
ED_TechManual_030509.pdf

Preis, S., Grogan, M., Sherman, W. H.,&Beaty, D. M. (2008). What the research and
literature say about the delivery of educational leadership preparation programs in
the United States. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 2(1), 1-35. The
University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA). Retrieved from
www.ucea.org/JRLE/pdf/vol2_issue1_2007/Preisetal.pdf-

Resnick, L. B. (1999). Making America smarter. Education Week Century Series, 18(40),
38-40.

Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on
student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.

177

Rosin, M., & Wilson, K. (2008). Raising African American student achievement:
California goals, local outcomes. Mountain View, CA: EdSource, Inc.

Silins, H. C., (1994). Leadership characteristics and school improvement. Australian
Journal of Education, 38(3),266-281.

Smith, B. N., Kuzmenko, T. N., &Montagno R. V. (2004). Transformational and servant
leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91.

Spillane, J. P. (2003). Special issue on educational leadership. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 343-346.

Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory
of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221-
258.

Vanderhaar, J. E., Munoz, M. A.,& Rodosky, R. J. (2007). Leadership as accountability
for learning: The effects of school poverty, teacher experience, previous
achievement, and principal preparation programs on student achievement. Journal
of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 19(1), 17-33.

Whitten, J. L., Bentley, L. D.,& Dittman, K. C. (2004) Systems analysis and design
methods (6 ed.).New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Yin, R. (1984) Case study research: Design and methods (1
st
ed.). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publishing.

Yin, R. (1994) Case study research: Design and methods (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publishing.

Yin, R. (2003) Case study research: Design and methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publishing.

Young, J. (2009). 2008 Election. In ProCon.org -pros and cons of controversial
issues. Retrieved from http://procon.org

Youngs, P.,&King, M. B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to
build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 643-670.

178

APPENDIX A

DISTRICT TEST SCORES
Figure A1: District Mathematics Performance, 2007-2009

Figure A2: District Writing Performance, 2007-2009

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006-‐2007
2007-‐2008
2008-‐2009
2009-‐2010

District
Mathema7cs
Performance

2007-‐2009

Target
for
all

All

Af.
Am.

Hisp.

White

Ec.
Dis.

80%

90%

100%

2006-‐2007
2007-‐2008
2008-‐2009
2009-‐2010

District
Wri7ng
Performance
2007-‐2009

Target
for
all

All

Af.
Am.

Hisp.

White

Ec.
Dis.

179

Figure A3: District Reading Performance, 2007-2009

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006-‐2007
2007-‐2008
2008-‐2009
2009-‐2010

District
Reading
Performance
2007-‐2009

180

APPENDIX B

PREINTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS
Table B1
Preinterview Protocol For Teachers and Principals
Research Questions Principal Teachers
How does participation in the
Achieving ISD Principal
Coaching Initiative (APCI)
prepare principals to become
effective instructional leaders?

Tell me about your educational background;
# of years as educator; what subjects did
you teach; # of years as principal; how long
have you worked with your coach; how
were you chosen to participate in the APCI?
Have you taken the VAL-ED survey?
How would you define the “gap” at your
school? What have you and your staff done
to close that gap?
What programs are in place to support
students that are not meeting identified state
standards?
What are the instructional priorities at your
school? How do they impact teaching and
learning in core content areas?
How often do you observe classroom
instruction? How do you provide feedback?
What evidence will you look for that
improvement has occurred?

What are the instructional
priorities at your school? Why?
How do they impact teaching and
learning in your content areas?
How were these instructional
priorities determined? Are all
teachers working on these
instructional priorities? In what
ways?
How often are you observed
during classroom instruction?
Who observes you? How are you
provided with feedback from the
observations?
Which students are having the
most success/difficulty
demonstrating proficiency? Why?
What programs/strategies support
students that are not proficient?
How are teachers held
accountable for implementing the
improvement initiatives?
What evidence will you look for
that improvement has occurred?
How have resources been
distributed to facilitate
achievement of the improvement
goals? Do you believe that these
resources are sufficient to achieve
the goals? Why or why not?
What role does your school
principal play in the school
improvement process?
In what ways does your school
principal provide you with support
to meet the needs of all students?

181

Table B1, Continued
How does the APCI influence
the knowledge, beliefs and
leadership practices of urban
school principals?
What are some of the core concepts and key
ideas embodied within your school vision?
Through what process was it developed and
who was involved?
How is the school’s vision aligned with the
elements of a standards based instructional
system or district-wide goals?
How does your school’s vision help to plan
and implement school-wide improvement
initiatives? What strategies are you using to
get there?
How do you ensure that the vision and its
goals get implemented?
In what ways is the vision used at your
school to achieve equitable student results?

What leadership support
structures enable leader
practice?

In what ways is your work supported at this
school?
Who do you go to try out a new idea? Has
this process worked for you before?
What additional support do you need to
achieve the goals of your school wide vision
or to sustain your current progress?
What support does your principal
have in identifying and
implementing the school
improvement initiatives?
From your perspective, is this
working? Why or why not? What
evidence can you cite in support
of your answer?
How does an urban school
principal create and sustain
organizational structures and
processes that promote effective
teacher practice and improve
student outcomes?

What instructional strategies do teachers use
to improve the achievement of the lowest
performing students? Higher performing
students?
What opportunities do you provide for your
teachers to work collaboratively?
How would you describe the culture and
climate of your school?
Is the school a safe, clean, and orderly place
that is conducive to student learning? What
evidence can you cite in support of your
answer?
What opportunities exist for you
and other teachers to work in
collaboration around core issues
of practice?
How often do you come together
and how do you spend your time?
How are you held accountable for
this work?
How does
participation/collaboration in the
PLC, Common Planning Time
impact your teaching?

182

Table B1, Continued
How can the VAL ED
Instrument serve as a coaching
tool to assist principals to
become effective instructional
leaders?

Please tell me which coaching structure
supports your work, the “Elbow to Elbow”
or the “Telephone Coaching” structure?
Describe how this coaching support model
works.
Please describe your coach/mentee
interaction and include in your discussion
the length of time of interaction and give an
example of what that interaction looks like.
How do you and your coach decide what to
work on? And how is your progress
assessed?
How is the Halverson Rubric used? And
how does it inform your work with the
coach?
Which coaching model do you and your
coach use the “conferring model” or the
reflective practice model”? How does that
model work?
How do your teachers use the Principles of
Learning in developing their lesson plans?
Which principle are you focusing on this
year? Why? Who supports teachers to
ensure the principles are in the lesson?
What is your understanding of Disciplinary
Literacy and how do you recognize this in
the classrooms? What evidence is there that
teachers are using Disciplinary Literacy
concepts/components in their classroom
curriculum, instruction, and assessment
practices?
Describe the training you’ve had around
Disciplinary Literacy (PLC, POLS~
academic rigor) concepts? In what ways
has your coach been involved in building
you capacity to lead this work?

183

APPENDIX C

CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL

____pre ____post
Research Question #4: What support structures are in place that enables a principal to implement
and sustain effective (school) structures and processes?
Content: What is the activity being observed? Who are the participants?

Strategies: How are the participants being observed
learning/participating/applying skills, knowledge and concepts? What are they
doing?

Alignment: How does the behavior correlate to the ISLLC/CPSELS/McR
EL responsibilities – Descriptions of Practice?

Observation Protocol ____pre ____post
Research Question #3: How does an urban school principal create (and sustain) organizational
structures (climate) and processes that promote effective teacher practices and improve student
outcomes?

184

Appendix C, Continued
Content: What is the activity being observed? Who are the participants?

Strategies: How are the participants being observed
learning/participating/applying skills, knowledge and concepts? What are they
doing?

Alignment: How does the behavior correlate to the ISLLC/CPSELS/McR
EL responsibilities – Descriptions of Practice?

185

APPENDIX D

DOCUMENT REVIEW PROTOCOL
____pre ____post
Research Question #1: How do (effective school) leadership capacity building programs prepare
(urban) principals to influence how schools function, (professional practice of teachers) and
(student outcomes) what students learn?
Content: What is the document?
Alignment: How does the document provide evidence of professional
leadership standard implementation?

Meeting Agendas & Minutes
Document Analysis Protocol
Purpose: This protocol is designed to provide the researcher with an outline to extract the
document’s most pertinent information and data. Gathering this information allows the
researcher to find the schools’ story, its strengths and its challenges.

Comprehensive
Needs Assessment

API Data

AYP Data

186

Appendix D, Continued
Standardized test
data

District Assessments

Other Findings

Achievement Goals
for Students
Reading/Writing:

Math:

Plan for Student
Achievement

Measures 1 - 6

What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
I. About this School

II. School Climate

III. School Facilities

187

Appendix D, Continued
IV. Teachers

V. Support Staff

VI. Curriculum &
Instruction Materials

VII. School Finances

VIII. Student Performance

IX. Accountability

X. School Completion &
Postsecondary
Performance

XI. Instructional Planning
& Scheduling

188

APPENDIX E

MEETING OBSERVATION PROTOCOL

Purpose
The purpose of this observation is to identify some of the organizational structures and processes
the school has implemented by observing school meetings. Although this observation will only
give a snapshot of the entire picture, these meetings should show evidence of how the staff and
principals interact with each other, processes that have been established including common
procedures and routines.
Focus
Research Question #3 ~ How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and improve student outcomes?

Setting People
Type of Meeting:

Location of Meeting:

Duration of Meeting:

Frequency of Meeting:

Who attends the meeting? (e. g.,
certificated only, certificated & classified,
students, parents, etc.)
Who facilitates the meeting? (Principal,
assistant principal, facilitator, department
head, etc.)

Is there a particular committee,
department, group, or person that has
specific responsibilities, or reports out
during every meeting? Explain.

189

Appendix E, Continued
Routines/Procedures Content/Focus
What seems to be some of the normal
procedures? (e. g., sign-in sheets,
announcements, celebrations, review of
minutes or agendas, seating arrangement,
etc.)
What are the goals of the meeting? Circle all
that apply
Professional development/training
Sit and get of information
Collaboration among department or grade
level
Combination of the above
Other ___________________

What is the focus of the meeting? Circle
all that apply.
Curriculum and Instruction
Analyzing Data
District & Site Announcements
Facilities and Management
Discipline/Students
Student Grades
District Problems/Complaints
Variety of Information
Other ___________________
Who seems to be responsible for
preparing the content/focus of the
meeting?
Nonverbal Communication Additional Comments & Questions
What is the tone and attitude of the
participants? Circle all that apply
Engaged/Interactive/Ask questions
Complaining (Length of meeting, students,
parents, school issues, etc.)
Off-task behaviors/comments/questions
Uncooperative/rude/disruptive
Leaves early
Other _______________________
What outside factors or school issues
seem interfere with the goal of the
meeting?

190
APPENDIX F

EXAMPLE OF VAL-ED SURVEY RESULTS FOR BOTH CASE STUDIES

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206
APPENDIX G

PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING DEFINITIONS

Table G1: Principles of Learning Chart

207
APPENDIX H

INFORMED CONSENT

208

209

210
APPENDIX I
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENDA CASE STUDY ONE

211

212

213

214
APPENDIX J
PROPOSAL APPROVAL LETTER

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this case study was to contribute to the knowledge base about effective components of leadership capacity-building programs and support structures that enable and sustain school leader practice. The focus of this study was to find out how principal participation in the Achieving Principal Coaching Initiative (APCI) influenced leadership practices in the urban school context. This mixed-methods case study investigated the following five questions: (1) How does participation in the APCI prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders?

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A new era of leadership: preparing leaders for urban schools & the 21st century

PDF

Building capacity in urban schools by coaching principal practice toward greater student achievement

PDF

Influences on principals' leadership practice

PDF

An exploration of leadership capacity building and effective principal practices

PDF

Preparing leaders for the challenges of the urban school

PDF

The effects of coaching on building and sustaining effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator

PDF

Building leadership capacity to support principal succession

PDF

The leadership gap: preparing leaders for urban schools

PDF

Leading the way: the effective implementation of reform strategies and best practices to improve student achievement in math

PDF

An exploration of principal self-efficacy beliefs about transformational leadership behaviors

PDF

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

PDF

Promising practices: developing principal leadership succession

PDF

School leadership: preparation, recruitment, and retention of principals

PDF

Building capacity for leadership in urban schools

PDF

Building the next generation of leaders in K–6 institutions

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Secondary school reform and improved math achievement: a case study of site efforts at Mission Valley High School

PDF

A story of achievement in areas where others fail: a case study of secondary school reform in mathematics at Pacific North High School

PDF

Sustaining quality leadership at prep academy charter schools: promising practices for leadership development in public schools

PDF

The impact of leadership on student achievement in high poverty schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Kammeyer, Diane E. (author)

Core Title Principal leadership practice: the achieving principal coaching initiative

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 09/18/2010

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

Tag Coaching,Educational Leadership,leadership theories,OAI-PMH Harvest,principalship,professional development,VAL-ED survey

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Reed, Margaret (committee chair), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member), Marsh, David D. (committee member)

Creator Email diane_kammeyer@busdk12.com,dkammeye@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3457

Unique identifier UC1420466

Identifier etd-Kammeyer-3908 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-394365 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3457 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Kammeyer-3908.pdf

Dmrecord 394365

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kammeyer, Diane E.

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu