Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The effects of mentoring on building and sustaning effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator
(USC Thesis Other)
The effects of mentoring on building and sustaning effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE EFFECTS OF MENTORING ON BUILDING AND SUSTAINING
EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP PRACTICE OF AN URBAN SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATOR
by
Kimberly Vladovic
______________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2009
Copyright 2009 Kimberly Vladovic
ii
DEDICATION
These last few years have been a journey that would not have been possible
without the loving support and encouragement from my family and friends. I would
like to start off by thanking my mom, who has provided me with endless hours of her
time and devotion. She continues to give so much of herself, without a second
thought, and celebrated all of the successes along the way. I also want to thank my
father who always knows how to give those speeches and words of encouragement
especially when I needed them most. Thank you for your help with the papers and
your advice, I would have never even applied to this school had it not been for you.
I want to thank my brother, John, who has been my constant reminder that I can do
whatever I set my mind to. You have been my sounding board, and have always
been there cheering me on, and not letting me give up! I am truly lucky to have such
an amazing brother, and I thank you for everything. This paper is also dedicated to
my grandparents, who are now long gone, but I know are smiling down and will be
on graduation day.
I also want to dedicate this paper to my friends who have been there the last
three years and have supported me through this process. Jaimi, thank you so much
for being the understanding cheerleader through this journey that began when I
received my first denial letter. I really appreciate your patience and excitement for
me throughout my experiences. Lora, thank you so much for being there and
listening; had it not been for the crash course GRE study sessions I would have never
been considered for this program. Debbie, thank you for being that positive support
iii
system. Helena, from that first night in Gib’s class to those countless late nights at
our homes and the phone calls. I would not have been able to finish had it not been
for my partner in crime! You are such a wonderful person and a friend for life.
Stacey, your phone calls, advice, and friendship have been invaluable. I love all of
you and dedicate this paper to you!
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There have been several people who have impacted me along this journey
and I want to acknowledge their knowledge and expertise that have been
instrumental to my successful completion of my dissertation. I feel privileged to
have worked with such esteemed professors who served on my committee: my
Chairperson, Dr. Margaret Reed who introduced me to such a fascinating topic; Dr.
Stuart Gothold who graciously joined my team and provided reflective insight; and
Dr. Kathy Stowe who continuously supported me with her words of wisdom and
friendship. The research challenges provided by Dr. Reed have inspired me to
continue to aspire to greater leadership roles within education so that I can build my
capacity and impact the practices of others.
I would like to thank Dr. Colleen Crowley and Al Fasani both of whom wrote
glowing letters of recommendation and have supported me the past three years.
I also had the guidance of Dr. Julie Slayton who provided me with a
tremendous amount of research in the area of effective leadership practices and
provided me with the foundations for my literature review.
I have also been incredibly fortunate to have had the support of two
principals, Dr. Emmanuel Annor and Lee Lee Chou. During the past three years
they provided their unwavering support and understanding. Lee Lee has been
especially encouraging this year as she afforded her compassionate words, kind
heart, and pep talks.
v
Finally, I must thank EdisonLearning and the school in Chicago for allowing
me to study their school. Without the participation of the principal and staff
members who were very accommodating and welcoming during this study, this
project would not have been possible.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ………………………………………………………………………… ii
Acknowledgments ….……………………………………………………………. iv
List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………. vii
List of Figures …………………………………………………………………... viii
Abstract …………………………………………………………………………... ix
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ……………………………………………. 1
Chapter Two: Literature Review ……………………………………………….. 13
Chapter Three: Research Methodology ………………………………………… 57
Chapter Four: Summary of Findings (Results) …………………………………. 83
Chapter Five: Summary of Results and Theoretical Findings ………………… 180
References ……………………………………………………………………… 205
Appendix A: Principal Pre-Intervention Protocol …………………………….. 215
Appendix B: Principal Post-Intervention Protocol ……………………………. 216
Appendix C: Teacher Post-Intervention Interview Protocols …………………. 219
Appendix D: Mentor Questionnaire …………………………………………… 222
Appendix E: Questions for Trainers of Edison Mentors ………………………. 223
Appendix F: …………………………………………………………………….. 224
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. Timeline of Study ……………………………………………………. 80
Table 3-2. Triangulation Matrix of data collection instruments used to ………... 81
answer the questions
Table 4-1. Triangulation Matrix of data collection instruments used to ………... 84
answer the questions
Table 4-2. Students’ RTI Averages on the Northwest Evaluation Assessment …. 91
Table 4-3. Alignment of the Murphy (2006) and EdisonLearning Leadership ….. 95
Frameworks
Table 4-4. Comparison of Principal Scores on the Pre and Post VAL-ED ……. 103
Assessment
Table 4-5. Change in Overall Performance Levels in both Core Components ... 105
and Key Processess
Table 4-6. Principal’s Daily Routine …………………………………………… 120
Table 4-7. The Alignment of Leadership Roles between the Learning-Centered . 124
Leadership Framework and EdisonLearning Leadership Framework
Table 4-8. A Summary of the Change in Overall Performance Scores in the …. 146
Intersection between VAL-ED Core Components and Key Processes when
Comparing the Pre- and Post-Assessment
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Conceptual Framework …………………………………………….. 56
Figure 3-1. Demographics of Charter School District ………………………….. 67
Figure 3-2. A Comparison of RTI Scores Between Students Attending ……….. 69
Milton Place Primary Center and the National Average in Grades 1 and 2
Figure 3-3. VAL-ED Leadership Behaviors …………………………………….. 73
Figure 3-4. Composite VAL-ED Scores ………………………………………… 79
Figure 4-1. Descriptions of the VAL-ED Performance Levels ………………… 98
Figure 4-2. "Illustration of Report Results: Integrated Results Across ………… 99
Respondents"
Figure 4-3. Mrs. Ericson's Scores on the Pre-Assessment of the VAL-ED …… 101
Figure 4-4. The Intersection of Core Components and Key Processes on the … 102
Pre-Assessment
Figure 4-5. Summary of the Scores on the Post-Assessment of the VAL-ED …. 104
Figure 4-6. The Intersection of Core Components and Key Processes on the …. 106
Post-Assessment
ix
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the
EdisonLearning Mentor/Protégé (ELMP) model and effective urban school principal
leadership practice. The (ELMP) implemented a mentoring support structure to
strengthen the leadership practices of its principals in five areas: Instructional
Leader, Organizational Leader, Culture Builder, Site Manager, and Edison Schools
Executive. These standards of expectations for leadership practice were aligned with
effective research based leadership practices (Murphy et al., 2006; Leithwood et al.,
2004; and Marzano, Waters, McNulty, 2005) mentoring practices (cite Daresh, 2004;
and Davis et al., 2005). This study was significant because it sought to add to the
knowledge base regarding the strengths and weaknesses of principal mentoring
support structures and their relationship to effective leadership practice in the urban
school setting. Additionally, it sought to fill some of the gaps in the literature on the
effect principal’s practice has on effective teacher practice. Three research questions
were examined in this study:
1. How does working with an EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program
Mentor affect the leadership practices of an urban school principal?
2. What organizational structures support the implementation of the
mentoring model?
3. How do the leadership practices of the principal affect professional
practice of teachers?
x
This study implemented a mixed-methods, purposive case study approach to
analyze the impact that working with an EdisonLearning mentor had on the
principal’s leadership practices. The quantitative portion of the research employed
the use of the Vanderbilt Assessment for Leadership in Education (VAL-ED)
Survey, while the qualitative component included an in-depth case study of an
EdisonLearning school principal’s practice.
The study’s key findings revealed that the EdisonLearning mentor provided
the principal with guidance and support, assistance with problem solving, and
development of technical knowledge and skills. The results also indicated a positive
relationship between the principal’s having worked with an EdisonLearning mentor
and an improvement in the principal’s leadership practices especially in the areas of
1) enhancing the curriculum, 2) building a culture of learning and professional
development, and 4) making connections to the community. This study also found
that the structures that supported the implementation of the EdisonLearning
mentoring model were the EdisonLearning 1) mentor training, 2) weekly meetings
between the mentor and protégé, 3) planning tools, and 4) the relationship that
developed between the mentor and the protégé. Finally, the findings revealed some
evidence that through the enactment of learning centered leadership practices, the
principal created and supported several conditions for teacher professional practice:
1)established a common language that reflected the school’s mission of high
standards for student achievement 2) created an On-B.A.S.E. system; 3) executed a
school-wide safety plan; 4) encouraged professional development; modeled data
xi
analysis strategies, and 4) included parents in the learning process. However, the
extent to which teacher practices were impacted by the leader’s practice was not
revealed by this study.
1
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
During the 1950s when the Soviets launched Sputnik and many Americans
feared the Russians had surpassed the quality of this nation’s educational system
(particularly in science and mathematics), the public began to become more
cognizant of the dire conditions affecting American public schools. As a result,
much of the political reforms initiated in education both politically and materially,
reflected society’s discontent with the prevailing substandards of student
achievement (Wirt & Kirst, 2005) and subsequently the emphasis focused on the
impoverished conditions of inner-city schools. Policy makers and politicians alike
began to understand the link between students living in poverty and their
unsatisfactory performance in school (Cross, 2004). In response, Lyndon B. Johnson
passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 as part of his
War on Poverty, which served to provide funding to improve the education of
students living in economically substandard conditions. The fundamental principal
behind ESEA was to get adequate funds to the schools, allowing them to purchase
resources that could be used directly for the students’ education (Cross, 2004). The
ESEA was monumental to education and paved the way for much of the later
reforms attempted by the No Child Left Behind Act (2002) also called NCLB.
Congress, with pressure from George W. Bush, reauthorized the ESEA
(2001), calling it NCLB and “stressed the need for all students, no matter what their
2
backgrounds or racial heritage, to achieve at high levels” (Cross, 2004, p. 128).
NCLB was geared toward leveling the playing field for students living in poverty
and to ensure all students had access to a rigorous curriculum and highly qualified
teachers. Educational equity resonates throughout the legislation, which
fundamentally includes four components: accountability through state-wide testing, a
small amount of flexibility, increased financial assistance to underperforming
schools, and greater parental choice (Cross, 2004). With the urgency to guarantee
that all students are proficient in reading and mathematics and more emphasis being
placed on the accountability systems and transparent data, a greater public awareness
of the discrepancies in student achievement and the correlation of those
discrepancies to their socio-economic and racial backgrounds became evident.
Statement of the Problem
Researchers have indicated that some progress has been made in closing the
achievement gaps among students of color as compared to their White and Asian
peers (Wirt & Kirst, 2005; and Johnson, 2002). However, the discrepancy in
achievement levels on state standardized tests, especially for students attending high
poverty, urban schools has widened (Darling-Hammond, 2007). The trends are
dramatic as fewer African American and Latino students are graduating from high
school or receiving diplomas from college as compared to 50 years ago (Darling-
Hammond, 2007). The research suggests that many factors may be linked with the
indicators of student outcomes, but several recent studies have attempted to
3
investigate the profound effects the school principal has on student outcomes
(Hallinger & Heck, 2005; and Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005).
Researchers (Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, & Porter, 2006; Leithwood, Louis,
Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; and Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005) have
argued that the school principal plays a pivotal role in a school’s overall success as
measured by state achievement data. As the instructional leader of the school, the
principal must be the change agent and set the high standards for academic
achievement. The impact the principal has on teacher practice had also been
investigated (Murphy, et al., 2006; and Leithwood, et al., 2004) because studies have
noted that teachers are instrumental in improving students’ achievement levels
(Darling-Hammond, 2006).
The failing urban school setting of the 1950s, along with the marked interest
from businesses and politicians alike, created an interest in the field of education.
During this era, much of the research focused on the leadership practices that were
necessary to bring about reform in the inner-city schools. Instructional leadership
became critical in many urban school settings where the principal possessed
behaviors of, “strong, directive leadership focused on curriculum and instruction
(Hallinger, 2007, p. 2). Interestingly, unlike previous leadership theories,
instructional leadership attempted to make a connection between the principal’s
behavior and student achievement. Hallinger and Murphy (1985), two prominent
researchers in the field, have argued that the link is often indirect, but one that should
be considered when evaluating the effectiveness of principal behaviors. However,
4
duly noted from much of the early literature is the lack of empirical data to support
their findings and that the effects of the variables in the school contexts (i.e., student
population, staff members, community, etc) that limits the effectiveness of a purely
instructional leader (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985).
As Elmore (2000) contends, the context of a school influences the type of
leadership necessary for that particular setting. Furthermore, Hallinger (2003)
maintains, “The context of the school is a source of constraints, resources, and
opportunities that the principal must understand and address in order to lead” (p.
346). Urban schools differ from a suburban and rural school in their demographics,
teacher qualifications and ability, and student access to resources. Cuban (2001)
argues against the pervasive premise in the field literature that the effects of
contemporary educational leadership have been consistent across districts. While,
the research indicates that certain environments require particular styles of leadership
practice (Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004), the empirical
evidence supporting the characteristics that have been effective for certain settings is
not very clear or lacking.
The restructuring movement of the 1990s led to many educational reformers
moving away from instructional leadership because some constraints inherent to the
urban context such as the overwhelming responsibility for a single individual to be
the central educational leader (Cuban, 1988). The shift toward one where the leader
was considered transformational (Hallinger, 2007) in his or her approach to
leadership began. This shared leadership prevailed and educational leaders began to
5
understand that the principalship is an extremely complex job with numerous
demands that often are too overwhelming for a single person to accomplish alone
(Cuban, 1988; and Hallinger, 2007). The transformational leader develops a school
culture where there is collective commitment to the shared goals of increasing
student achievement, fostering professional growth, and ensures that the
relationships among all stakeholders are developed (Leithwood, Jantzi, Silins, &
Dart, n.d.). The research indicated that the context affects the success of the
transformational leader (Leithwood, et al., 2004). However, the research is weak in
identification of the support structures necessary to assist the urban school principal
who implemented a transformational approach to leadership. Some of the research
seemed to indicate that there has been a lack of preparation for effective leaders who
are equipped to create equitable learning opportunities in the urban setting, and thus
more focus should be on leadership training for social justice (Marshall, 2004).
Furman (2003) (as cited in Bates, 2006) indicated that there is a renewed
impetus for social justice leadership because of the increased heterogeneous student
population, the considerable gaps in student achievement among the subgroups, and
the overall inequalities that have derived from the many existing policies that are
currently in place. Social justice leadership is defined as advocating for equitable
access to education for all students by placing special emphasis on those groups who
have been otherwise denied. With over 13 million students living below the poverty
level (Blanco, 2003, As cited in Normore & Blanco, 2006) attending urban schools,
the motivation to move toward a different type of leadership initiative has been
6
necessary. However, the current conditions of principal leadership training have
produced leaders that are unprepared to contend with various problems encountered
in an urban setting because they are often left unsupported once they completed the
program and are placed in an urban school setting.
Davis, Darling-Hammond, Lapointe, and Meyerson (2005) have argued that
leadership programs should have support structures to build the principals’ capacity.
They described various tools to sustain principal practice. However, absent from
their research is the implementation of a mentoring model. In a meta-analysis of 40
studies, Hansford and Ehrich (2006) found that principals who had mentors felt
supported and inspired to reflect on their professional practice. Significantly missing
from the literature is the empirical data to support the effects mentoring had in
changing the principal’s leadership practices and behaviors that ultimately affected
teacher practice.
Purpose of the Study
A focused analysis of the data of failing urban schools draws attention to the
importance of conducting research on principal practice and the training needed to
prepare them to overcome the challenges that face urban school principals. The
EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program (ELPMP) is one leadership development
program that has claimed to be a successful support structure for administrators
(ELPMP, Spring 2008). The program implements a mentor approach, whereby the
mentor and principal, who is referred to as the protégé, collectively work together to
ultimately improve student outcomes by achieving short and long-term goals.
7
The purpose of this study is to analyze change in leadership knowledge,
practice, and beliefs as a result of principals working collaboratively with their
mentor. In addition, this research hopes to gain insight into the inherent support
structures that facilitates change in principal practice. Additionally, another aim of
this study is to ascertain the influence principals have on teacher practice.
The Research Questions
The purpose of this mixed-methods, purposive case study is to evaluate the
efficacy of the EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program intervention on principals’
leadership practices, teacher instructional practices in the schools they lead, and
student learning outcomes. Both qualitative and quantitative measures will be used
to collect evidence of the change in a principal’s leadership effectiveness in terms of
their behaviors as a result of their participation in a capacity building and support
program. There are three questions that this study will attempt to address:
1. How does working with an EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program
Mentor affect the leadership practices of an urban school principal?
2. What organizational structures support the implementation of the
mentoring model?
3. How do the leadership practices of the principal affect professional
practice of teachers?
The Significance of the Study
As previously stated, there is a significant gap in the literature in terms of the
empirical data to support the effects mentoring has on observable and/or quantifiable
8
changes in the leadership practices of principals. This study contributes to that gap,
given that it is a sustained examination of the EdisonLearning Principal Mentor
Program. Additionally, this study may demonstrate the novel use of the
EdisonLearning mentor to enhance leadership qualities, specifically the
EdisonLearning leadership intervention program.
Until now, much of the research on principal practice has been qualitative in
nature, and this study will evaluate the change in practice from both a quantitative
and qualitative perspective. The findings will also add to the research base on the
successful practices of urban school leaders and their effects on teacher practice and
to fill those gaps in the literature. Consequently, this study should prove to be useful
to various audiences interested in effective leadership practices, as well as the
examination and application of specific interventions to enable educational
leadership. Furthermore, the study may advance knowledge in the study of
leadership practice for instructional improvement and the creation of effective
support structures to enable that practice.
Limitations
There are several limitations in this study. One limitation is the expertise and
abilities of the EdisonLearning mentor. All EdisonLearning mentors attend the same
training sessions and are provided the opportunity to join a network of other mentors
to support them in improving their skills. However, a potential threat to the internal
validity of the EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program, itself, is the potential for a
principal to receive a mentor who is not strong. In addition, another limitation is
9
with the potential subject-rater biases of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in
Education (VAL-ED). The VAL-ED is a 360˚ assessment tool that will be used to
measure leadership effectiveness. At times when a participant is well-liked, their
evaluations can often be skewed and based off of their popularity rather than their
ability (Webb & Norton, 2009). The VAL-ED attempts to eliminate this halo effect
bias by having the rater provide evidence for his/her score.
Delimitation
The time constraints imposed by the length of this dissertation program itself
is a delimitation that needs to be accounted for. The study must be completed within
a time frame, and therefore data collection and analysis must be conducted at
specific times in order to meet those deadlines. The VAL-ED will be administered
pre- post with time to demonstrate growth as a result of the mentoring sessions,
however, this aspect of the study is also affected by the compacted time frame. There
are only four months between the administration of the pre and post tests, which may
affect the amount of change uncovered in a short period of time. Another
delimitation of the study is the decision to interview a representative sample of the
teachers as opposed to the entire staff. Although, the entire staff may have provided
more information on the principal’s practice, the extensive data collection and
analysis that would have involved was not efficacious for a single researcher and not
feasible given the time constraints. Therefore, the representative sample was chosen
so that each grade level and experience level is represented in the study to provide
that rich, detailed feedback.
10
Assumptions
The assumption of this study is that the principals receiving the ELPMP
mentor did/will implement the strategies they learn with integrity. Another
assumption is the ELPMP mentor did/will adhere to their duties, support their
protégé by providing them with knowledge, and are skilled in how to effectively
implement the mentoring model. It is also presumed that the protégé is an active
participant who wants to improve in their professionalism and become more
informed in their knowledge, beliefs, and practice.
Definition of Terms
Achievement Gap: The discrepancy in student academic performance as
compared by subgroup outcomes.
ESEA: Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
EL: English Learners are students whose primary language is not English,
which is reported by their parents when they are enrolled, and the scores on the
California English Language Development Test (CELDT) suggest they do not have
the necessary skills to be successful in an English Only classroom.
ISLLC: Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium are the national
standards of principal and leadership behavior.
NCLB: No Child Left Behind Act (2002) is the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It is a federal bill that provides money to
schools who receive Title I funds.
Protégé: The principal who works with an Edison Learning mentor.
11
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, and is a 360 degree assessment.
360º Assessment: An evaluation tool that provides a comprehensive view of
the school leader by assessing various stakeholders’ (i.e., teachers, supervisors,
parents, students, other colleagues, and classified staff members) perspectives on
principal performance.
Organization of the Study
This study investigates an urban administrator’s knowledge, beliefs, and
leadership practices as a result of participating in a leadership development program.
In order to explore this further, this study is organized into five sequential chapters.
Chapter 1 is an overview of the study and includes a historical background to the
current leadership practices in an urban school setting. This is followed by a
statement of the problem, the purpose for this study, research questions, and the
significance of the study. The limitations, delimitations, assumptions, and definition
of terms are also discussed. Chapter 2 is a review of the literature and includes a
detailed account of the current system of accountability under NCLB (2002). The
urban context is also explored. An integrated model of leadership is described and
the necessary support structures to sustain leadership practice are also detailed.
Chapter 3 thoroughly explains the methodology implemented for this mixed methods
study. The ELPMP intervention and instruments utilized are described. In addition,
the participants, setting, and data collection methods and analyses are included.
12
Chapter 4 presents and discusses the findings. Chapter 5 is a summary of the study
and will discuss the implications of the findings, and make suggestions for future
research.
13
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Over the last 100 hundred years, urban education in the United States has
been frequently studied, praised, blamed, and redirected by various government and
private agencies. Since early 2002, with the passage of the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) legislation, urban schools have again become the linchpin of the American
public education debate as students’ academic proficiency and high stakes
accountability are at the forefront of the political agendas affecting education. In
reforming the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), NCLB (2002)
aimed at reducing the growing disparities in achievement between impoverished
students of color and their White and Asian peers (McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004).
According to Johnson (2002), students of African American, Latino, and Native
American decent, living in high poverty and attending urban schools are performing
at the lowest level of achievement on high stakes outcome measures.
However grim the current circumstances seem, there are urban schools that
are the anomaly and are demonstrating academic successes as a result of several
conditions that are currently in place. The research indicates that there is a
relationship between effective principal leadership and student achievement
(Vanderhaar, Munoz, & Rodosky, 2006; Shen, Rodriguez-Campos & Rincones-
Gomez, 2000; Leithwood, et al, 2004; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; and
Hallinger, 2003). The principal is accountable for educating teachers on current
14
pedagogical strategies that improve their practice and thereby impact student
performance. It is also obvious that the demands and complexities of principalships
vary in accordance with the context in which the school is situated. In addition to the
plethora of duties all principal must accomplish, a leader in an urban setting is
required to handle even more complex tasks than those who are principals in
suburban and rural schools (Portin, 2000) because the economic, social, and
academic challenges are greater in urban schools. For example, urban schools tend
to service primarily African American and Latino students who come from low
socio-economic homes (Anyon, 1997). The urban schools are usually overcrowded
and are staffed with underqualified teachers (Department of Education, 2000; Cuban,
2001; Darling-Hammond, 2006; and NCEA, 1996). In analyzing the widening
achievement gaps in these urban schools, it is evident that most principals are ill-
prepared to lead in urban school settings (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson,
Orr, & Cohen, 2007).
Good leaders possess certain skills, beliefs, and knowledge about effective
practice that influence student outcomes (Vanderhaar, Munoz, & Rodosky, 2006;
Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; and Leithwood, 1994). However, there is
limited empirical and rigorous research in the area of effective leadership practice
(Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; and Hallinger &
Heck, 2005). Furthermore, there are also significant gaps in the literature conducted
in urban school settings (Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, & Porter, 2006). The purpose of
this study is to contribute to the existing knowledge base on the study of effective
15
leadership practice and fill in gaps in the literature by providing empirical support of
successful principal behaviors in urban school settings. This research study aims to
analyze the effect on leadership practices of those who have participated in a
leadership intervention program on leadership practice designed to promote a change
in the principal’s knowledge, beliefs, skills, and behaviors that lead to improved
teacher practice and ultimately increased student achievement.
The literature review will outline several major topics that will demonstrate
the significance of investigating leadership practice in urban schools as follows: 1)
The recent trends in the standards based accountability reform movement as well as
2) the current achievement gaps in urban schools will form the bases for promoting a
sense of urgency for profound changes that need to be made in the current system for
preparing principals to successfully lead in urban schools. In order to understand
how urban school leaders face innumerable challenges, 3) the urban school context
will be explored and 4) the type of leader needed to change the current status quo of
principalship will be discussed. 5) Characteristics of effective leadership will also be
explored from the theoretical framework of instructional, learning-centered, and
transformational leadership. It will be important to then 6) investigate what effective
practice looks like from those theoretical foundations. Finally, 7) the research on the
role of leadership support structures in sustaining effective urban school leadership
practice will be discussed. The next section will explain the effects high stakes
public accountability has on improving student achievement in urban schools.
16
The High Stakes of Public Accountability for Urban Schools in California
If the litmus test for effective leadership is to be the results achieved by
students, then it could be argued that a majority of the urban educational leaders are
not successful. Due to federal legislations embodied within NCLB (2002), there has
been an impetus for principals to raise student achievement and ensure that all
students are proficient in English language arts and mathematics by the 2013-2014
school year. NCLB, which replaced the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA), is based on four principles: 1) more accountability for students’ academic
achievement at state, district, and school levels; 2) increased flexibility in how
districts and schools allocate federal funds; 3) implementation of programs that are
based on scientific research; and 4) allowing parents, whose children attend
underperforming schools, more educational decision rights (U.S. Department of
Education, 2008). In addition to NCLB serving as the driving force which calls for
more accountability for improvement in student achievement and equity in student
learning outcomes, while requiring student proficiency standards (McKenzie &
Scheurich, 2004), the legislation has also resulted in the standards movement for
teacher professional practice as well.
NCLB is an expansive piece of reform legislation that not only holds students
accountable through a set of rigorous standards, but also has implications for teacher
professional learning and practice as well. Under NCLB teachers must meet an
arduous set of criteria to be deemed Highly Qualified for state licensure or High,
Objective, Uniform, State Standard of Evaluation, commonly referred to as
17
HOUSSE (Department of Education, 2004). In California, those teachers who
received their teacher credential after July 1, 2002, have several newly added
standards. For instance, an Intern credential or Emergency Credential will not be
valid for more than three years, prospective teachers will have to pass the Multiple
Subjects Aptitude Test (MSAT), and will have to pass a similar subject matter test if
in secondary (Department of Education, 2006). Prior to NCLB, many teachers,
especially in hard to staff urban schools, were teaching out of their credentialed area
and underqualified. According to research, effective teachers have deep content
knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. These critical professional
knowledge bases play a significant role in ensuring student academic success in the
classroom (Darling-Hammond, 2004; and Department of Education, 2006).
NCLB, which holds both students and teachers accountable through a set of
rigorous standards, also has implications for leaders’ professional learning and
practice. As part of the standards based reform movement, the California
Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSELs) were also developed as
the criteria through which principals are held accountable for their role in ensuring
improved student achievement and professional practice (WestEd, 2003). The
CPSELs are based on The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC)
national standards, which consist of a set of beliefs, dispositions, and practices that
leaders should demonstrate. According to the CPSELs, effective leaders should
exhibit proficiency in each of the following six leadership standards: 1) Developing,
implementing, and supporting a shared vision; 2) Developing a school culture that
18
promotes a strong instructional program, fosters professional growth, and possesses
inherent accountability measures; 3) Creating and managing an organization that
ensures a safe and effective learning environment; 4) Building a collaborative school
community and relationships with outside resources; 5) Demonstrate and model a
commitment to professional growth; and 6) Include all stakeholders in the decision-
making process (WestEd, 2003). Although the standards for effective leadership
practice are clear, the implementation of effective practice in schools often differs
vastly from the frameworks. Since, much of the research has used student
achievement to measure the effectiveness of principals (Hallinger, 2003; and
Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003), the next section will focus on a description of
student performance in urban schools prior to the implementation of NCLB.
Across the nation, urban schools have made progress in improving student
achievement both in the aggregate and at the student levels. In some schools districts
in New York, Georgia, and Texas, the achievement gaps between African-American
and Latino students and their White and Asian peers are decreasing while their
achievement levels are increasing (EdTrust, 2003). However, in spite of this trend in
certain schools, the majority of urban schools, especially those considered to be at
the poverty level and having high numbers of students of color, are still failing to
prepare their students to meet those standards (McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004).
According to the Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) project conducted by the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in 2005, the median reading
19
scores of fourth grade students in nine of the ten districts scored below the national
average.
According to EdTrust-West (2004), California is demonstrating steady
progress in achieving AYP at each grade level span. In 2004, 75% of all elementary
schools, 44% of all middle schools, and 51% of all high schools met their AYP
goals. This is a marked improvement compared to the 67% of elementary schools,
35% of middle schools, and 29% of high schools during the 2003 academic year.
However, there were many schools that did not meet their AYP for their subgroups
such as English Learner population, Latino, and African American (Education Trust-
West, 2004). A closer investigation of the achievement gaps in the urban setting is
necessary to paint the picture of the academic challenges an urban leader must
confront.
A majority of urban schools enroll a high percentage of students of color
(Anyon, 1997), and while NCLB has increased accountability measures for student
achievement, performance gaps are increasing, between African American and
Latino students and their White and Asian student counterparts (Education Trust-
West, 2004; and Johnson, 2002). These gaps are significant because they are
indicators of students’ performance toward academic content standards and their
readiness to be successful in college (Education Trust, 2003).
According to the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP, 2003),
African American students in California have continued to make progress in both
reading and mathematics. However, as compared with the other student groups (i.e.,
20
Latinos and Whites), the gap in African American achievement is closing at a much
slower pace. In addition, according to Education Trust-West, in 2004, only 27% of
California’s fourth grade African American students reached the proficient level in
reading and 35% had not achieved the basic level. These gaps are significant and are
exacerbated as students progress through schools. For example, by the fourth grade,
many African American students are already two years behind their White peers in
reading and mathematics. During middle school, studies have shown that the gap
increases and African American students fall three years behind; and by the end of
high school, many students are already four years behind their White peers
(Education Trust-West, 2004).
African American students are also struggling to pass the California High
School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), a high stakes exam that students are required to pass
as one criterion for high school graduation. In 2006, results from the test indicated
that 55% of tenth grade African American students in California were able to pass
the English/language arts portion of the exam, while only 31% were successful on
the math portion. Last year alone, the California Department of Education (2007)
found that the dropout rates among African American students were 24.4%.
However, even more alarming is that once the students enter the ninth grade, many
dropouts are not officially reported. A more accurate estimate is that over 40% of
African American students dropout before high school graduation (Education Trust-
West, 2004).
21
In analyzing the NAEP (2003) scale scores, Latino students in California
have also made some progress in reading and mathematics. However, when
compared to White students in fourth grade reading, there is still a 33 point gap. In
addition, only 24% of fourth grade Latino students are considered to be proficient in
reading/language arts, and 36% have still not reached the basic level (Education
Trust-West, 2004). Similar to African American students, once Latino students fall
behind in school, the effects in their later school years is dramatic. In 2003, eleventh
grade Latino students scored (677) about as well as seventh grade White students
(679) on the CAT/6, norm-referenced reading test. Therefore, by the end of high
school, many struggling Latino students are four years behind in math and reading as
compared to their White peers (Education Trust-West, 2004).
English Learners (EL), who make up approximately 48% California’s Latino
student population, are also trailing their White peers by roughly two years in both
reading and mathematics by the fourth grade. Furthermore, even though the English
language learners did make notable gains in grade four in both core content areas,
overall EL students are only scoring 14% proficient in English-Language Arts and
25% in mathematics statewide (California Department of Education, 2006).
Moreover, in comparison with 26 other states, California ranks 19th in Latino EL
student performance on standardized tests (Education Trust-West, 2004).
Similar to African American students, Latino students are struggling with
completing the requirements for high school completion. As of 2006, just 59% of
tenth grade Latino students passed the English Language arts portion of the
22
CAHSEE, while only 34% passed the math section (Education Trust-West, 2004).
According to the California Department of Education (2008), 19% of Latinos
dropped out of high school during the 2005-06 school year, while 33.4% of EL
students did not complete high school. Likewise, it is predicted that many more go
undocumented and a closer approximation is that by the time Latino students enter
ninth grade almost 44% will have dropped out before they reach their senior year
(Education Trust-West, 2004).
Urban leaders in California are faced with the challenge of trying to raise
achievement for all students while simultaneously closing the gaps in achievement
for poor and minority student groups. Historically, urban schools have high
populations of African American, Latino, and EL students (Anyon, 1997), therefore
a leader in this setting must be prepared to take on these demands. However,
achievement gaps are still present, and White and Asian students are outperforming
their peers in all core areas on high stakes measures of achievement.
In addition, the dropout rates among African American and Latino students
are significant, which have severe implications for their future success. A study
conducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census on Latinos
registering or finishing college (Education Trust, 2003), predicted that if
improvements are not made approximately, only 11% of every 100 kindergarten
students would receive a bachelor’s degree (Education Trust, 2003). Also significant
was that even though African American college enrollment rates have increased,
23
their graduation rates (41%) as compared to their White peers (61%) is still
significantly lower (Education Trust, 2003).
The consequences are dismal if nothing is done to eliminate the current
achievement gaps. Schools cannot continue to produce students who cannot meet
the high school exit requirements and who are unprepared to meet college entrance
requirements. This will result in dramatic effects on the future economic market.
Studies have demonstrated that students who are not successful in school, have lower
literacy skills and often drop out of school. As a result, they may have greater
difficulty obtaining long-term jobs, as compared to those students who performed
better, had higher verbal abilities, and graduated from high school (Lamb &
McKenzie, 2001; National Center for Education Statistics, 1996).
Strong leadership is needed in our urban schools to change the status quo and
the predictable pattern of low achievement among poor and minority students.
Leadership preparations programs must prepare leaders for success in the urban
context. High stakes accountability demands that all students achieve at much faster
rate. The next section will discuss the social and political challenges that leaders in
urban schools face which make their work more complex than the work of leaders in
other settings.
The Role Context Plays in Urban Schools
Principals are confronted with the demands of meeting the myriad
accountability requirements from the district and the state to increase student
achievement. In addition, they often have to mediate the expectations of parents,
24
teachers, staff members, district personnel, and other state officials (Davis, Darling-
Hammond, LaPointe, and Meyerson, 2005). Urban schools have several unique
features that often make them complex environments to navigate. For example,
principals working in urban schools have to be prepared to handle high numbers of
students who qualify for free and reduced lunch (NCES, 1996) and a steadily
increasing English Learner (EL) population (Garcia, 2002). Research has uncovered
that many students who receive free and reduced lunch and are part of the EL student
population take longer to acquire English and have difficulty reclassifying (Hakuta,
Butler, &Witt, 2002; Grissom, 2004). Urban schools provide services to a large
percentage of students who come from low income households, and over 40 percent
of them are classified as living in high poverty (NCES, 1996). In addition, Anyon
(1997) found that in the largest urban areas in the nation, a substantial percentage of
the population is comprised of African American or Latino families. Furthermore,
there has been a negative perception portrayed by the media that urban schools are
failing to successfully educate students within those challenging contexts (National
Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 1996; Cuban, 2001). The sensationalism
and images of the dire urban settings are often misrepresented or ignored, which can
further compound the real issues the principals encounter. With the pressures urban
principals are forced to confront on a daily basis, it is no surprise their students are
not making similar academic gains as compared to students in suburban and rural
schools.
25
Urban schools are different than their suburban counterparts in critical ways.
Unlike their suburban and rural counterparts, urban schools are overpopulated, have
fewer credentialed teachers, possess difficulty with attracting and retaining highly
qualified teachers, are commonly comprised of students who are African American
or Latino, who are often limited English speaking, are surrounded by high-poverty
neighborhoods, and lack access to the necessary resources to increase student
achievement (Department of Education, 2000; Cuban, 2001; NCEA, 1996; Ingersoll,
2004; Anyon, 1997; Lee, 2005; and Portin, 2000, Darling-Hammond, 2006). Urban
school principals face greater challenges than non-urban settings that further
confound their capacity to affect teacher practice and improve student performance.
Many urban schools serve students in overcrowded schools (Department of
Education, 2000). Research evidence indicates that these conditions impede
instruction and negatively impact student achievement (Rivera-Batiz & Marti, 1995).
According to the Department of Education (2000), some urban school districts like
the Los Angeles Unified School District, report that overcrowding is a significant
problem and that many classrooms contain far more students than desks can
accommodate. As a solution, principals are forced to have multiple educational
tracks and/or alter the length of the school day in order to accommodate the growing
number of students in many of these urban schools (Darling-Hammond, 2006). This
institutionalized segregation of students can have detrimental effects on student
achievement (Mitchell & Mitchell, 2005).
26
Principals in these urban settings often have difficulty hiring and retaining
qualified teachers to work in their schools as compared to other suburban or rural
areas (Cuban, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 2006; and NCEA, 1996). Although the
percentage of unqualified teachers has dropped in California from 83% in 2001 to
48% during the 2005 academic school year, the number is still alarming especially
when most of these emergency permit and/or teachers holding waivers (21%) are
working in high poverty schools (Esch, et al, 2005). Additionally, in urban schools
where as many as 87% of the teachers disclose that they have a responsibility to
teach English Learners (EL), approximately 48% of these teachers have the
necessary credentials required to instruct those students (Esch, et al., 2005).
Although this study did not indicate a causal relationship between unqualified
teachers and EL student performance, the statistics are alarming given the integral
role teachers play in students’ academic achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2004).
This misalignment, however, is pervasive in urban schools where principals are
confronted with having to fill classrooms with teachers who are ill-prepared. This
shortage creates an even greater challenge to increasing student achievement.
Urban school principals face the difficulty of supervising teachers that hold
the belief that students’ failure is a result of internal inadequacies. McKenzie and
Scheurich (2004) describe this as a deficit model where teachers believe that the
students come to school unmotivated and incapable of learning at high levels as a
result of their intelligence and inferior home culture. The literature reveals that
teachers who hold these beliefs often treated the students negatively (McKenzie,
27
2001 as cited in McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004). The research indicates that low
expectations can pervade urban schools and set a school-wide standard by which the
organization ultimately underserves students (McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004). As
students are exposed to instruction that lacks academic rigor, they begin to set lower
standards for themselves. Teachers and administrators, affected by this self-fulfilling
prophecy, begin to perceive students from the deficit perspective, which according to
McKenzie & Scheurich (2004), generates this vicious cycle of failure in student
outcomes. Many urban school leaders are challenged by teachers who possess
apathetic deficit beliefs.
Along with enumerable socio-economic factors and school conditions, urban
school principals are also faced with the challenge of having access to adequate
resources (NCES, 1996; Lee, 2005; Portin, 2000; Darling-Hammond, 2007; and
Darling-Hammond, 2006). Across the country, urban schools spend fewer dollars
per pupil than their non-urban counterparts. The California Postsecondary Education
Commission (CPEC) (as cited in Darling-Hammond, 2004) estimates that there is a
$4,480 gap in spending between “high-spending and low-spending school districts”
(p. 1938) in California. This has a profound impact when considering the amount of
professional development and training that is needed to assist underqualified urban
school teachers to improve their instructional practice. In addition, school buildings
and campuses are run down (Darling-Hammond, 2004) and do not create effective
conditions for teaching and learning aligned with the standards. There is also a lack
of access to up to date instructional technology and community resources in urban
28
schools (Lee, 2005). This can play a tremendous factor in student learning because
increased access to resources has been linked with improved student achievement
(Greenwald, Hedges, & Laine, 1996; and Archibald, 2006).
Myriad cultural and contextual factors, along with limited access to quality
resources, have confounded the role of the urban school principal. The one-size fits
all approach to identifying principals to lead the nation’s schools is not effective for
all environments. There is considerable evidence that the school context plays an
integral role in determining the type of leadership that is effective in creating the
conditions for quality teaching and learning in schools. An urban setting requires a
different type of leader who can mitigate those challenges and increase student
achievement.
The unique context of urban schools described in the preceding paragraphs
places constraints on the school principal leadership practice and requires new
leadership skills that can promote success in a dynamic urban setting. With high
teacher turnover and increasing budgetary concerns, the urban school principal must
be prepared to work within a context that requires the leadership capacity to adapt to
meet these challenges. Urban school leaders must be resourceful and creative at
finding monies since many urban schools suffer from funding issues (Lee, 2005;
NCES, 1996; and Portin, 2000). Challenged by both the large size and the political
nature of the urban context, these schools require that principals have a political
awareness of how to navigate those seemingly large systems (Lee, 2005; Cuban,
2001). Urban school leaders have numerous challenges and must demonstrate the
29
knowledge, skills, beliefs, and behavior necessary in order to mitigate these
difficulties in order to compensate for what they have not been adequately prepared
to do: effectively lead in an urban setting. Additionally, as the field research
repeatedly points out, leadership in urban schools is enabled or constrained by the
school’s culture (Hausman, Crow, & Sperry, 2000).
Urban school principals lead in a context that is much different from non-
urban school contexts. As a result, many contemporary reform efforts and current
leadership practices do not appear to be effective in these types of urban settings
(Cuban, 2001). Certain environments call for particular forms of leadership
(Leithwood, et al., 2004) in order to be successful in changing teacher professional
practice and improving student learning. Principals in urban schools must take on
new roles that include: 1) serving as instructional leaders; 2) distributing the
decision-making rights of constituents consistent with the practice of instructional
leaders; and 3) beginning to reshape the culture of schools from the bottom up
consistent with the practice of transformational leadership. In addition, urban school
leaders in an urban setting must have the moral consciousness of leaders for social
justice as they strive to improve their own leadership practice, ameliorate teacher
pedagogy, and increase student achievement. However, more research needs to be
conducted in the area of effective school leadership in urban school settings to
identify effective leadership practices that help to reduce the significant gaps in
student achievement.
The next section will explore effective leadership practice in greater detail.
30
Characteristic of Effective Leadership
Although a universal definition of effective leadership practice has not been
clearly articulated (Northouse, 2007), the research indicates that there are common
characteristics successful leaders demonstrate. According to Northouse (2007),
“leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to
achieve a common goal” (p. 3). In other words, leadership is the method by which
the leader guides others to fulfilling the collective objectives. A leader is able to
assume various positions within the organization such as managing the instructional
program to ensure that all stakeholders are involved in the decision-making process
(WestEd, 2003). In order to further clarify the professional standards for leaders and
provide a common language when describing effective leadership practice (WestEd,
2003), the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) developed a
national set of standards for leadership practice, knowledge, and skills. The six key
standards and descriptions of practice serve as a guide to clarify a leader’s
expectations and duties. From those standards, California developed the California
Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSELs) to inform principals in
this state what successful practice looks like in an educational setting.
Research has identified four promising theoretical frameworks for effective
leadership practice that form the bases for this leadership study: 1) instructional
leadership, 2) learning-centered leadership, 3) transformational leadership, and 4)
social justice leadership. These four theories are instrumental to leadership practices
that have the potential to significantly change the teaching and learning environment
31
and substantially improve student learning outcomes. From this research, some
promising practices associated with effective leadership that are indirectly linked to
student achievement have been identified (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, and
Meyerson, 2005). Each theoretical framework informs our understanding of
effective leadership practice and their relationship to a leader’s beliefs and
knowledge and skills. Those theories will be discussed in the following sections.
Instructional Leadership Theory
Hallinger’s three-dimensional model, which, is derived from extensive
research conducted on successful practices in urban elementary schools, is the
framework that is commonly referenced (Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood, n.d.; Hopkins,
n.d.), to describe the theory of instructional leadership. From this perspective, a
successful instructional leader is effectively: 1) defining the school’s mission, 2)
managing the instructional program, and 3) promoting a positive school learning
climate (Hallinger, 2003, p. 332). A leader “[defines] the school’s mission”
(Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005, p. 19), when they articulate the goals they
want the school to achieve (Halinger & Murphy, 1985). In “managing the
curriculum and instruction” (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005, p. 19), the leader
establishes the academic foundation of the school and facilitates its implementation
(Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; and Hallinger, 2003). By “promoting a positive school
climate” (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005, p. 19), the leaders can positively
impact students’ and teachers’ attitudes and behaviors by establishing high
32
expectations for student learning and professional growth (Hallinger & Murphy,
1985, and Hallinger, 2003).
Instructional leadership is considered to be “strong, directive leadership
focused on curriculum and instruction from the principal” (Hallinger, 2003, p. 329).
The theory is derived from research conducted in various successful urban
elementary schools that implemented this type of hands-on approach. Urban schools
are unique environments with enumerable challenges. Successful leadership practice
is dependent upon the context in which it is actuated (Leithwood, n.d; and Hallinger,
2003). Therefore, instructional leadership practice in an urban school will be
discussed.
Instructional Leadership in Practice in an Urban School
Urban schools need instructional leaders who are focused on an overall,
comprehensive school improvement approach. Therefore, as previously stated
Hallinger (2003) argued an effective instructional leadership model is comprised of
three general categories: 1) defining the school mission, 2) managing the
instructional program, and 3) creating a positive school climate. Each dimension
contains various subcategories that are intrinsically important to creating a successful
learning environment. Each aspect includes and is reliant upon the critical
responsibilities of a leader.
The principal is instrumental in improving the conditions of the school that
foster student achievement by creating the overall circumstances by which teachers
can improve their instructional program to enhance student learning (Coldren &
33
Spillane, 2007). The first step toward improvement occurs when the principal
provides the leadership to establish a clear vision that is focused on learning and
achieving the common goals of the school (Leithwood, et al., 2004; Murphy, et al.,
2006; and Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). According to the Interstate School Leaders
Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), the first of six standards for effective leadership
states that, “A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the
success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation,
and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school
community” (WestEd, 2003, p. 5).
As the instructional manager of the school, the principal is responsible for
outlining the school’s mission (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; and Hallinger, 2003).
According to Hallinger (2003), this must be done by: framing the school goals and
articulating clear school goals. An instructional leader is focused on student
achievement and the goals would clearly delineate those values. Stakeholders should
be included when deciding on a limited number of measurable goals, however, the
burden of implementation and unambiguous articulation of the schools’ goals falls
on the instructional leader (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; and Hallinger, 2003).
From an instructional leadership perspective, the leader must also be actively
involved in the school’s instructional program. The role of the principal is threefold:
1) supervising and evaluating instruction, 2) coordinating curriculum, and 3)
monitoring student progress (Hallinger, 2003). Research indicates that principals
who are more involved with observing the teachers during their instruction and
34
provide a program where teachers are allowed to conduct cross-curricular alignment
across grade levels have schools that are more successful (Coldren & Spillane, 2007;
and Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). Another crucial aspect of this component is the
careful examination of student achievement by creating the necessary tools to
measure the attainment of specific previously established academic and instructional
goals (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005).
Establishing a favorable school environment is the third aspect intrinsic to
leading effectively from an instructional perspective. Hallinger (2003) suggests this
is achieved by: 1) protecting instructional time, 2) promoting professional
development, 3) maintaining high visibility, 4) providing incentives for teachers, and
5) providing incentives for learning. A principal values teachers’ class time and
ensures instructional minutes are uninterrupted by unnecessary disruptions. In
addition to being the instructional leaders, principals provide time and opportunities
for the teachers to further develop their knowledge and hone their pedagogical skills
during staff meetings and professional development (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985;
Hallinger 2003). Additionally, instructional leaders create an organizational culture
that promotes teachers’ intellectual growth as experts in their field while
simultaneously fostering student achievement. In urban schools, creating
opportunities to recognize students and teachers for their dedication and hard work is
integral to the success of the instructional program (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985).
The research indicates that instructional leadership is one of the necessary
frameworks to build a principal’s capacity for effective leadership in urban settings
35
and is instrumental in reshaping the culture of the schools. However, it is
insufficient in the urban school’s teaching and learning environment because there
are still many urban schools that are continuing to produce students who are not
meeting grade level standards. A managerial approach to leadership that focuses
mainly on the curricular program, as suggested through instructional leadership, may
not be all that is required in an urban setting. In addition to having the skill set to
operate from an instructional perspective, an effective leader in an urban school must
attack leadership from an integrative approach that employs various leadership tools.
A review of the literature on learning-centered leadership is next.
Learning-Centered Leadership Theory
In recognizing that student achievement is the cornerstone by which
principal success is measured (Leithwood, et al, 2004; Marzano, Waters & McNulty,
2005; Murphy & Hallinger, 1988, as cited in Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, and Poter,
2006), learning-centered leadership is a multifaceted approach that suggests a
leaders’ behaviors are formed by four predominate circumstances: 1) previous
experiences of a leader; 2) the knowledge base the leader amasses over time; 3) the
types of personal characteristics a leader brings to the job; and 4) the set of values
and beliefs that help define a leader (Murphy, et al., 2006). Knapp, Copland, Plecki,
and Portin (2006) call this a “theory of action” (p. 16), which influences the ways
leaders themselves learn about their practice as they make associations. Essentially,
it is known that leaders bring with them a set of personal schemas, prior foundational
familiarity with working in particular settings, and inherent belief systems that
36
influence their leadership capacity. However, missing from the literature is the
extent to which the leaders’ prior cognitions play a role in their actions.
According to Murphy and his colleagues (2006), the leaders’ prior
experiences, in combination with the myriad school related factors (i.e., student
demographics, location, staff experience, etc.), affect the principal’s behaviors. The
learner-centered leadership framework identifies eight fundamental components of
effective leadership practice: 1) vision for learning, 2) instructional program, 3)
curricular program, 4) assessment program, 5) communities of learning, 6)
resources acquisition and use, 7) organizational culture, and 8) advocacy. A vision
for learning includes establishing a school-wide belief in high student achievement
and setting goals on how to achieve those objectives. The instructional program
consists of staff members having strong content knowledge in their field and the
pedagogical expertise to be able to deliver the information to the students. The
curricular program encompasses a rigorous curriculum that maintains high
expectations for student learning across the subject areas. An assessment program
includes a way to evaluate, measure, and continually monitor students’ academic
performance in the core curricular program. A Community of learning fosters a
school culture whose foundation is built around providing opportunities for people
within the organization to grow as professionals through professional development
and activities that support acquisition of new information. Resources acquisition
and use entails obtaining the most effective materials to support teachers’ instruction
and improve student outcomes. The organizational culture refers to the structures in
37
place that cultivate ongoing reflection, support open communication, and establishes
an environment that is safe and conducive to learning. Finally, advocacy pertains to
understanding the importance of diversity, outside social and political factors, and
the recognition that personal biases can play in the success of student achievement
(Murphy, et al., 2006).
Murphy and his colleagues (2006) postulate a framework that suggests the
leader’s actions in each of these domains impact both the school’s organizational
culture and the classroom culture. Although the goal of a learning-centered leader is
to increase the achievement of students, there has not been much research conducted
to determine the effects of learning-centered leadership practice in urban school
settings. The following is a description of what is encompassed by the practice of
learning-centered leadership in an urban school.
Learning-Centered Leadership in Practice in an Urban School
Learning-centered leadership builds upon the foundations of an instructional
leader in their skills and knowledge base. Similar to the instructional leader, the
learning-centered leader establishes a school-wide vision for high student
achievement on the forefront of the school’s agenda through clear articulation of the
goals to parents, students, all staff members, and surrounding community (Murphy,
et al., 2006). According to Dwyer (1986) and Leithwood and Montgomery (1982),
the principal, “demonstrates through their actions the organization’s commitment to
the values and beliefs at the heart of the mission as well as to the specific activities
needed to reach goals” (Murphy, et al, 2006, p. 5). Essentially, the learning-centered
38
leader goes further than the instructional leader as s/he ensures that the school vision
becomes an essential component of their everyday work routine and therefore
becomes the role model that others are to follow.
Likewise, a learning centered leader also has an unwavering dedication to a
rigorous instructional program by creating opportunities for teachers to improve their
practice. The leader is also committed to developing benchmark assessments to
evaluate student achievement, and to becoming more highly visible both in the
classrooms and throughout the school by consistently evaluating and monitoring
progress (Murphy, et al, 2006). The learning-centered leader practice augments the
basis for instructional leadership in this area with its emphasis on corrective
feedback. As previously discussed, the learning-centered framework places an
importance on the individual’s previous foundational knowledge (Murphy, et al.,
2006), which is instrumental in the monitoring process because it shapes the way the
leader will interact with teachers when developing improvements to the overall
curricular program.
The learning-centered leader establishes a school culture that is geared
toward a community where all stakeholders are invested in students’ achievement.
While an instructional leader does demonstrate this skill, the learning-centered leader
goes further to model their behavior through their actions, often developing
leadership groups to help facilitate the process. This leader is an avid supporter of
professional development and sees it as a vehicle toward fostering collective and
professional growth (Murphy, et al, 2006). Although instructional leadership does
39
discuss the importance of establishing a positive school environment, a learning-
centered leader emphasizes the significance of allocating the resources to make the
necessary changes to the instructional program. Marzano, McNulty, and Waters
(2003) found one of the correlates of student achievement was that leaders provided
resources for their teachers so they could implement their professional requirements.
The literature is weak in processes needed to make this happen in an urban setting
where resources are scarce.
Another aspect of learning-centered leadership that adds to instructional
leadership practices is in creating a safe school culture (Murphy, et al., 2006). A safe
environment is integral to the community of learning, especially in an urban setting
where violence can be problematic. However, the literature is limited in how the
leader achieves this given the challenging context.
In summary, the practice of a learning-centered leader builds upon the skills
and knowledge base of effective practices of an instructional leader. Although, the
research details best practices of effective leadership, there are still gaps in the
scholarship because it does not address how to counterbalance the inequities in
leadership abilities due to a principal’s previous experiences and training. As
indicated, an urban setting requires a leader who has a variety of skills, knowledge,
and tools, to be prepared to overcome the diverse issues they face in their daily work.
Therefore, a principal who also has an understanding of what it means to be
transformational leader is also pivotal for success in the urban setting.
40
Transformational Leadership Theory
Although the educational reform movement called for academic equity in the
inner-city schools, the urban school setting requires more than a leader who is
perceived as being the control agent (Leithwood, 1994). While the instructional
leader focuses mainly on instruction and curriculum, the learning-centered leader
focuses more on the ideas and beliefs that educators bring to their work.
Transformational leadership is needed to change the status quo. A transformational
leader who can share leadership practice among members within the school
community is needed in this setting.
During the late 1970’s Burns was credited with the early development of the
concept of transformational leadership. He postulated that transformational
leadership is a reciprocal relationship that transforms members of a group into
leaders (Marzano, McNulty, & Waters, 2003). In the mid-1980’s Burns drew from
his research and identified four common characteristics of transformational leaders:
1) individual consideration, 2) intellectual stimulation, 3) inspirational motivation,
and 4) idealized influence (Marzano, McNulty, Waters, 2003, p. 14). Individual
consideration encompasses the leader’s capacity to appreciate the variations in the
subordinates and the ability to differentiate their leadership to meet those diverse
needs. Intellectual stimulation refers to the leader’s aptitude to promote followers’
to think outside the box and become more skilled at problem solving. Inspirational
motivation reflects a leader whose tenacious enthusiasm is contagious and prompts
others within the organization to pursue a commitment toward the goals. Finally,
41
idealized influence includes high ethical and moral standards that transcend in their
daily work and inspire others to want to mirror those behaviors (Bass & Avolio,
1994; Bass & Avolio, 1989; and Marzano, McNulty, Waters, 2003). Bass and
Avolio (1989) further detail this type of leader as charismatic in their ability to
personalize their efforts to promote subordinates’ analytical problem solving
techniques. Essentially, from this perspective, the transformational leader recognizes
the difficulties that employees have and guides them through the process of
improving their behaviors.
Leithwood and his colleagues (1998, as cited in Hallinger, 2003) developed a
model that encompasses seven aspects of a transformational leader: 1) individualized
support, 2) shared goals and vision, 3) intellectual stimulation, 4) culture building,
5) rewards, 6) high expectations, and 7) modeling (p. 335). Providing individualized
support includes personalizing the opportunities for others to learn so that their
individual needs are met in a respectful manner. Shared goals and vision embodies
the agreement to work collective toward achieving goals and clearly articulating
those standards for high achievement to everyone in the organization. Intellectual
stimulation consists of the leader’s encouragement of professional reflection and
how each person can improve on their practice. Culture building refers to establish a
school climate that fosters a collaborative approach, where all stakeholders are
involved in the decision making process. Rewards consist of recognizing each
person’s dedication to the shared goals and vision of the school. High expectations
incorporate a leader’s belief that all individuals should perform their duties with
42
exemplary finesse. Finally, modeling relates to the role the leader plays in
demonstrating appropriate behavior and practice that others within the organization
should model (Liethwood, Jantzi, Silins, Dart, 1993). From a transformational
perspective, the leader is devoted to enhancing the capacity and skills of the
members’ of the school community and to distributing the leadership collectively
throughout the organization among all stakeholders (Hallinger, 2003).
From this theoretical framework, the transformational leader inspires others
to put aside their own interests and work toward achieving the common goals of the
organization (Marks & Printy, 2003). Establishing what Leithwood and his
colleagues (1993) describe as a “group identity” (p. 93) is essential for the
development of synergistic efforts toward building relationships of mutual respect.
In addition, the visionary leader fosters collective intellectual and professional
growth, whereby they are an advocate and supporter of each member of the group
(Leithwood, et al., 1993; Hallinger, 2003; and Marks & Printy, 2003).
Fundamentally, the leader recognizes the needs of each person within the school and
provides the necessary guidance that will assist them with achieving their personal
best for the good of the organization.
The culture of shared leadership is cultivated as a result of the leaders’
behaviors and their ability to motivate others within the organization through
mirroring desired actions, holding the expectation of elevated professional
performance, and providing the necessary accolades for success (Leithwood et al,
1993; Hallinger, 2003, and Marks & Printy, 2003). Essentially, the principal is the
43
role-model demonstrating how crucial it is that everyone collectively contributes to
the schools’ vision for raising student achievement. In addition, they must
simultaneously, encourage and acknowledge the teachers’ efforts.
Much of the research conducted on transformational leadership has indicated
that the context plays an integral role in the effectiveness of a leader operating from
this framework (Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood, et al, 1993; Marks & Printy, 2003;
Hallinger, 2007; and Leithwood, 1994). The literature is limited in scope as to the
extent to which school leaders can mitigate these “external factors.” This limitation
is important to this study because of the various challenges urban principals face that
are often beyond their control. However, the research does indicate that the leaders’
“inner processes,” or thoughts, behaviors, and beliefs, play an integral role in
fostering the ability principals have to create a collaborative school culture focused
on shared-decision making. The capacity to reshape the culture in ways that change
the status quo in spite of the context is at the heart of this study and the theory of
transformational leadership. Next, transformational leadership practices in an urban
school setting will be explored.
Transformational Leadership in Practice in an Urban School
The practice of a transformational leader is enhanced by an instructional
foundation as the principal collectively works with teachers to improve their
pedagogy and overall student learning (Marks & Printy, 2003). Likewise, a leader
from these two frameworks often demonstrates several parallel behaviors, beliefs,
and skills. Incentives for the teachers and students are both viewed as intrinsic to the
44
success of the school provided those rewards are aligned with the school’s mission
and goals (Hallinger, 2007). Therefore, a transformational leader in an urban setting
would emphasize the efforts of those who were implementing activities that fostered
the collaborative culture. In addition, both approaches implement frequent visibility
through modeling appropriate actions as an effective habit of practice (Hallinger,
2007). Similarly both leaders are clear in communicating their goals; however the
transformational leader will highlight the connections between their own goals and
those of the school (Hallinger, 2007). In an urban setting, this is especially important
when attempting to demonstrate a shared sense of urgency to improve the conditions
in the school.
The transformational leaders’ ideas, beliefs, and rationale for teachers’
participation in professional development augments the instructional leaders’
perspectives. The instructional leader believes that professional development is very
structured and should be closely associated with the school’s mission and goals.
However, the transformational leader, views professional growth from a more
progressive perspective and involves a leader with “a higher tolerance for ambiguity
and uncertainty…and ability to live with the messy process of change” (Hallinger,
2003, p. 340). In an often dynamic setting, an urban school sometimes necessitates a
leader who is more of a risk-taker and who is proactive in understanding the needs of
their staff and is willing to ensure they provide them with that professional
opportunity. Although there is much research on the theory of transformational
45
leadership, absent from the literature is empirical evidence that supports the effective
implementation in urban school settings.
However, in reviewing the trends and persistent achievement gaps, especially
in the particular subgroups that comprise the demographics in most urban schools, it
becomes obvious that current leadership practice has not been successful in the
context of those particular settings (Gooden, 2002). Current reform efforts have
neglected to take into account the urban context (Marshall, 2004), and although there
does not appear to be a considerable amount of research in the field, the research
indicates that the urban setting calls for an integrated approach to leadership from a
social justice perspective. Essentially, the principal’s knowledge, skills, and practice
would encompass the actions of an instructional, learning-centered, and
transformational leader and the beliefs of a social justice advocate. The previously
mentioned social challenges of an urban school, therefore, also demand a principal
who possesses the moral qualities of a social justice leader. The following section
will discuss social justice theory and practice in an urban school.
Social Justice Theory and Practice in Urban Schools
Leadership for social justice is derived from the myriad societal inequities
and is often difficult to define from any single perspective (Kose, 2007; Normore &
Blanco, 2006; Bogotch, 2000; and Theoharis, 2007). Bogotch (2000) contends that
social justice is intrinsically connected with theories on educational leadership and
“the moral use of power” (p. 2). She posits that social justice is emergent and results
when a leader is self-reflective, demonstrates moral leadership through example, and
46
displays social justice in “practice” (p. 9). Theoharis (2006) contends that leaders for
social justice possess a vision that encompasses and promotes the societal issues of
“race, class, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and other historically and currently
marginalizing conditions in the United States” (p. 223). Normore and Blanco (2006)
describe leaders who strive for social justice as those who “challenge the political,
economic and social structures that privilege some and disadvantage others in the
name of democracy, equity, care, and compassion” (p. 9). In pursuing social justice
in an urban setting, leaders must be able to demonstrate their desire to establish an
equitable and democratic environment that is morally and ethically sound, provides
students with an academically rich curriculum, and where staff members are afforded
opportunities to increase their capacity as professionals to collectively work toward
the goal of increased student achievement.
A leader for social justice puts student achievement at the forefront and
establishes high expectations for the academic success of all students (Theoharis,
2007; McKenzie, et al., 2008, Normore & Blanco, 2006; and Cambron-McCabe &
McCarthy, 2005). Leadership practice for social justice is focused on the inequities
in student achievement (McKenzie, et al, 2008). From a social justice perspective,
leaders espouse a moral belief that all students, regardless of their background or
abilities, can achieve, and they publicize these ideals (Normore & Blanco, 2006). A
social justice leader inherently believes that student achievement plays an integral
part in eliminating the social injustices and will improve students’ preparedness to
enter the marketplace.
47
Leaders who operate from the social justice perspective also want to develop
students’ consciousness about critical societal issues. While it is important for
students to be high achievers, it is equally important for them to begin to think more
analytically about social dilemmas (Theoharis, 2007) so they can be productive
members of society (McKenzie, et al, 2008). The issues surrounding race cannot be
disregarded (McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004), but should be addressed and challenged.
Leading from a social justice perspective ensures that students are engaged in
academic discussion and exposure to these issues so that they will be better prepared
to become socially aware individuals.
From the social justice perspective, the school’s organizational structure is a
critical lever for change (McKenzie, et al., 2008; and Theoharis, 2007). If students
are to make strides in achievement, then many of the barriers they confront, such as
limited access to educational opportunities must be eliminated. A social justice
leader is aware that tracking students in homogenous groups leads to less
academically rich content (Johnson, 2002). Therefore leaders will work toward
eliminating structures that promote tracking students and infuse academic rigor
across the curricula. Increasing access to more college preparatory and advanced
placement classes will provide students with more opportunities to succeed.
A leader for social justice is also cognizant of the importance of building the
capacity of the staff through staff development which focuses on solving social
justice issues (Theoharis, 2007; and Kose, 2007). A leader understands that not
everyone in an urban setting comes in with similar beliefs and attitudes. Teachers
48
and other staff members, because of their backgrounds, may have various
perceptions on students’ learning abilities. Therefore, it is crucial the principal
recognizes the importance of discussing the inequities that cause the barriers to
students’ achievement, so that there are no misconceptions which could lead to a
deficit model of thinking. According to McKenzie and colleagues (2008), this is the
development of “critical consciousness” (p. 122), and is the driving force behind
creating an environment that is conducive for all children to learn. This learning is a
continuous process (McKenzie et al, 2008). Leaders for social justice see this
learning as essential to student achievement.
Leaders for social justice also devote a significant amount of energy to
enhancing the culture of the school and surrounding community (Normore & Blanco,
2006; McKenzie et al, 2008; Theoharis, 2007, Cambron-McCabe & McCarthy,
2005). Establishing a safe school, where a clear structure that upholds democratic
beliefs and protects the rights of all students, parents, and staff members creates a
morally responsible environment. This sense of social acceptance resonates and can
have a profound effect on the surrounding community, which in urban settings, often
feels disconnected from the school (Theoharis, 2007). The leader for social justice
understands these conditions and works toward eliminating them in the school
setting.
Although there are numerous ways to build capacity within leaders, research
has indicated there are weaknesses in programs that prepare administrators for their
role in the field (Capper, Theoharis, & Sebastian, 2006). With the myriad challenges
49
leaders face in the urban setting, it is clear that simply providing them with the
knowledge base on effective leadership practice is simply not enough if they are to
be successful in today’s era of high stakes accountability. Along with a multi-
faceted, integrated approach to building one’s knowledge and skills capacity,
principals working in urban schools also need an inherent support structure built into
their program if they are to adequately improve teacher practice and begin to close
the achievement gaps. It is therefore important to review what the literature says on
the current support structures available for urban school leaders.
Research on Leadership Support Structures in Urban Schools
Principals have many expectations thrust upon them (Knapp, et al, 2006;
Davis, et al, 2005; and Grubb & Flessa, 2006) and are often left unsupported. Urban
leaders, with their complex challenges, need different types of leadership assistance
from an outside source if they are to continue with sustaining their effective practice.
However, as Portin and his colleagues (2003) have uncovered, each school requires a
particular form of leadership. Furthermore, each setting is not necessarily the right fit
even if that principal is considered qualified. In other words, even if the preparation
program and support structures are intact, the leader, because of their existing
capabilities, may still have difficulties making changes to their practice and
improving the conditions of their school because of the context in which they are
working. The literature is unclear as to what specific organizational and support
structures are necessary to build and sustain a leaders’ capacity. It is important,
50
though, to understand what the research says about effective principal preparation
programs that support leadership in an urban setting.
Davis and his colleagues (2005) conducted a study that identified effective
components of a leadership development program. The findings indicated that
effective leadership support programs were based on empirical research, had
curricular coherence, and involved some type of mentorship or coaching model
imbedded within it. It was found that modifications were needed in program content
to “include developing knowledge that will allow school leaders to better promote
successful teaching and learning” (p. 8). Marshall (2004) argued that many leader
preparation programs neglected to address the social inequities and injustices
resulting in principals who are unprepared for the urban school setting. The
literature also demonstrated that successful programs included a cooperative, shared
decision-making approach to leadership where principals were also exposed to
instructional content and organizational strategies (Davis, et al, 2005).
Effective programs also included content that accounted for curricular
consistency throughout the program. The classes and activities aligned with the
stated outcomes and goals and flowed in a sequential order, building upon prior
foundational knowledge (Davis, et al, 2005). In addition, the research indicated that
having the ISLLC standards imbedded within the curriculum is instrumental in
developing principals’ practice because “they move beyond elementary distinctions
between managing and leading to expand understanding of what principals can and
should do” (Portin, et al, 2003). Having a program that bases its foundational
51
knowledge around the ISLLC standards, or the CPSELs, and ensures each of its
subsequent classes and activities emphasizes meeting those goals achieves the
objective of effective curricular coherence.
The research suggests that the implementation of coaches and mentors in
principal preparation programs is becoming more common. A coach can serve as a
mentor to a principal and assist them in navigating the increased demands (Neufeld
& Roper, 2003) in the urban setting. According to Robert Hargrove (as cited in
Bloom, Castagna, Mori, & Warren, 2005):
A coach is someone who (1) sees what others many not see through the high
quality of his or her attention or listening, (2) is in the position to step back
(or invite participants to step back) from the situation so that they have
enough distance from it to get some perspective, (3) helps people see the
difference between their intentions and their thinking or actions, and (4) helps
people cut through patterns of illusion and self-deception caused by defensive
thinking and behavior (p. 3).
Unlike the mentor who is usually employed by the same district as the
principal they are mentoring, a coach is someone who works outside the district in
which they are coaching. Having a coach from an outside district may provide the
opportunity for a relationship built on mutual trust, where the coachee feels safe to
grow professionally without the potential for someone within their organization
uncovering their potential weaknesses (Bloom, et al., 2005). However, the empirical
evidence supporting many of the coaching models is unclear.
There has been more research conducted on successful mentor programs. In
fact, the purpose “of the mentor is to guide the learner in his or her search for
strategies to resolve dilemmas, to boost self-confidence, and to construct a broad
52
repertoire of leadership skills” (Davis, et al, 2003, p. 10). A mentor is an
administrator who works within the district and collaborates with the principal to
resolve dilemmas at the school site. Spiro and his colleagues (2007) say that,
The core goal of mentoring should go…beyond a buddy system that merely
helps new principals adapt to a flawed system, to one whose core goal is to
help prepare a new generation of principals willing and able to challenge the
status quo and lift the quality of teaching in every school” (p. 4).
Daresh (2004) noted that this collaborative approach has been a successful
tool to support novice principals in navigating the complexities of their positions.
However, his research also revealed there are several problems with this approach,
such as remaining concentrated on a particular area of concern, budgetary
constraints, insufficient mentor training programs, and an overall lack of value
placed on the significance of mentors (Daresh, 2004).
The complex nature of urban schools necessitates a mentoring model since it
focuses on improving the principal’s practice. The EdisonLearning Principal Mentor
Program (ELPMP) is one program that imbeds a mentoring approach. ELPMP is
focused on enhancing leaders’ professional growth by implementing a variety of
strategies that augment principals’ potential. The goals, which reflect the ISSLC, are
collaboratively determined after a 360˚ survey is administered to the principal and
staff members. The data are collected and analyzed collaboratively with the mentor
and areas of strengths and weaknesses are discussed. Short-term and long-term goals
are developed and aligned with the five leadership roles defined by EdisonLearning
and developed around the needs of the principal to improve the school and ultimately
53
increase student achievement. The five leadership roles are: 1) Instructional Leader
2) Organizational Leader, 3) Culture Builder, 4) Site Manager, and 5) Edison
Schools Executive (Edison School, 2007). Activities are explored, a timeline is
created, and each person (i.e., the mentor and protégé) are assigned responsibilities
to ensure each goal is carried out. Throughout this individualized professional
development process, the mentor is seen as the support structure that has the content
knowledge and the tools to help build the principal’s capacity.
Moreover, the ELPMP consists of a mentoring model that integrates both an
instructional and facilitative approach. Furthermore, mentors implement
collaborative, consultative, and transformational methods (Bloom, Castagna, Moir,
and Warren, 2005). From the instructional and consultative perspective, the mentors
“provide expert information, advice, and resources” (Bloom, et al., 2005, p. 8).
When the mentor employs instructional strategies, s/he relies upon personal
background knowledge and expertise they acquired while working in the field to
support the protégé. Implementing the facilitative approach, the mentor utilizes
reflective inquiry and feedback techniques to assist the protégé in acquiring new
knowledge and skills. When the mentor engages in facilitative strategies, s/he
attempts to transform the progression of the protégé’s problem-solving skills and
attempts to develop new ways to evaluate challenges that arise. The EdisonLearning
Mentors are trained to guide their protégé through the following 12 activities: 1)
Brokering Relationships, 2) Building and Maintaining Relationships, 3) Coaching,
4) Communicating, 5) Encouraging, 6) Facilitating, 7) Goal Setting, 8) Guiding, 9)
54
Managing Conflict, 10) Problem-Solving, 11) Providing and Receiving Feedback,
and 12) Reflecting (EdisonLearning, 2007). The ultimate goal of the mentoring
program is to provide the support structure for the novice urban school principal so
that they can build their capacity and improve student achievement.
There has been a lack of quantitative research conducted on the effects that
mentoring has on principal practice. Notably missing from the literature is empirical
data on the effects mentoring has on improving effective leadership practice, and the
support structures necessary to effectively implement a mentoring model. Therefore,
this study aims to fill that gap in the research by providing a means to measure
change in leadership practice as a result of principals being supported by a mentor.
Conclusion
The condition of urban schools calls for changes to the status quo of
principals. The gaps in student achievement are present and are not closing at a fast
enough rate to meet the goal of proficiency for all students by the 2013-2014
academic year. The urban school context requires a leader who is socially conscious
of the innumerable inequities that exist and must be prepared to make the necessary
changes in their practice if they are to help students overcome these issues.
Although it may be an arduous task, a leader who implements an integrated approach
to leadership and demonstrates strong instructional knowledge, but fosters a
transformational culture will demonstrate the necessary effective leadership practices
to be successful in raising student achievement. It is crucial, though, that these
leaders are not alone in the process. They must be supported along the way by an
55
inherent support structure. Principals who are supported by mentors will provide
them with the necessary tools to be successful in an urban school. The graphic on
the following page, explains the conceptual framework proposed in this study.
56
NCLB Accountability
Standards for Students, Teachers, and Administrators
Figure 2-1. Conceptual Framework
Urban Schools Require a New Type of
Leadership Practice
Integrated Model of Leadership
Instructional
Leadership
Learning-
Centered
Leadership
Transformational
Leadership
EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program
Close Achievement Gap
Effective Leadership Practices
Improved Teacher Practice& Learning Climate
Leadership
for Social
Justice
Focus on the Gaps in Achievement
57
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
As previously discussed in chapter two, there is a significant gap in Latino
and African-American achievement on standardized tests as compared to their White
and Asian peers (Darling-Hammond, 2007). The urban school principal is faced
with enumerable challenges such an increase in the EL student population (Garcia,
2002), many unqualified teachers (as determined by NCLB) (Darling-Hammond,
2006), and limited access to the necessary resources (NCEA, 1996; Lee, 2005;
Portin, 2000; Darling-Hammond, 2006; and Darling-Hammond, 2007) to improve
student achievement. This study argued that principals working in urban schools are
inadequately prepared and must therefore have the necessary skills to mitigate these
challenges. Therefore, it is proposed that an effective principal in an urban school
must operate from a social justice perspective and implement an integrated approach
to leadership that incorporates instructional, learning-centered, and transformational
leadership perspectives.
This mixed-methods study aspired to measure principal’s leadership
effectiveness in terms of their behaviors as a result of their participation in the
EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program (ELPMP). There were three questions
that this study attempted to address:
1. How does working with an EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program
Mentor affect the leadership practices of an urban school principal?
58
2. What organizational structures support the implementation of the
mentoring model?
3. How do the leadership practices of the principal affect professional
practice of teachers?
Design
For this study, a mixed-methods approach was implemented to collect and
analyze data to determine the impact of the leadership practices of an
EdisonLearning Principal on professional practice as a result of his having worked
with mentor. The quantitative portion of this research involved the use of the online
Vanderbilt Assessment for Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) Survey, while the
qualitative portion involved an in-depth case study analysis of the principal. The
ELPMP was a support program designed for novice school administrators and was
derived from EdisonLearning’s five fundamental standards for leadership roles.
They were 1) Instructional Leader, 2) Organizational Leader, 3) Culture Builder, 4)
Site Manager, and 5) Edison Schools Executive (Edison Schools, 2007). The
principal, referred to as a protégé, worked with a certified EdisonLearning mentor
who completed a rigorous training program. The purpose for this mixed-methods
approach was to strengthen the consistency of the findings by using more than one
method, thereby increasing the internal validity of the study (Patton, 2002).
The quantitative measure of leadership behaviors involved the use of an
online survey (VAL-ED). The VAL-ED is a measurement tool which assessed the
effectiveness of a principal’s key leadership behaviors that influence teacher
59
performance and organizational climate to create the conditions for student learning.
Additionally, it was a 360˚instrument known as a “multirater feedback” or “full-
circle feedback assessment” (Webb & Norton, 2009, p. 215), which was
administered to the principal and a purposeful sample of teachers. The VAL-ED
provided a comprehensive view of the leader’s performance on the core components
and key processes of leadership practice. The key process areas assessed were: 1)
planning, 2) implementing, 3) supporting, 4) advocating, 5) communicating, 6)
monitoring. The core components of principal leadership which influence student
achievement are: 1) high standards for student learning, 2) rigorous curriculum, 3)
quality instruction, 4) culture of learning and professional behavior, 5) connections
to external communities, and 6) performance accountability (Porter, et al., 2006).
This tool was utilized for pre and post intervention of the principal’s enactment of
learning centered leadership behaviors. In particular, administration of the VAL-ED
involved the assessment of the leader’s practice prior to the EdisonLearning
Principal Mentor intervention and assessment after mentoring to determine if the
intervention influenced leader practice and behavior.
The qualitative data collected for the study included interviews with the
principal, the EdisonLearning Executive Director, and a purposeful sample of
teachers at the school site. A questionnaire was also disseminated to two
EdisonLearning mentors. Both program and school level documents were gathered
for analysis. The interviews and questionnaires provided participants with an
opportunity to share their perspectives (Merriam, 1998) and insights regarding the
60
principal’s effectiveness as a school leader. In addition, these data enabled the
researcher to collect additional information about the EdisonLearning Principal
Mentor Program. The purpose of using qualitative measures was to capture thick,
rich information which otherwise could not have been captured through a
quantitative design (Patton, 2002).
Intervention
EdisonLearning Schools Mentor/Protégé Program
The principal protégé was paired with an EdisonLearning mentor in the fall
(2008).
EdisonLearning is an education management organization which partners
with public schools across the nation. It was founded in 1992 and opened its first
school in 1995. Focused on ambitious standards for student performance and
research based strategies for effective schools, EdisonLearning developed Four
Cornerstones of a successful school which provide the foundation for all
EdisonLearning programs. These principles were: 1) Top Talent 2) Culture of
Engagement and Aspiration 3) Demanding Content and Customized Instruction 4)
Achievement-Driven Management (Edison Schools, 2007). Since then
EdisonLearning had partnered with 120 schools and served over 350,000 students in
24 states (Edison Schools, 2007). In alignment with the Four Cornerstones,
EdisonLearning developed a mentoring program which aimed to assist new
principals to drive improvements in teaching and learning.
61
EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program (ELPMP)
EdisonLearning mentoring is a support structure which provides the tools
necessary to build and sustain leadership capacity over time. Specifically, it was
considered a promising practice which provided school leaders with ongoing
opportunities to 1) assess current practices, 2) set goals, and 3) work toward
achieving school success. Additionally, mentoring provided the critical support
structure to effectively guide the school improvement process by facilitating
principals’ reflective processes and enabling them to grow as leaders in the areas of
1) technical expertise, 2) socialization to the job and the school system, and 3) role
clarification (Edison Schools, 2007). In short, ELPMP was designed to help build
capacity of a novice principal to create the conditions to develop teacher capacity
and ultimately impact student achievement (Edison Schools, 2007).
Intervention
The EdisonLearning mentors were trained to provide individualized guidance
and support to the principal as teacher, advisor, coach, and feedback provider for the
2008-2009 academic year (Edison School, 2007). As part of their 3-day intensive
preparation, EdisonLearning mentors were familiarized with the 12 modules that
provided the basis for the EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program. According to
the Executive Director of the EdsionLearning, the modules were researched-based
and included successful mentoring strategies for novice EdisonLearning school
principals (Personal Communication, November 19, 2008).
62
According to the Whole School Design Handbook (Edison Schools, 2007),
the goals of the EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program are as follows:
• “Provide a foundation of leadership skills for aspiring and novice
principals that have been proven to lead to improved student
achievement” (no page)
• “Focus on three main areas of need of novice school leaders: technical
expertise (knowledge of how to carry the role of principalship), role
clarification (understand who they are as leaders and their influence), and
socialization (adapting to the school setting and community)” (Daresh,
2002, as cited in Edison Schools, 2007, no page)
• “Prepare aspiring and new school leaders to drive improvements in
teaching and learning” (Edison Schools, 2007, no page)
The intent of the EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program was to improve
student achievement by supporting novice leaders as they developed and refined
effective leadership practice (Edison Schools, 2007). ELPMP described their
mentoring program to include the following components (Edison Schools, 2007, no
page):
• One-to-one guidance and support via weekly phone and/or e-mail
communication between the mentor and the protégé throughout the 2008-
2009 academic year
63
• Implementation of the Weekly Collaborative Planning Tool (a written
document), which includes goal setting, implementation of those goals,
possible options, next steps, reflections, and questions from the mentor.
• Determining short-term and long-term action plans, which align to the
five EdisonLearning Principal Leadership strands. They include the use
of the EdisonLearning Principal Leadership Standard rubric, which are
based on Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), and
evidence of successful achievement of the goals
• “Completion and submission of all pre-post assessments, reflection logs,
goal sheets, action plans, short term goal sheets, and collaborative
planning logs” (Edison Schools, 2007)
• Mentor visitation of protégé’s school five times during the school year
• Protégé visitation of mentor’s school once during the school year
• Consistent communication with EdisonLearning Education Services
Program Sponsor
According to EdisonLearning, each principal endeavored excellence in the following
five leadership roles (Edison Schools, 2007, p 3-14):
Instructional Leader
• Promotes instructional excellence to ensure high academic
achievement and strong development
• Implements and monitors Edison schools curriculum and instruction
and assessment programs as the primary drivers of the academic
achievement and character development
64
Organizational Leader
• Creates and promotes an inspired school vision directly linked to high
academic achievement and strong character development
• Creates and maintains systems and processes that support the school
vision and goals
• Practices and promotes interpersonal awareness and sensitivity to
strengthen school vision and goals
Culture Builder
• Creates a learning environment that fosters a culture of high academic
achievement and strong character development
• Instills among staff a sense of mission and professionalism linked to
high standards of academic achievement and character development
• Creates a culture a celebration and accountability linked to high
student academic achievement and character development
• Creates a culture of inclusion among all stakeholders to foster a
shared commitment to the school vision and goals
Site Manager
• Establishes school structures and processes that ensures stability and
drive high academic achievement and strong character development
• Allocates, manages, and finds resources that support school programs
that drive academic achievement and strong character development
Edison Schools Executive
• Executes Edison school designs and advances a corporate vision of
providing a world class education to all students
• Serves as a positive, proactive representative of Edison Schools and
community
65
EdisonLearning Leadership Roles and Standard Rubric
The program goals are closely aligned with the standards and the framework
for leadership roles placed forth by ELPMP to improve student achievement. The
EdisonLearning leadership rubric defined the standards for principal performance
which allowed principals to progress on a continuum: Initial, Developing, Proficient
and Exemplary (Edison Schools, 2007). Importantly, the EdisonLearning standards
for school leaders were based on the standards from Interstate School Leaders
Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) for effective school leadership. They were
ultimately directed at improving the core technology of teaching and learning which
was the basis of Learning-Centered Leadership. Moreover, the performance
standards focused on leading for social justice with an emphasis on providing
students with equity and access. For example, an EdisonLearning principal
performing at the “proficient” in their role as Culture Builder “inspires and holds
accountable staff and students to high levels of achievement” and “rallies students
and staff in the pursuit [of] continuous improvement and high achievement.” In
addition, s/he “celebrates incremental achievement and end results” (Edison Schools,
2007, p. 10).
Participant and Setting
Sample
This study implemented a purposeful sampling process to identify one single
urban principal, Mrs. Tekla Ericson. Mrs. Ericson worked at an elementary school in
a small charter school district located in an urban area of Cook County in the south
66
side of Chicago, Illinois. Purposeful sampling was utilized because it provided an
in-depth investigation into a particular phenomenon involving a particular individual
and would therefore increase the knowledge gained from this study (Patton, 2002).
The focus of this study was to gain insights regarding change in leadership practices
as a result of the principal’s participation in EdisonLearning mentoring, a capacity-
building support structure. The principal was selected on the basis of the following
specific criteria:
1. The principal was a first-year elementary school administrator working in
an urban school setting which included the following:
a. The principal’s school had a high percentage (over 80%) of the
students participating in free or reduced priced lunch program
b. The principal’s school had a high number (over 95%) of African-
American students
c. Students scored higher in Reading than in Math on school
assessments
d. There was an achievement gap between the students’ scores on
national tests as compared to the national average
e. The principal was responsible for opening a new school
2. The principal was assigned to work with an EdisonLearning trained
mentor for the first time during the 2008-2009 academic year
In alignment with the Four Cornerstones of EdisonLearning, a mentoring
program was implemented at Milton Place Primary Center to assist the novice
67
principal in her role as school leader. The two program goals include: 1) building
and sustaining effective leadership practices and 2) ensuring that a “world-class”
education is provided to all students (Edison Schools, 2007). Ultimately,
EdisonLearning was concerned with improving principal leadership in order to
influence teacher practice and raise student achievement.
Setting
The principal chosen to participate in this particular study worked at Milton
Place Primary Center, a charter school in the south side of Chicago, Illinois. It was
one of 12 schools that make up this charter school district. This charter school
district began in 1997 and now served over 7,500 students in Chicago. The students
who attended these charter schools are ethnically diverse, where approximately 70%
of the overall population are African-American, 23% are Hispanic/Latino, and 7%
are comprised of Asian, Indian, and White. In addition, 75% of the students receive
free and reduced lunch priced lunch.
School District Demographics
70%
23%
7%
African American
Hispanic / Latino
Asian, Native American
& White
Figure 3-1. Demographics of Charter School District
68
Milton Place Primary Center is an urban, K-2 elementary school located
within this charter system. Milton Place is one of the two schools within its district
that partners with EdisonLearning, the nation’s largest private manager of public
schools. There were approximately 27 fully credentialed teachers. Thirteen of the
teachers were in their first year in the profession, and many of them had completed
their student teaching outside the charter system. Additionally, the school had a full-
time counselor, full-time literacy coach, 2 reading intervention specialists, and 4
instructional aides. There were 23 classrooms, with approximately 24 students per
Kindergarten classroom, 23 students per each 1
st
grade classroom, and 26 students in
each 2
nd
grade classroom. Milton Place Primary Center had a student population of
over 570 and 20 of them had an active Individualized Education Program (IEP).
According to the principal, 99% of the students were African American, and 88% of
the student population participated in the free and reduced priced lunch program.
Milton Place Primary Center did not have an API score for the 2006-2007
academic year for two reasons. First, the school is a new school and student scores
had not been collected from the previous year. Secondly, students do not begin
taking the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT), which is the test used to
calculate API information, until the third grade. Furthermore, Milton Place is a
Primary Center and is comprised of students in grades K-2.
According to the data on the Northwest Evaluation Assessments (NWEA),
however, there were recognizable gaps in achievement in students’ achievement on
the reading portion as compared to the national average. During the fall assessment
69
period, first grade students at Milton Place had an average RIT (Rasch Unit) score of
157.3 compared to 160.2, which was the national average. Similarly, second grade
students had a RIT score of 175.9 compared to 179.7. The NWEA was given three
times during the year to measure growth in the areas reading, mathematics, and
language. Since there were discrepancies, reading was the primary focus for the
beginning of the year.
175.9
179.7
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
Milton Place National Average
Grade 2
157.3
160.2
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
Milton Place National Average
Grade 1
Figure 3-2. A Comparison of RTI Scores Between Students Attending Milton Place
Primary Center and the National Average in Grades 1 and 2
70
Instrumentation and Procedures
Survey
The quantitative tool for measuring principal practice prior to (pre-test) and
after the intervention (post-test) was the VAL-ED. The purpose of conducting pre
and post assessment was to determine change in leadership practice as a result of the
protégé’s participation in the EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program. “The
conceptual framework for VAL-ED is based on a review of the learning-centered
leadership research literature and alignment to the Interstate School Leaders
Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards” (Porter, Goldring, Murphy, Elliott, and
Cravens, 2006, p.1). As noted, the VAL-ED was grounded in the learning-centered
leadership theory. The six core components measured by the survey were based on
the research and reflected the characteristics of schools that foster student learning
and teacher practice. The six core components were: 1) high standards for student
performance, 2) rigorous curriculum, 3) quality instruction, 4) culture of learning and
professional behavior, 5) connections to external communities, and 6) systemic
performance (Porter, et al., 2006).
According to Porter, Goldring, Murphy, Elliott, and Cravens (2006), the
VAL-ED is conceptualized as a multi-component assessment system for measuring
critical leadership behaviors of individual educators especially in urban settings for
the purposes of diagnostic analysis, performance feedback, progress monitoring, and
personnel decisions (p. 1).
71
The protégés’ behaviors were evaluated by the principal themselves and
teachers at the school site. The VAL-ED evaluated the protégés’ Core Components
of School Performance and Key Processes of Leadership. The Core Components
related “to characteristics of schools that support the learning of students and
enhance the ability of teachers” (Porter, Goldring, Murphy, Elliott, and Cravens,
2006, p.1). The key processes defined the leadership behaviors that led to the
demonstration of each core component of school performance (Porter, et al., 2006).
The VAL-ED identified six Core Components: High Standards for Student
Learning, Rigorous Curriculum, Quality Instruction, Culture of Learning and
Professional Behavior, Connections to External Communities. High Standards for
Student Learning required the incorporation of individual, team and school goals to
determine the rigor of social and academic learning. Rigorous Curriculum
encompassed the academic content that was provided to students in all academic
areas. Quality Instruction related to the pedagogy of instructional practices that
assisted in the improvement of student learning. Culture of Learning and
Professional Behavior focused on the integration of professional practice and the
provision of a positive school environment. Connections to External Communities
focused on the relationships among the school, families and additional community
resources to benefit students and their learning. Performance Accountability asserted
that the performance of students’ academic and social learning was linked to the
individual and collective responsibility garnered by both faculty and students.
(Vanderbilt University, 2007).
72
The Key Processes “are leadership behaviors, most notably aspects of
transformational leadership traditionally associated with processes of leadership that
raise organizational members’ levels of commitment and shape organizational
culture” (Porter, Goldring, Murphy, Elliott, and Cravens, 2006, p. 2). Planning
demonstrated a need for a collaborative direction and policies, practices, and
procedures to foster high expectations for student learning. The engagement of
individuals, their ideas, and various resources were the activities that encompassed
implementing. Supporting created conditions needed for the attainment of financial,
technological, political, and human resources, which enhanced student learning.
Advocating was defined by the advancement of students’ needs both within and
beyond the scope of the school’s walls. Communicating developed, utilized, and
maintained exchanges between the school and the external communities. Monitoring
related to the strategic collection and analysis of data which informed decisions for
continuous school improvement. The following chart depicts a sample taken from
the VAL-ED questionnaire, which highlights the core component “High Standards
for Student Learning” at the intersection of principal planning.
The leadership behaviors assessed were defined at the intersection of the two
dimensions (Figure 3-3). According to the conceptual framework, this survey
question assessed the extent to which the school leadership planned for high
standards for student learning (the intersection between planning and high standards
for student learning) or planned for rigorous academic and social learning goals (the
intersection between planning and high standards for student learning).
73
Figure 3-3. VAL-ED Leadership Behaviors
For reliability purposes, researchers Porter, Polikoff, Murphy, Goldring,
Elliot, and May (2008) used the VAL-ED in a nine-school pilot study. In order to
determine the reliabilities of the core components and key processes, Cronbach’s
Alpha was used. The study revealed that there was a high internal consistency of
reliability for both core components and key processes. The overall reliability scores
on the 72-item forms was .98. However, it was found that reliability scores on core
components were slightly higher than those scores on key processes.
Interviews
Due to the nature of the qualitative inquiry process in a case study, interviews
were conducted to gather personal insights from the participants. These interviews
captured the participants’ beliefs, thoughts, and experiences which could not be
74
easily observed (Patton, 2002) by the VAL-ED survey which was a closed-ended
survey. The following groups of individuals were interviewed:
1. EdisonLearning school principal protégé
2. Purposeful sample of three teachers and the assistant principal
3. EdisonLearning Executive Director
The interviews were approximately 30 minutes in length. To accommodate
the school faculty, interviews were conducted at the school site in Chicago. With the
permission of the participants, the interviews were tape recorded and then
transcribed. The EdisonLearning Executive Director was also interviewed for 30
minutes over the phone. The purpose for this interview was to gather information on
the EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program and the support structures in place.
The participants were involved in Standardized Open-ended Interviews. This
entailed interviewees to respond to “carefully and fully” (Patton, 2002, p. 345)
developed questions. Since various participants were interviewed, it was important
that consistency was maintained in the content of the questions. Interview questions
were developed in collaboration with colleagues in the dissertation thematic group
with input from the committee chair. Additionally, follow-up questions or probes
were utilized to “deepen the response to a question, increase the richness and depth
of responses, and give cues to the interviewees about the level of response that is
desired” (Patton, 2002, p. 372).
The interview protocols assessed the impact of EdisonLearning mentoring on
leadership practice and behaviors. In addition, the protocols assessed what ways
75
leadership practice influenced teacher practice. Questions were developed for each
group of participants. For instance, the principal addressed her personal knowledge,
beliefs, and ideas about her own leadership practices. Teachers were asked to share
their own experiences regarding the influence EdisonLearning mentoring had on
principal leadership, which in turn, influenced their professional practice. Finally,
the EdisonLearning Executive provided information regarding the EdisonLearning
Principal Mentor Program and the structures that support its implementation.
Due to the nature of the study, “distinguishing types of questions” (Patton,
2002, p. 348) were asked in order to be clear about the focus of the questions. For
example, experience and behavior questions elicited observable “behaviors,
experiences, actions, and activities” (Patton, 2002, p. 348) of the school leader and
the teachers. These questions were instrumental in determining the effects of
EdisonLearning mentoring on principal leadership. Opinion and values questions
were also utilized since they assessed the protégé’s “goals, intentions, desires, and
expectations” (Patton, 2002, p. 350). This type of questioning was critical in
understanding the principal’s beliefs and values that guided her professional practice
and influence on teacher practice. Furthermore, knowledge questions were important
since they elicited factual knowledge and skills of the school leader. And lastly, for
the school principal, background/demographics questions were asked in order to
understand the principal’s characteristics and past work experiences (Patton, 2002).
Through the lens of learning-centered leadership, this was especially significant for
76
understanding the influence on the principal’s leadership practice. See appendix for
a copy of the interview protocols.
Upon approval of the participants, the interview sessions were audio-taped
and transcribed. Reflective notes were taken immediately after each interview to
capture major thoughts and to detect emerging patterns (Patton, 2002). The data
gathered from the VAL-ED were evaluated and cross-checked with responses from
the interviews. In effect, the triangulation of data yielded information that “test for
consistency” in the results (Patton, 2002, p. 248).
Questionnaire
A five-question questionnaire was distributed via email to two
EdisonLearning mentors. One of the mentors worked with Mrs. Ericson, the other
worked as a mentor to a protégé in another state. Their responses yielded viable
information that could not otherwise be witnessed.
Observations
Observations were a pivotal aspect of the qualitative component of this study
because it provided an opportunity to view the principal practices as they took place
in a real-life, naturalistic setting (Patton, 2002). According to Patton (2002),
observations provided a better awareness of the entire “context” (p.262).
For the purpose of this study, a non-participant observer approach was
utilized. Information was gathered on the principal’s school setting, particularly her
leadership practice, and how the leadership behaviors affected teacher practice. A
formal observation of the principal was conducted in Spring of 2009. The
77
observation focused on the principal’s roles and responsibilities, which included
interactions with teachers, office staff, students, and parents at the school. The
observation lasted approximately 2 hours.
Field notes were taken during the observation and a reflective journal was
maintained to ensure accuracy. Patton’s (2002) guidelines for observations as
described in the third edition of Qualitative Research and Evaluation were followed.
Document Analysis
According to Patton (2002), documents provide meaningful details, “not only
because of what can be learned directly from them but also as stimulus for paths of
inquiry that can be pursued only through direct observation and interviewing” (p.
294). The school documents were evaluated for the principal’s demonstration of the
five EdisonLearning Leadership roles: Instructional Leader, Organizational Leader,
Culture Builder, Site Manager, and Edison Schools Executive (Edison School, 2007).
Additionally, evidence was gathered on the principal’s performance level in each of
those roles. The performance standard rubric was categorized into four levels:
Initial, Developing, Proficient, and Exemplary (Edison Schools, 2007). The
following documents were analyzed:
• School Achievement Plan
• School Mission and Vision
• Whole School Design Handbook (Edison Schools, 2007)
78
Instrumentation and Procedures: Document Analysis
Quantitative
For the quantitative section of the study, the findings from the VAL-ED were
collected through a 30 minute online survey system. An outside agency not only
handled the administration of the VAL-ED survey online, the agency’s database
system provided comprehensive score reports based upon data collected from all
respondents. This process reduced or eliminated the likelihood of potential for
human errors. In addition, the turn around time for results was immediate since it
was conducted on a computer system. The data collected from the VAL-ED was
gathered, using an online version, from the participants at two times during this
study: once in the fall of 2008, prior to the principal’s participation in the Edison
mentoring intervention (pre-assessment), and again after the principal had worked
with an EdisonLearning mentor for about four months in the Spring (2009). The
results of the pre-test were compared to the post-test.
The purpose for the administration of the VAL-ED before the principal
received EdisonLearning mentoring and again toward the end of the study was to
measure change in principal practice. The principal and teachers at the school site
completed the VAL-ED. The scores yielded from the completed VAL-ED were the
composite scores of the intersection of the two dimensions that defined leadership
practice: what leaders fulfilled in order to increase students’ academic achievement
(i.e., core components) and how principals established conditions that supported
those core component (i.e., key processes) (Porter, Goldring, Murphy, Elliott, and
79
Cravens, 2006). The following figure is a sample item that includes the subscales
described above.
Figure 3-4. Composite VAL-ED Scores
Qualitative
According to Patton, “Qualitative analysis transforms data into findings”
(2002, p. 432). As previously noted, with the consent of the participants, all
interview sessions were audio recorded and later transcribed. Notes were taken
during and after the interview with the principal, purposeful sample of teachers, and
EdisonLearning mentor. Information was carefully coded whereby common themes
were identified and categorized according to the EdisonLearning Leadership roles
80
and rubric standards. Creswell (2003) suggests the following steps which
maintained the integrity of the coding process: 1) arrange the data, 2) read through
the data, 3) put the data into specific groups, 4) create suitable descriptors or
common themes, 5) express common themes in narrative form, and 6) explain and
interpret the data.
Triangulation
Both quantitative and qualitative data were cross-examined using
methodological triangulation (Patton, 2002). This process enhanced the findings of
the study (Patton, 2002) since the research study employed a quantitative and
qualitative approach. Essentially, methodological triangulation increased the internal
validity of the study and its findings.
Timeline
Date & Participants Instrument Time
Fall 2008
Principal Pre-VAL-ED 30 minutes
Teachers Pre-VAL-ED 30 minutes
Principal Pre- Interview 30 minutes
EdisonLearning Executive Director Interview 30 minutes
Spring 2009
Principal Post-VAL-ED 30 minutes
Teacher Post-VAL-ED 30 minutes
Principal Observation 120 minutes
EdisonLearning Mentors Questionnaires 30 minutes
Teachers (Purposive sample) Interview 30 minutes
Principal Post-Interview 30 minutes
Table 3-1. Timeline of Study
81
Triangulation Matrix
Data Collection Instruments
Research
Questions
VAL-ED Surveys Pre and Post
(Principal, Teachers)
Pre Interview
(Edison-Learning Executive
Director)
Pre Interview
(Principal)
Post Interview
(Principal)
Questionnaire (Edison-
Learning Mentor)
Interview (Teachers)
Observa-tion (Principal)
Document Analysis
1. How does
working with a
mentor from the
EdisonLearning
Principal Mentor
Program affect
the leadership
practices of an
urban school
principal?
Questions
1 - 72
Question 4 Questions
4, 5, 6, 7
and 8
All
Questions
and their
sub-
questions
General
Question 1,
ISLLC
Linked
Questions
1, 1a, 1b,
1c, 1d
Field
Observation
Spring
2009
Student
Achievement
Plan School’s
Mission and
Vision Whole
School
Design
Handbook
2. What
organizational
structures
support and do
not support the
implementation
of the mentoring
model?
Questions
1, 4, 6, 9,
10, 12
Question
3
All Edison
Learning
mentor
question
and sub-
questions
Whole School
Design
Handbook
3. How does the
leadership
practices of the
principal affect
the professional
practice of
teachers?
Questions
2, 6, 7, 8,
9, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17,
20, 25, 29,
30, 36, 42,
67, 71
Questions
1, 3, 4 and
6
Questions
2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7 and 8
Questions
2, 2a, 2b,
2c, 6, 6a,
6b,
General
Question 2,
ISLLC
Linked
Questions 2,
2a, 2b, 2c
Field
Observation
Spring2009
Table 3-2. Triangulation Matrix of data collection instruments used to answer the
questions
82
Ethical Considerations
Qualitative research “methods are highly personal and interpersonal, because
naturalistic inquiry takes the researcher into the real work where people live and
work, and because in-depth interviewing opens up what is inside people” (Patton,
2002, p. 407). Therefore, it was imperative the set of ethical guidelines that were
established by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the University of Southern
California were strictly adhered to when this study was conducted. It was also
crucial that the data gathered from the principal, purposive sample of teachers and
assistant principal, EdisonLearning Executive Director, and EdisonLearning Mentors
during the interview were carefully analyzed and coded meticulously. It was
pertinent that all of the information was a precise reflection of all participants’
opinions and statements and not biased by the researcher. All participants were
made aware of rights through the informed consent process and their confidentiality
was guarded throughout the study. In addition, pseudonyms for all participants,
including the school district, were created to protect their anonymity.
83
CHAPTER FOUR
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (RESULTS)
The purpose of this chapter is to 1) present and analyze the data collected for
this study; and to 2) report on the findings for each of the research questions that
guided this study. The primary data for this research was collected through
interviews conducted with the principal, assistant principal, EdisonLearning mentors,
EdisonLearning Executive Director, and teachers. Additionally, observations of the
principal and document analysis of the Student Achievement Plan, Whole School
Design 2007 Plan, the school’s mission and vision were also utilized to answer the
research questions. Pre and post intervention data from the online VAL-ED survey
was also collected to determine the impact of working with the EdisonLearning
leadership mentor on leader practice. The triangulation matrix below identifies the
research questions and the data collection instruments used to respond to each of the
three research questions that were the focus for this study.
84
Data Collection Instruments
Research
Questions
VAL-ED Surveys Pre and Post
(Principal, Teachers)
Pre Interview
(Edison-Learning Executive
Director)
Pre Interview
(Principal)
Post Interview
(Principal)
Questionnaire (Edison-
Learning Mentor)
Interview (Teachers)
Observa-tion (Principal)
Document Analysis
1. How does
working with a
mentor from the
EdisonLearning
Principal Mentor
Program affect
the leadership
practices of an
urban school
principal?
Questions
1 - 72
Question 4 Questions
4, 5, 6, 7
and 8
All
Questions
and their
sub-
questions
General
Question 1,
ISLLC
Linked
Questions
1, 1a, 1b,
1c, 1d
Field
Observation
Spring
2009
Student
Achievement
Plan School’s
Mission and
Vision Whole
School
Design
Handbook
2. What
organizational
structures
support and do
not support the
implementation
of the mentoring
model?
Questions
1, 4, 6, 9,
10, 12
Question
3
All Edison
Learning
mentor
question
and sub-
questions
Whole School
Design
Handbook
3. How does the
leadership
practices of the
principal affect
the professional
practice of
teachers?
Questions
2, 6, 7, 8,
9, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17,
20, 25, 29,
30, 36, 42,
67, 71
Questions
1, 3, 4 and
6
Questions
2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7 and 8
Questions
2, 2a, 2b,
2c, 6, 6a,
6b,
General
Question 2,
ISLLC
Linked
Questions 2,
2a, 2b, 2c
Field
Observation
Spring2009
Table 4-1. Triangulation Matrix of data collection instruments used to answer the
questions
85
This mixed-methods case study investigated the impact of the
EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program (ELPMP) on the leadership practices of a
novice school principal. This research study investigated the following three
questions:
1. How does working with an EdisonLearning Principal Mentor
Program Mentor affect the leadership practices of an urban school
principal?
2. What organizational structures support the implementation of the
mentoring model?
3. How do the leadership practices of the principal affect professional
practice of teachers?
This Chapter will proceed with an introduction to the case study school,
Milton Place Primary Academy. The chapter then reports the data for each
instrument used to collect the data in response to each research question. This will be
followed by an analysis of the data across the data sets as patterns and themes
emerged. The findings in the analysis section of this chapter are organized according
to each of the three research questions.
Case Study: Milton Place Primary Academy
Pseudonyms were used to protect the privacy of the school district, school
and the participants. Milton Place Primary Center was opened in August 2008 as the
first K-2 primary campus located within the Charter School District (CSD) in
Chicago, Illinois. The school is located adjacent to a school that houses grades 3-12
86
that is part of the Charter School District as well. Each of the twelve charter schools
within the CSD has Educational Management Organizations (EMO) Partners, who
assisted the schools with the daily operations of the schools. EdisonLearning is the
EMO of two of the twelve schools located within CSD: Milton Place Primary Center
and the school located adjacent to Milton Place.
EdisonLearning is an education management organization which partners
with public schools across the nation. It was founded in 1992 and opened its first
school in 1995. Since then EdisonLearning has partnered with 120 schools and
serves over 350,000 students in 24 states (Edison Schools, 2007). EdisonLearning is
unique in their commitment to collaborating with the community to enhance public
schools and increase student outcomes. EdisonLearning is focused on ambitious
standards for student performance and implements research based strategies to
ensure they produce effective schools. As such, EdisonLearning developed Four
Cornerstones which provide the foundation for all EdisonLearning programs. These
principles are: 1) Top Talent 2) Culture of Engagement and Aspiration
3) Demanding Content and Customized Instruction 4) Achievement-Driven
Management (Edison Schools, 2007).
As an EdisonLearning charter, Milton Place truly believes that the Four
Cornerstones (Edison Schools, 2007) approach is vital for effective schools. As
such, they work diligently to attract and hire the most qualified top talent available.
In addition, EdisonLearning schools support the growth of those talented individuals
through rigorous professional development that is imbedded into their daily
87
schedule, which is another unique aspect of the EdisonLearning school design. Each
EdisonLearning school develops a culture of engagement and aspiration that
appreciates individuals’ strengths, implements a set of core values, and fosters a
sense of collective commitment toward improving student achievement.
EdisonLearning Schools also hold high expectations for all of their students with the
belief that every child should be exposed to demanding content and customized
instruction. The content of the curriculum is rigorous and the instruction is geared
toward meeting the individual needs of the diverse learning population. Finally,
EdisonLearning Schools pride themselves on consistently utilizing achievement-
driven management tools that ensure students are meeting benchmark assessment
standards, accountability is more transparent, and there are resources to support the
schools with the local communities.
EdisonLearning Schools is dedicated to collaborating with educators to
augment students’ academic achievement and enhance the school community. As
previously mentioned, EdisonLearning partnered with Milton Place Primary Center
as their education management organization. There were approximately 570
students at Milton Place Primary Center. There were eight kindergarten, eight first,
and eight second grade classrooms. The student demographics represented over 99%
African American and less than 1% Hispanic and Other. Over 88% of the students
received free and reduced priced lunch and approximately twenty (20) students had
an active Individualized Education Plan (IEP).
88
The school’s staff consisted of 27 fully-credentialed teachers. Thirteen of
them were in their first year of teaching and six of those had just finished ‘Teach for
America’. Additionally, the school had a full-time counselor, literacy specialist, two
reading specialists, four arts specialist teachers, and four instructional assistants. The
classes were clustered together. The four specialist teachers provided release time to
each of the teachers during their daily scheduled “prep” time so they could conduct
professional development or grade level meetings.
The school was recently converted from its original convent to a school. A
broken water valve delayed the opening of the school by weeks and there is still part
of the school near the teachers’ staff lounge that was not up to code, and thus off
limits to people. However, its three-story building had 23 classrooms, a cafeteria, a
converted sun porch that now served as a computer lab, a library, an art room, a
music room, and a small yard to play outside.
Mission Statement
According to the 2008-2009 Student Achievement Plan, the Mission for
Milton Place Primary Center was as follows:
The mission of Milton Place Primary Center is to provide, through innovation
and choice, an attractive and rigorous college-preparatory education that
meets the needs of today’s students. We are On-B.A.S.E. Everyday.
Additionally, the vision statement was as follows:
We envision Milton Place Primary Center to be a safe, nurturing and
welcoming environment that provides for students of all abilities. The school
team, families and community members will work collaboratively to develop
and shape children into problem solvers, critical thinkers, cooperative
learners and productive citizens. Through these collaborative efforts, our
89
children will succeed academically and socially to become leaders in an ever
evolving, technological society.
Milton Place Primary Center: Tekla Ericson, Principal
Tekla Ericson received her undergraduate degree in Early Childhood
Education at a school in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. While in college, she worked in
various managerial positions, including store manager for Aldi Foods. While
employed there, she became experienced in budgets, ordering materials, managing
staff, and hiring employees.
Shortly after graduation she taught for a few years, but left the teaching
profession for the business world because, at the time the income was not meeting
here financial needs. She became an investment banker with Five Star (now called
US Bank) and worked as an investment services manager for several years. While
there she also received experience in providing training to staff members and hiring
qualified people.
EdisonLearning Schools conducted a job fair about the same time US Bank
merged with Five Star. Mrs. Ericson was not ready for a move to the corporate
division in Minneapolis, Minnesota, so she attended the job fair and learned that
EdisonLearning was going to open a Business and Economics school. She missed
teaching, but enjoyed the business world, and decided that it was a perfect way to
combine the two.
Mrs. Ericson has been employed by EdisonLearning for over eight years.
She started as a teacher at the Business and Economics school in Wisconsin. In her
90
eight years, Mrs. Ericson had also worked as a literacy specialist, achievement
director for the state and the district, science coordinator, math coordinator, and
academy director (the equivalent to an assistant principal). She began her career as a
principal in May 2008 before Milton Place Primary Center had been completed.
Since the school was both a start-up charter (i.e., a new charter during the 2008-2009
academic year) and because Mrs. Ericson was new to the principal position, she was
afforded the opportunity to visit numerous EdisonLearning sites prior to the
beginning of the mentorship.
Mrs. Ericson was assigned a mentor in August 2008. Her mentor does not
work within her school district. As part of the EdisonLearning mentor program,
Mrs. Ericson and her mentor scheduled weekly phone conversations and had already
had one site visitation. Although the two of them were not working within the same
school district, there had been times when they met at conferences.
Baseline School Data
Milton Place Primary Center did not have baseline AYP data because it was
both a new school and more importantly students in Illinois do not take the Illinois
Standards Achievement Tests until they are in the third grade. Since Milton Place
was a new, K-2 school, benchmark assessment data had only been collected.
Students in first and second grade had taken the Northwest Evaluation Assessments
(NWEA) in reading. The goal of these benchmarks was to reach proficiency, which
is a score of 200. During the fall assessment period, first grade students had an
average RIT (Rasch Unit) score of 153.7. In the winter period, they scored 162.9.
91
The total growth was 5.6. During the fall assessment period, second grade students
had an average RIT score of 175.9. In the winter testing period, they scored 181.5,
and demonstrated 5.6 growth points. The chart below depicts the results on the
NWEA.
Grade Fall Winter Growth
First 157.3 162.9 5.6
Second 175.9 181.5 5.6
Table 4-2. Students’ RTI Averages on the Northwest Evaluation Assessment
Research Question One: Impact of Mentoring on Leadership Practice
Research Question 1: How does working with an EdisonLearning Principal
Mentor Program Mentor affect the leadership practices of an urban school
principal?
Data Collection Instruments
The primary data for this question was obtained from the pre and post
intervention administration of the online VAL-ED survey. Forty-five minute,
individual interviews with three teachers and an assistant principal were also
conducted at the end of this study in Spring 2009. Additionally, a pre and post
intervention interview with the principal was conducted. Finally, a two-hour
observation of the principal enacting standards of behavior consistent with learning-
centered leadership (Murphy, et al., 2006) and the leadership roles described by
92
EdisonLearning (Edison Schools, 2007) was also conducted. These behaviors were
consistent with her daily routine such as morning greeting of students, daily walk
thru of classrooms, interacting with students, and meeting with EdisonLearning
corporate administrators. The following is a report of the data collected in response
to Research Question #1. That will be followed by an analysis of all data collected
for this research question.
Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) Survey
The survey was administered to two respondent groups: 1) Milton Place
principal and 2) all certificated teachers. Although the VAL-ED survey was
designed as a 360 ˚ measurement tool, which would include the principal, his/her
teachers, and the principal’s supervisor’s participation, this study did not include of
the survey to the supervisor due to the non-evaluative nature of this study. The data
collected yielded information regarding effective principal leadership practice,
known to influence student achievement. The survey is aligned with Murphy et al’s
(2006) Learning-Centered leadership practices framework. The strength of this
assessment tool was its requirement for respondents to evaluate the principal’s
leadership behaviors based on sources of evidence such as “reports from others,
personal observations, school documents, or school projects or activities” (VAL-ED
Principal Report, 2009, p. 2). Respondents to the VAL-ED were asked “How
effective the principal is in ensuring the school…” carries out specific actions that
affect core components of learning focused leadership (Murphy, et al., 2007).
93
The online VAL-ED reports the principal’s performance level (scale of 1 to
5) and percentile rank on both the core components and key processes. “Core
components refer to characteristics of schools that support the learning of students
and enhance the ability of teachers to teach. Key processes refer to how leaders
create and manage those core components. Effective learning-centered leadership is
at the intersection of the two” (Building a Psychometrically Sound Assessment of
School Leadership: The VAL-ED as a Case Study, Porter, Polikoff Univerisity of
Pennsylvania, Goldring, Murphy, Elliott, Vanderbilt University, May, University of
Pennsyvania, AERA 2008, pg. 4).
The leadership behaviors the study assessed are defined at the intersection of
these two dimensions. In accordance with Murphy’s et al. (2007) conception, for
example, we would assess the extent to which the school leadership plans for a
rigorous curriculum (the intersection between planning and rigorous curriculum) or
implements high-quality instruction (the intersection between implement and high
quality instruction). It also includes the evidence survey participants used to rate the
leader’s performance. Furthermore, scores resulting from the VAL-ED are based on
the intersection between the six core components: 1) High Standards for Student
Learning, 2) Rigorous Curriculum, 3) Quality Instruction, 4) Culture of Learning &
Professional Behavior, 5) Connections to External Communities, and 6) Performance
Accountability and the following six key processes: 1) Planning, 2) Implementing,
3) Supporting, 4) Advocating, 5) Communicating, and 6) Monitoring. More
specifically, the range of scores the principal received was on a scale of 1 to 5. The
94
meaning of the scores will be defined in more detail in the Summary of Data section
of this chapter.
The chart below provides key descriptors of Murphy’s et al (2006) Learning-
Centered Leadership Framework and the EdisonLearning Leadership Framework
(2007). The descriptions for effective leadership practice from a learning-centered
perspective were taken directly from Muphy’s et al (2006) research. Similarly, the
explanation of EdisonLearning Leadership Framework (2007) was derived from their
rubric that described standards for leadership behaviors. As the chart depicts, the six
core components and six key processes of the Murphy et al (2006) closely aligned
with the EdisonLearning Leadership Framework (2007). It is important to note that
the six key processes are essential to achieving each of the six core components of
leadership effectiveness.
95
Murphy’s Framework
(Assessed by the VAL-ED)
Six Core Components and Six Key Processes
EdisonLearning Leadership
Framework
Five Leadership Roles: Instructional
Leader, Organizational Leader, Culture
Builder, Site Manager and Edison
Executive
High Standards for Student Learning
• Clear focus/vision for student success
• School-wide belief in high student
achievement
• Setting ambitious goals
• Goals are measurable & specific
Six Key Processes required to achieve the
core component: Planning, Implementing,
Supporting, Advocating Communicating,
Monitoring
Promoting Instructional Excellence
• Pursuit of academic excellence
• Ensures the staff support the school
vision and goals
Rigorous Curriculum
• Rigorous curriculum
• High expectations for all students
• Alignment across the curricular areas
Six Key Processes required to achieve the
core component: Planning, Implementing,
Supporting, Advocating Communicating,
Monitoring
Implementing and Monitoring
Curriculum Program
• Links all programmatic structural and
development decisions to attaining
high academic achievement
• Data used to assess the effectiveness
of the implementation of
EdisonLearning curriculum
Quality Instruction
• Strong content knowledge/pedagogical
experts
• Protect the learning time
• Provide consistent and timely feedback
• Monitor the instructional program
Six Key Processes required to achieve the
core component: Planning, Implementing,
Supporting, Advocating Communicating,
Monitoring
Implementing and Monitoring
Instruction and Assessment Program
• Aligns instructional excellence to the
school vision and goals
• Use of student achievement data to
determine professional development
and instructional and assessment
priorities
• Focuses on both content knowledge
and research based instructional
strategies
Table 4-3. Alignment of the Murphy (2006) and EdisonLearning Leadership
Frameworks
96
Culture of Learning & Professional
Behavior
• Fosters a positive school culture
• Opportunities to collaborate through
professional development
• Model life long commitment to learning
• Provide materials for teachers to
implement new skills
• Student achievement data drive school PD
and decision-making
Six Key Processes required to achieve the
core component: Planning, Implementing,
Supporting, Advocating Communicating,
Monitoring
Creating a Culture of Shared
Commitment Among Stakeholders
• Strengthens relationship among
teachers, students and home
• Ensure teachers have the necessary
resources
• Recognizes school successes
• Builds school ownership
Connections to External Communities
• Engaging parents and community members
• Decision-making based on community
feedback and input
• Effective communication with various
stakeholders
Six Key Processes required to achieve the
core component: Planning, Implementing,
Supporting, Advocating Communicating,
Monitoring
Creating a Positive Representation of
EdisonLearning Schools to the
Outside Community
• Creates opportunities for engagement
with outside community
• Invites external expertise to conduct
periodic internal review
• Cultivates outreach opportunities to
secure additional resources
Performance Accountability
• Monitor school practices and impact on
student learning
• Hold stakeholders accountable to
achieving school goals
Six Key Processes required to achieve the
core component: Planning, Implementing,
Supporting, Advocating Communicating,
Monitoring
Promoting Accountability Linked to
Student Achievement
• Inspires and holds stakeholders
accountable for high levels of
achievement
• Communicates expectations for
student achievement
Table 4-3, continued
97
Report of the Data
Online VAL-ED Pre Survey Administration
The online VAL-ED Pre-Assessment was completed in the fall of 2008 by
ninety-three percent of the staff (N = 25) of the teachers and by the principal at
Milton Place Primary Center. The survey was administered to the staff and the
principal as a pre-assessment to gather baseline data on leadership practices. Mrs.
Ericson achieved an overall mean score of 3.56 with the standard error measurement
of .05. The overall mean score is a score that is the mean across the intersection
between the core components and key processes. These scores were based on “5-
point Liekert effectiveness scale where 1=Ineffective; 2=Minimally Effective;
3=Satisfactorily Effective; 4=Highly Effective; and 5= Outstandingly Effective”
(VAL-ED Principal Report, 2008, p. 3). Additionally, she received a national
percentile rank of 45.6 on the pre-assessment. When compared to other principals
in the norm group who were assessed, this principal performed better than 45.6
percent of the principals.
Given Mrs. Ericson’s overall mean score of 3.56 and her percentile ranking
compared to other principals, her overall performance level placed her at the “Basic”
level. This performance level is based on a continuum that moves from Below Basic
to Basic, to Proficient, and Distinguished. Below is a chart of that demonstrates the
continuum of each performance level.
98
Figure 4-1. Descriptions of the VAL-ED Performance Levels
The VAL-ED described principals who achieved a score of Basic to be
considered as “…a leader at the Basic level of proficiency exhibits learning-centered
leadership behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are likely to influence teachers
positively and that result in acceptable value-added to student achievement and
social learning for some subgroups of students but not all” (VAL-ED Principal
Report, 2008, p. 3).
To clarify how the performance level was determined, the graph below
(Porter et al., 2008) demonstrates Mrs. Ericson’s integrated results from the two
99
respondent groups (i.e., teachers and principal) on the pre-intervention of the online
VAL-ED survey. More specifically, the performance level was determined by the
average of performance ratings by three respondent groups. As noted earlier, the
performance ratings ranged from ineffective to outstanding in six core components.
Furthermore, the graph depicts the minimum mean performance rating needed to
achieve a performance level of Basic, Proficient, or Distinguished.
Comparison of Ratings and Proficiency Levels on pre-intervention of VAL-ED
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Total Student
Learning
Rigorous
Curriculum
Quality
Instruction
Culture of
Learning
External
Communities
Performance
Accountability
Core Components
Performance Ratings
Principal's ratings
Median of Teachers' ratings
Distinguished
Proficient
Basic
Ineffective
Outstandingly
Effective
Figure 4-2. Illustration of Report Results: Integrated Results Across Respondents
100
The results of the pre assessment survey revealed that Mrs. Ericson received
a score of Below Basic performance level in the area of Rigorous Curriculum and
Connections to External Communities. According to the VAL-ED principal report
(2008), “A leader at the below basic level of proficiency exhibits learning-centered
leadership behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are unlikely to influence teachers
positively nor result in value-added to student achievement and social learning for
students” (p. 3). Mrs. Ericson scored proficient in aspects of High Standards for
Student Learning, Quality Instruction, Culture of Learning and Professional
Behavior, and Performance Accountability. Therefore, according to the report, a
principal who received a performance level of proficient, “exhibits learning-centered
leadership behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are likely to influence teachers
positively and result in acceptable value-added to student achievement and social
learning for all students” (VAL-ED Principal Report, 2008, p. 3). Furthermore, on
the VAL-ED pre-assessment, Mrs. Ericson scored proficient in the two key
processes, supporting and communicating. As previously mentioned, key processes
were, “the leadership behaviors that can lead to producing each core component of
school performance” (Porter, et al., 2006). However, she received a performance
level of basic in planning, implementing, advocating, and monitoring. The
following chart describes Mrs. Ericson’s results of the core components and key
processes scores on the pre-assessment online VAL-ED survey.
101
Figure 4-3. Mrs. Ericson’s Scores on the Pre-Assessment of the VAL-ED
The figure below depicts the leadership behaviors that were assessed and
were defined by the intersection of the Core Components and Key Processes on the
pre-assessment. A score of Below Basic (BB), according to the VAL-ED, were
associated with behaviors, “that are unlikely to influence teachers positively” (VAL-
ED Principal Report, 2008, p. 3). A Proficient (P) score meant Mrs. Ericson was
“likely to influence teachers positively” (VAL-ED Principal Report, 2008, p. 3).
Based upon her scores, areas determined were areas for growth with a score of BB
were: 1) Implementing, Supporting, and Advocating a Rigorous Curriculum; and 2)
Implementing and Advocating Connections to the External Communities. The figure
below displays Mrs. Ericson’s scores.
102
Figure 4-4. The Intersection of Core Components and Key Processes on the Pre-
Assessment
VAL-ED Post Intervention Administration
The online VAL-ED post intervention survey administration was given in the
Spring of 2009, to assess the impact on leader practice as a result of working with an
EdisonLearning mentor. On this administration of the survey, the principal and 78%
( N = 21) of teachers completed the assessment. Although there were four fewer
teachers who completed the post-intervention online VAL-ED survey as compared to
the pre-intervention administration of the online survey, there were enough
respondents for the scores to be considered valid.
On the post-intervention survey administration, Mrs. Ericson received an
overall mean score of 3.52, which was a decrease of .04 as compared to her pre-
103
assessment score. Additionally, her national percentile ranking was 38.7, which was
lower than the pre-assessment results by 6.9 percent. However, her overall
performance level of Basic remained the same. Below is a table which demonstrates
a comparison between Mrs. Ercison’s overall mean scores, performance level, and
percentile rank on the pre-intervention of the VAL-ED survey assessment and the
post-intervention VAL-ED survey. Recall that the mean score was the average from
the respondents’ (i.e., teachers and principal) scores across the intersection between
the core components and key processes. Additionally, the percentile rank was the
principal’s score compared to a “national representative sample” of school leaders
(VAL-ED Principal Report, 2009, p. 3).
Mean Score Performance Level Percentile Rank
PRE VAL-ED 3.56 Basic 45.6
POST VAL-ED 3.52 Basic 38.7
Change -.04 Remain the same -6.9
Table 4-4. Comparison of Principal Scores on the Pre and Post VAL-ED
Assessment
Below is a summary of Mrs. Ericson’s scores for the core components and
key processes on the post-intervention administration of the online VAL-ED survey.
104
Figure 4-5. Summary of the Scores on the Post-Assessment of the VAL-ED
In reviewing data from the online VAL-ED post-intervention survey and
comparing it to the results from the online VAL-ED pre-assessment, there were some
notable changes. In the core component scores, Mrs. Ericson improved in her
performance level and went from Below Basic to Basic in the areas of Rigorous
Curriculum and Connections to External Communities. However, in the areas of
Quality Instruction and Performance Accountability her performance level lowered
from Proficient to Basic. In terms of key processes, there were similar trends. Mrs.
Ericson improved her performance level from Basic to Proficient in the areas of
Advocating and Monitoring. But, she scored lower in Supporting and
Communicating and moved from Proficient to Basic. The table below depicts those
changes in performance level.
105
PRE VAL-ED
Performance Level
POST VAL-ED
Performance Level
CHANGE In
Performance
Level
CORE COMPONENTS
High Standards for
Student Learning
Proficient Proficient Same
Rigorous Curriculum Below Basic Basic + 1 Level
Quality Instruction Proficient Basic - 1 Level
Culture of Learning &
Professional Behavior
Proficient Proficient Same
Connections to External
Communities
Below Basic Basic + 1 Level
Performance
Accountability
Proficient Basic - 1 Level
KEY PROCESSES
Planning Basic Basic Same
Implementing Basic Basic Same
Supporting Proficient Basic - 1 Level
Advocating Basic Proficient + 1 Level
Communicating Proficient Basic - 1 Level
Monitoring Basic Proficient + 1 Level
Table 4-5. Change in Overall Performance Levels in both Core Components and
Key Processess
The figure below integrates both the Core Components and Key Processes on
the Post VAL-ED and summarizes the areas of strengths and areas for growth as
identified by the teachers and principal who completed the post survey. The areas
for growth, as identified by a Below Basic (BB score) were: 1) Implementing,
Supporting, and Communicating a Rigorous Curriculum; 2) Implementing,
Supporting, Advocating, and Communicating a Quality Instruction; and 3)
Implementing and Monitoring Connections to External Communities. As compared
106
to the pre-assessment, the overall integrated scores demonstrate that while Mrs.
Ericson made some growth in some areas, overall the number of Below Basic
Behaviors increased and the number of proficient behaviors decreased.
Figure 4-6. The Intersection of Core Components and Key Processes on the Post-
Assessment
Teacher Interviews: Post Intervention
The purpose for the teacher interviews was to gather insightful information
on the direct observation of the principal’s professional practice and the impact of
mentoring on those leadership practices. After an email was sent out requesting
volunteers for the research, three teachers and the assistant principal responded,
107
stating their interest in participating in the study. Data collected from the
participants are reported below.
Background information on the selection of teacher respondents is outlined as
follows:
• Ms. Helena St. John- a specialist teacher and Lead Teacher, had been
employed by EdisonLearning for the past four years and had worked in
other EdisonLearning schools
• Mrs. Kathy Richards-was a first grade teacher from the ‘Teach for
America’ program and in her first year of teaching
• Ms. Lora Caudill-was a first year kindergarten teacher who received her
teaching credential from a program similar to ‘Teach for America’
• Ms. Jaimi Cornell-was in her first year as an assistant principal and in her
sixth year with EdisonLearning
Forty-five minute interviews were arranged with each individual teacher and
the assistant principal in order to understand the impact of an EdisonLearning mentor
on the leadership practices of the principal. The interviews took place at Milton
Place in each of the teachers’ classrooms and the assistant principal’s office in
Spring of 2009, following six months of Mrs. Ericson having worked with her
mentor.
When asked, Do you know if your principal is participating in a principal
mentoring program?, Ms. Caudill and Mrs. Richards stated they were “unaware”
Mrs. Ericson had been participating in the EdisonLearning mentor program and Ms.
108
St. John admitted to “recently hearing about it.” Ms. Caudill further elaborated that
she
had a notion that either she [Mrs. Ericson] was being observed or mentored,
bust based on new people that you see in the hallway that would be with her.
The principal does a lot of tours, but sometimes I could tell it was someone
that was either her superior or someone that was there to be a support. So
that was the impression I had, but I didn’t know.
However, Ms. Cornell was aware that Mrs. Ericson had a mentor because she
researched the support structures that would be in place to assist her in her new
position as an assistant principal. In doing so, she discovered the EdisonLearning
Principal Mentor Program, but learned it was only for principals. She described her
knowledge of this:
When I initially interviewed for my position, I had asked the people at Edison
like what they would provide me as a professional coming into this type of
position. And I had read about like a leadership academy or something for
principals on the website, so they were telling me a little bit about that, but
that it was only for principals. And then, principals then participate in this
mentoring program, so I knew it existed.
In addition, when asked to describe your principal’s current leadership
practice compared to her practice at the beginning of the school year? Are there any
differences? All the teachers mentioned there were changes, but none were able to
attribute the change in Mrs. Ericson’s behavior as a result of participation in the
EdisonLearning mentoring program. For example, Ms. Caudill remarked that as
compared to the beginning of the year,
that the one difference I would see from the earlier staff meetings till now
which is literally the amount of relevant information has become a little more
relevant; and less relevant information that’s easy to read is communicated by
email or memos. That’s what I could say would be different.
109
Additionally two other teachers discussed the stricter policies on lesson plans
on the content they were to include. Mrs. Richards elaborated, “specifically, like our
policy has gotten a little stricter with lesson plans in a good way.” Furthermore, Ms.
St. John stated that she noticed Mrs. Ericson’s “has really started to improve her
communication, like getting back to me on all of those emails.” Interestingly, Ms.
St. John “assumes” that the improvements were from Mrs. Ericson’s work with her
mentor. She explained:
I did have the benefit of working with a seasoned Edison principal
previously, and I’m seeing some of those traits reflected in my current
principal right now. It has taken some months, but those are the sort of things
now that I know that this program is in place -- I don’t know if it’s coming
from the program that I’m seeing these things happen in school, but that’s
what I assume. I assume that since she is receiving the mentoring, some of
these different things are now happening in our school.
Ms. Cornell also felt that there had been changes in Mrs. Ericson’s leadership
practice since the beginning of the school year. When asked the same question
mentioned above, Ms. Cornell remarked that Mrs. Ericson had made changes to the
leadership team by increasing its size so that it was, “bigger and stronger and there
would be more representation from the entire building coming from these people.”
Additionally, she stated that the professional development in the beginning of the
year, “was pretty vague and open.” Ms. Cornell stated that information on the
school’s curriculum was just given to the teachers and glossed over without having
gone into detail. According to Ms. Cornell, one of the recommendations Mrs.
Ericson received from her mentor was to “back off and tighten up” on the
professional development. So as a result she and Mrs. Ericson have,
110
spent a lot of time, especially in December and January, like not have as
many days of professional development to teachers, because that kind of
overwhelmed them. So spending less time and really focusing on what it is
that we’re delivering, because sometimes, initially, we were like scrambling
to figure out what we were going to present and getting all of our materials
together. So now, she's really been stressing more of a focus of making sure
we have it all together and all ready, so that it’s more beneficial and
productive for everybody involved.
Principal Interview: Pre-intervention
A 30 minute phone interview was conducted in Fall of 2008 with Mrs.
Ericson to gather baseline school data and information about her expectations for the
mentoring process. The study had been designed for the interview to take place in
August 2008, prior to Mrs. Ericson having worked with an EdisonLearning mentor.
However, due to scheduling constraints, the pre-intervention interview did not take
place. It is important to note that she had already received approximately 3 and one
half months of mentoring at the time and was reflecting on her feelings prior to the
beginning of the process.
In reflecting on the pre-intervention period, Mrs. Ericson was first asked to
please describe the schools’ mission and vision. She responded as follows:
The school’s mission and vision was developed and Milton Place Primary
Center took on the mission and vision of the Charter School District because
they felt it provides rigorous standards and meets the needs of the children.
The vision narrows down the specifics. The school developed a school-wide
theme as well. The Leadership Team came together during the summer prior
to the school’s opening and was brought together to help in the development
and creation of the mission, vision, and theme. They collaboratively looked
at test scores… I thought it was important to know the population,
neighboring community, get the parents involved, and launch the community.
The Launch met monthly, starting in April to work on the school’s vision and
111
theme. The school was supposed to start in August, but there was a delay and
it began in September.
She was then asked, in what ways do teachers collaborate with each other?
As I said previously, there are Leadership Teams, that include literacy
specialists, HOUSE teams (which include grade level representatives and
department chairs)… the HOUSE teams meet at their grade level to discuss
their data, any concerns they may have, answer any questions, then the
concerns from the HOUSE team go to the Leadership Teams. It’s like this
reciprocal process.
It was important to uncover her role in this process, so Mrs. Ericson was prompted,
what is your role in that process?
I see my role as the facilitator in this process, whereby the teachers lead the
meetings. There is a structure that has been set up and guidelines that are
followed. The agenda is created by me, but teachers are able to submit items
to the agenda. I treat the meetings like an open forum, where democracy and
majority rules. However, if there is no decision, I will overrule.
It was also important to understand Mrs. Ericson’s goals for the school year.
Therefore, she was asked the following question: what are the school’s goals for
student learning this year? She responded:
We have a Student Achievement Plan. Since our school is new we did not
have any data to provide us with the baseline data. We update the Student
Achievement Plan regularly. We have reading and math goals this year.
Since we do not have CST data in the primary grades and because we are a
new school, we use the Northwest Evaluation Assessment to set goals for
both reading and math. In grades 1 and 2, each individual student has a 6
point goal, 3 points from the beginning to middle and 3 points from middle to
end. In Kindergarten, the students have a 3 point goal that is measured from
middle to end of the year.
We also use DIBELS, where students need to reach 85% on benchmark
assessments and we will use on-going the bi-weekly progress reports for
students when necessary. Edison also has benchmark assessments that we
use for all of our 2
nd
grade students, whereby they should reach 72%
proficiency in reading and 70% in math.
112
Mrs. Ericson was further prompted on how those goals were developed, how
were the goals determined? She answered, “Normally the goals are determined by
Edison first and then each individual school can set their own goals based on the
thread data…you can set your goals at the schools.”
Lastly, Mrs. Ericson responded about the expectations she had initially for
the EdisonLearning mentoring process when asked what are your expectations for
the mentoring experience?
I have had no experience with the [principal] mentoring process, but I did
expect this process to help me with problem-solving and better handling
situations that come up…also work on having those conversations…give me
reassurance with problem-solving, more direction, someone to bounce ideas
off of…also to work on goals together.
Principal Interview: Post-intervention
A one and a half hour post-intervention interview was conducted in Spring of
2009 in Mrs. Ericson’s office at Milton Place. The date and times were arranged via
email and the interview took place in the morning after 2 hours of observations. The
interview was recorded and the data collected provided information regarding the
impact mentoring on leadership practice.
During the post interview, Mrs. Ericson was asked, what do you know and
believe promote the success of all students? She responded:
I believe that a rich, very rich in curriculum helps to promote student
achievement, as well as qualified professionals, the instructors being
knowledgeable in their area that they are instructing in, as well as goals. We
set very rigorous goals for our students and we have ongoing professional
development for our teachers throughout the course of the year -- actually, on
113
a weekly basis. And that helps to keep them abreast of our development with
our data and everything on our students.
And so, with that knowledge and just helping to set that firm foundation, I
think that contributes greatly to the success of all of our students, also, just
time in the parental piece too. In Chicago, here, I’m new to the Chicago area,
but parental involvement is just awesome at this school and I'm very
impressed with our parents.
So any assistance that we need academically from the students, they're here,
they're calling, they're engaged, they want to know, they want to be a part of
the students’ education, so that helps to drive the achievement of the students,
as well, and their success.
When prompted, how has mentoring helped to facilitate these beliefs? Mrs.
Ericson felt that,
just over the years, just being able to grow through Edison and having
mentors in every aspect of my growth and development encouraging,
providing information and providing just professional developments and
encouragement to keep striving and going forth. And then, just being given
the opportunities through the system as well, has helped to contribute greatly
to my own personal growth and professional growth as well.
Mrs. Ericson continued and described how Mrs. Kuhls [her mentor] had been
“supportive” and regularly offered her reassurance, suggestions on best practices,
and helped her to strategically plan and set goals. She considered the, “mentoring
program to be beneficial to her professional growth in various aspects of her job and
various areas.” It was further revealed that the mentor played an important role and
provided the principal with guidance and direction during the first year of her
principalship. She felt that her mentor “guided her in the development of solutions”
by providing her with information on how on to navigate the role of principal within
114
EdisonLearning. Additionally, she offered her direction in her advice on how to
effectively do her job and “provided [her] the emotional support” along the way.
Mrs. Ericson further elaborated on how the mentoring process had facilitated
her beliefs in promoting the success for all students and described her various roles
in EdisonLearning. She described
I have been with Edison Schools for eight years and I've worked in various
capacities from kindergarten, first, second and third grade teacher, to the
literacy specialist in the building, to the achievement director for the state and
for the district, and then as an academy director. I've also worked as a
science coordinator and a math coordinator over the course of eight years,
and then into the academy directors position, which is equivalent to the
assistant principal and to the principal.
Mrs. Ericson continued answering the question in the interview and discussed
how those various experiences she had brought with her into her new role as
principal “helped to shape her mindset over the years.” In fact, she relayed that
having a seasoned mentor has enabled her to not get caught up in the tedium but, “to
refer back to any of the things that I've learned along the way and that person is able
to help guide and coach me along the way.” She further elaborated that the mentor
coached her through questioning, discussion, and the use of personal expertise which
Mrs. Ericson found helpful in deriving her own recollections of the previous training.
As a new leader, opening a brand new school, Mrs. Ericson was faced with
even more challenges. The school was delayed in opening due to water leakage and
one of the most important coordinator positions was left unfilled, which meant she
had to accomplish even more. When asked how have you promoted a school culture
115
that facilitates growth for faculty?, Mrs. Ericson immediately focused on the positive
and stated:
The focus is on professional development. Professional development time is
incorporated twice daily for each instructor, and the first one is 45 minutes
and that is during their specials time. So normally how we structure it is that
whatever our needs are for professional development, and we schedule them
a month in advance so that teachers know exactly what professional
development is coming up. And so, you’ll know exactly if you have a
professional development, what it’s on and if it’s a follow-up one to a
previous professional development.
Taking into consideration the difficulties with the building and her focus on
professional development, Mrs. Ericson was then prompted further and described
that having the mentor proved to be essential as her mentor helped Mrs. Ericson
establish what the needs of the school were and set goals for what needed to be
achieved. Mrs. Ericson explained her response when questioned, how did Mrs.
Kuhls assist you with creating a culture that facilitates growth for the faculty
considering the conditions of the school?
It has helped to shape me as far as my mindset in knowing what, evaluating
what our needs are for the school and for the building, for students, for the
teachers, and then carrying that out throughout the course of the year. But,
that’s important for me to ensure that I’m making the best decisions based on
what our school needs are and I’m standing independent of that, and that may
just be me individually, and how I think.
As a new principal, there were many aspects to the job that are often
overlooked such as building maintenance, payroll, and traffic control. When asked
what are the organizational structure that are in place which promote a safe and
efficient learning environment? Mrs. Ericson elaborated on the structures she had
implemented:
116
For the structure of the classrooms, we have school wide disciplinary policy.
For safety structures, you’ll see in every classroom posted outside each door
is the evacuation floor plan, the fire exit floor plan, and the procedures just in
case there is intruders in the building or there's anything unsafe that happens,
they’ll know how to respond to it and we’ll announce that on the radio; each
of us have the auxiliary staff in the building that are not in classrooms. We
have radials where we can radial to one another, if there's an issue going on
or if there's assistance needed we can get there right away. Or, if they don’t
have that capability, then they call the main office and they’ll radial to the
rest of the staff.
In the morning with the operation portion side of it, we want to make sure
that the students get to the right spot and there's no one in the building that
shouldn’t be in the building, so that’s constantly monitored as well. All of
our guests that come into the building -- any visitors that we have -- have to
have a background check completely as well, if they're in here for any
extensive amount of time or regularly as well.
The question was raised, how were those structures created?
I put the plan in place at the beginning of the year, and it was more so driven
from the fact that new school, new environment, no one knows exactly where
they're going and where their classroom is at, so the students didn’t have a
clue where the classroom was and that lasted for about a month. So just
having people in strategic places to make sure that they were on the right
floor and they were going in the right direction as well, and any visitors that
we might have in the building, that they get to their correct destination and
they're not kind of lingering around.
While, Mrs. Ericson prided herself on being an “independent individual,” she
truly valued the suggestion and reassurance she received from her mentor. Mrs.
Ericson was posed with the question, How has mentoring provided you the tools to
foster a safe and efficient learning environment? She felt that having the Mrs. Kuhls
as a a confidant has provided her the encouragement that has enabled her to handle
situations appropriately. This relationship with her mentor reaffirmed her actions
and made her feel more efficacious in her new position. Additionally, she was
117
afforded the opportunity to gather feedback on next steps or alternative actions she
could choose to implement. She elaborated:
I might be doing it this way but that might not be the right way. My mentor
may say, “It may work but there also might be a better way as well.” So my
mentor will provide me with options as well. I see that you're doing it this
way, but here are a few more options and maybe they’ll work and tie into
what you're trying to do as well.
Mrs. Ericson continued to discuss how the mentor provided her with the tools
to foster an efficient learning environment as she described the mentoring sessions as
an excellent forum to build her capacity as a professional. She said that data and
research were the foundations for every decision she made, and her mentor provided
her with research-based best practices that have proven successful in increasing
student achievement. She described it as,
kind of just bouncing best practices; any forms or graphs, things of that
nature, she sends me every week; what she does with her staff to make sure
that her culture goes over well with her staff and they're focusing on what
their student achievement goals are for my specific age group here for K
through two and how it’s parallel to ours.
Mrs. Ericson continued with her response and said that she felt that
mentoring was very beneficial because she believed in continuous growth and
modeled this with her staff. In addition, she used the strategies and best practices
learned from her mentor during staff meetings and professional development
meetings. As a result she implemented agendas that had clear schedules of the tasks
they were going to accomplish instead of having an open meeting with an unclear
agenda. Mrs. Ericson also presented data to small grade levels of teachers, targeting
them, as opposed to the entire group so they could collaborate on their students’
118
individual needs as opposed to disseminating grade-specific information school-
wide.
In response to how has mentoring provided you the skills to promote equal
access and opportunities for all students? Mrs. Ericson described that as the leader
of the school, she was confronted with challenges that even with her experience, she
had difficulty resolving. Mrs. Ericson was very data-driven because of her previous
background as an achievement coordinator and understood that the use of data
played an integral role in “improving academic achievement for all students.”
However, her staff was not as familiar with data. Her work with the mentor
influenced the way in which she presented the information to the teachers because
the mentor suggested options. Already, there had been much resistance to the
amount of assessment. Essentially, according to Mrs. Ericson, “mentorship has
helped [her] with a lot of troubleshooting, a lot of foresight” and prevented
unnecessary conflict.
In reflection, she noted that the teachers were weary of all of the data that
they felt were being thrust upon them. Mrs. Ericson, having come from a data
background, did not realize that this was problematic with her staff, most of whom
were new to the teaching profession or new to data analysis as she presented it to
them. Mrs. Ericson’s mentor was able to provide both the consultative and reflective
techniques to help her resolve her dilemmas at her school. The mentor implemented
both the consultative method as she gave her advice and reflective approach as she
presented Mrs. Ericson options.
119
When asked is there anything else you would like to share about the
EdisonLearning MentorProgram?, it was uncovered that although Mrs. Ericson had
numerous years as an educator within the EdisonLearning Schools, there were basic
systems and procedures that needed to be developed since Milton Place was a new
school. Mrs. Ericson reported that her mentor played a crucial role in the
development of a deeper understanding of the leadership roles that an
EdisonLearning principal is responsible for modeling and procedures that reflect
their vision. She claimed:
The mentorship for me was very key prior to and then to help me to set a firm
foundation and to put the correct policies and procedures in place, to know
what the expectations of having a great culture is all about, to having great
financial management and servicing our customer, being involved with the
parents and the students. Prior to school starting, I had a lot of mentorship in
that area.
Another confounding aspect of the principalship is the knowledge of the
district’s policies and procedures and necessary technical skills needed to
appropriately handle disciplinary issues. Mrs. Ericson revealed that the mentor’s
support was essential in the resolution process. For her, the resolution process was
ascertaining the policies that EdisionLearning had established so that she was able to
prevent the issue from progressing to a legal matter. The mentor was able to use her
expertise and advised Mrs. Ericson on the steps she needed to take in order to
appropriately handle the situation. She spoke of the following incident:
I had an incident that occurred with a second grade teacher. I pretty much
knew from my mentoring that this situation isn't right; this is what I’d like to
do as a result. And that person was able to provide me with just some firm
solid advice of what could be the next steps that I would want to follow and
120
getting HR involved, and the potential legal complications that may come out
of it. So my mentor is very helpful in that aspect.
Principal Observations
A one-day observation was conducted of Mrs. Ericson in the Spring of 2009
in an attempt to gather direct data on her leadership practices. The purpose of the
observations was to directly observe Mrs. Ericson’s interaction with students,
faculty, and parents that demonstrated characteristics of the learning-centered
leadership framework and EdisonLearning Leadership Framework previously
mentioned. Observation notes were taken on a clipboard as the researchers
shadowed Mrs. Ericson during the day. Prior to the observations having taken place,
Mrs. Ericson had prepared a “tentative” schedule of her daily routine. They were as
follows:
Time Activity
6:30 Arrive and observe exterior and walk-thru interior
6:45 Generally either quiet time to prep my day (assign subs, check msg voice
and email etc...) or meeting time with staff members
7:25 Meet and Greet with parents and students
7:50 Morning Announcements
7:55 Meeting with Academy Director
8:15 NWEA testing will begin in computer lab (monitor/observe testing)
8:45 Classroom walkthroughs
10:30 Lunch/Recess Walk thrus
12:30 Meet with new Site Operations Manager
2:30 Dismissal prep
3:15 SES After school Tutoring
Table 4-6. Principal’s Daily Routine
Upon arrival, Mrs. Ericson was observed greeting each of the students and
staff members in the morning before school began at the scheduled time. She called
121
each student by their first name throughout the day. In addition, parents were
greeted, often by their first name. During the morning observations of the school
and greeting of the students, Mrs. Ericson ensured any water or snow tracked in from
outside was immediately moped up. During the classroom walk thrus and on the
way to the computer lab it was observed that each time she noticed trash, it was
immediately picked up. Several times as she picked up the trash, she exclaimed,
“This is a pet peeve of mine.”
The principal’s meeting with both the Academy Director (the assistant
principal) and the Site Operations Manager were not observed. However, during an
observation of a discussion about the school’s winter benchmark data between Mrs.
Ericson and an Edison representative, it was noted that she remarked on how
impressed she was with the graphs Mrs. Ericson had created to depict the data. She
stated, “as usual, these are great.” She also commented on “how impressed [she]
was with the test scores” because the first and second grade students had made
progress on the NWEA tests.
Observations of Mrs. Ericson’s office included the school’s mission and
vision clearly posted, a large colorful calendar of the year’s professional
development schedule, and benchmark data that was hanging outside the door to her
office. Teachers, students, and parents were witnessed looking at the graphs, charts,
and scores as they passed in the hallway. Additionally, ON-B.A.S.E. award winners
for the month had their picture hanging next to their All-Star cards.
122
Documents Reviewed
The School Achievement Plan (SAP), School Mission, and the Principal’s
plan were items that provided close examination of Milton Place and its culture.
Specifically, these documents provided information regarding: a) expectations for
student learning, b) how these expectations and school-wide information were
communicated, and c) students’ overall academic performance. Included in the SIP
Plan were the District Vision, School Mission as well as Milton Places’s goals and
action plans for student improvement.
Additionally, the “EdisonLearning Whole School Design” handbook (Edison
Schools, 2007) provided critical information regarding EdisonLearning schools’
emphasis on professional learning of teachers and school leaders. The Whole School
Design (Edison Schools, 2007) also outlined clear roles and responsibilities for
EdisonLearning school principals, which provided a lens through which to examine
the leader’s practice. Included in the Whole School Design (Edison Schools, 2007)
was the Leadership Framework for EdisonLearning principals, which clearly
outlined the standards for five leadership roles.
On the following page is a table that further unpack the Learning-Centered
Leadership framework and EdisonLearning Leadership Framework. According to
the Learning-Centered Leadership theory, there were eight specific principles for
effective school leadership: 1) vision for learning, 2) instructional program,
3) curricular program, 4) assessment program, 5) communities of learning, 6)
resources acquisition and use, 7) organizational culture, and 8) advocacy (Murphy
123
et al., 2006). This directly corresponded to the five leadership roles of
EdisonLearning Schools Leadership Framework: a) Instructional Leader,
b) Organizational Leader, c) Culture Builder, d) Site Manager, and e) Edison
Schools Executive. The combined frameworks for effective school leadership,
learning-centered leadership framework and EdisonLearning Leadership framework,
were utilized as lenses through which this study was analyzed.
124
Murphy et al., (2006) Learning-Centered
Leadership Framework (p. 7)
EdisonLearning Leadership Roles
(Edison Whole School Design Handbook,
2007, p. 6-14)
Vision for Learning
• Developing vision
• Articulating vision
• Implementing vision
• Stewarding vision
Instructional Program
• Knowledge & involvement
• Hiring and allocating staff
• Supporting staff
• Instructional time
Assessment Program
• Assessment procedures
• Communication and use of data
• Monitoring instruction &
curriculum
Instructional Leader
• Promotes instructional excellence to
ensure high academic achievement and
strong development
• Implements and monitors Edison
schools curriculum and instruction and
assessment programs as the primary
drivers of the academic achievement and
character development
Organizational Culture
• Continuous Improvement
Organizational Leader
• Creates and promotes an inspired school
vision directly linked to high academic
achievement and strong character
development
• Creates and maintains systems and
processes that support the school vision
and goals
• Practices and promotes interpersonal
awareness and sensitivity to strengthen
school vision and goals
Table 4-7. The Alignment of Leadership Roles between the Learning-Centered
Leadership Framework and EdisonLearning Leadership Framework
125
Communities of Learning
• Professional development
• Communities of practice
• Community-anchored schools
Organizational Culture
• Personalized environment
Culture Builder
• Creates a learning environment that
fosters a culture of high academic
achievement and strong character
development
• Instills among staff a sense of mission
and professionalism linked to high
standards of academic achievement and
character development
• Creates a culture a celebration and
accountability linked to high student
academic achievement and character
development
• Creates a culture of inclusion among all
stakeholders to foster a shared
commitment to the school vision and
goals
Organizational Culture
• Production emphasis
• Accountability
• Learning environment
Resource Acquisition and Use
• Acquiring resources
• Allocating resources
• Using resources
Site Manager
• Establishes school structures and
processes that ensures stability and drive
high academic achievement and strong
character development
• Allocates, manages, and finds resources
that support school programs that drive
academic achievement and strong
character development
Social Advocacy
• Stakeholder engagement
• Environmental context
• Diversity
Edison School Executive
• Executes Edison school designs and
advances a corporate vision of providing
a world class education to all students
• Serves as a positive, proactive
representative of Edison Schools and
community
Table 4-7, continued
126
Data Analysis
In order to answer Research Question one: How does working with an
EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program Mentor affect the leadership practices of
an urban school principal? it was important to first understand the foundations of
effective leadership practice. The conceptual framework of Murphy et al.’s (2006)
Learning-Centered Leadership and the EdisonLearning leadership framework of five
leadership roles such as: a) instructional leader, b) organizational leader, c) culture
builder, d) site manager, and d) Edison Schools Executive (Edison Schools, 2007)
provided the lens by which the first research question was analyzed. The two
frameworks closely aligned and corresponded to each other in their major principles
such as key behaviors and practices of successful school leaders as noted earlier. For
example, each framework highlighted successful principals as those who focused on
a) a rigorous curriculum, b) data analysis, c) clear vision for student achievement, d)
professional development opportunities, e) stakeholder engagement and f) parent
involvement (Murphy et. al, 2006; EdisonLearning School Whole Design Handbook,
2007).
Additionally, in order to further analyze the question, a support structure such
as mentoring was utilized. As researchers Davis et al. (2005) and Daresh (2004)
emphasized, a support structure such as mentoring was critical for the success of new
leaders. The EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program was one type of a program
that aimed to support novice school principals. This particular program was
research-based which outlined clear program goals and objectives (Whole School
127
Design, 2007). The components of the program, which were presented in Chapter
Three, such as one to one support, goal setting, and the implementation of a Weekly
Collaborative Planning Tool, supported the development of the learning-centered
leadership practices of the novice school principal, which again, aligned directly to
the five leadership roles expected of EdisonLearning principals. According to
EdisonLearning Schools (2008), mentors act as a guide to facilitate the protégé’s
learning. They provide ongoing feedback and coaching to help build new leaders’
knowledge and skills (EdisonLearning Schools, 2008).
By working closely with her EdisonLearning mentor, Mrs. Ericson was
guided in the development of effective leadership practices as a learning-centered
leader. For example, after her weekly conversations with her mentor, Mrs. Ericson
felt “encouraged” to enact a rich, rigorous curriculum that could be supported
through “on-going professional development and data analysis.” The post
intervention of the online VAL-ED survey supported this as she demonstrated an
improvement in her overall performance level. On the pre-intervention survey she
received a score of Below Basic in the core component of Rigorous Curriculum and
an overall performance level of Basic on the post-intervention. The interviews from
the teachers and the assistant principal also supported Mrs. Ericson’s dedication to a
rigorous curriculum. The teachers noted “stricter lesson plans” that required them to
detail the objectives for each lesson. Additionally, Mrs. Ericson revealed that as an
EdisonLearning instructional leader she was committed to ensuring there was a
strong instructional program implemented at Milton Place.
128
More specifically, working with her EdisonLearning mentor, Mrs. Ericson
understood that to ensure the curriculum was rigorous, student achievement data
were needed. As previously noted, Mrs. Ericson had a dilemma with how she was to
provide the staff with data. However, her mentor Mrs. Kuhls, once again provided
guidance, knowledge, direction, and feedback in the development of successful
problem-solving strategies by enhancing Mrs. Ericson’s belief in her own ability.
Consequently, she demonstrated learning-centered characteristics because she
conveyed the importance of data analysis and the development of action plans for
struggling students (Murphy, et al., 2006). Mrs. Ericson was able to implement the
strategies suggested to her by her mentor, and approach the situation from a culture
builder perspective whereby the grade levels worked in teams to collaboratively
attack the data (Edison Schools, 2007).
Mrs. Ericson consistently conveyed high expectations for student
achievement. This was articulated in the interview with the principal. It was further
supported by the VAL-ED survey which showed that Mrs. Ericson improved in her
overall mean score on the pre-intervention VAL-ED survey from 3.67 to a mean
score of 3.81 on the post-intervention VAL-ED survey (It is important to note that
mean scores were utilized because there were no changes in her overall performance
level which was proficient). Additionally, document review of the Student
Achievement Plan also demonstrated the goals set forth for all students. In
establishing high standards for student learning, Mrs. Ericson exemplified learning-
centered leadership, which aligned with the EdisonLearning Framework (2007), as
129
she set ambitious goals (Murphy et al., 2006) for student achievement and
consistently worked with her teachers in the “pursuit of academic
excellence”(Edison Whole School Design Handbook, 2007, p. 6-14).
Working with her EdisonLearning mentor, helped to “shape the mindset” of
Mrs. Ericson as she worked to enhance the professional growth of her staff members
through on-going professional development. Mrs. Ericson’s mentor provided her the
necessary direction, and enabled her to decide what “the needs were for the school”
and assist her with “carrying that out throughout the year.” The interview with Mrs.
Ericson revealed her core belief that professional development and collaboration are
central to improving student achievement. Furthermore, the interview with Ms.
Cornell supported how the EdisonLearning mentor had impacted Mrs. Ericson’s
practice in establishing professional development that was “more concise” and
geared toward the specific needs of the school. She remembered Mrs. Ericson had
made comments such as, “my mentor suggested this” and “my mentor tried this
during professional development.” Document review of the Student Achievement
Plan also supported the observation that Mrs. Ericson believed professional
development was a critical component to the school’s success and also revealed that
structured daily time had been provided for daily professional development. The
online VAL-ED, however, revealed there was no change in her overall performance
level, which remained proficient. Recall, however, that a score of proficient,
“exhibits learning-centered leadership behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are
likely to influence teachers positively and result in acceptable value-added to student
130
achievement and social learning for all students” (VAL-ED Principal Report, 2009,
p. 3). It is important to note, though, her overall mean scores were lowered: She had
received a mean score in Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior on the pre-
intervention online VAL-ED survey of 3.76 and a mean score of 3.68 on the post-
intervention online VAL-ED survey.
In working with the EdisonLearning mentor, Mrs. Ericson was able to make
connections to external communities. The interviews revealed with Mrs. Ericson and
the assistant principal had strongly fostered collaboration among the stakeholders. In
fact, Ms. Cornell referenced a conversation Mrs. Ericson had with her mentor where
she was advised to increase the number of people added on to her leadership team,
and taking her mentor’s advice she did so. It was further supported by the online
VAL-ED survey which demonstrated that Mrs. Ericson scored Below Basic on the
pre-intervention survey and Basic on the post-intervention survey. Furthermore, as a
learning-centered leader, Mrs. Ericson enhanced her ability to communicate with the
various stakeholders in the decision-making process (Murphy, et al., 2006) and
demonstrated skills as a culture builder because her actions fostered more of a sense
of “inclusion” among the staff (Edison Whole School Design Handbook, 2007).
Essentially, the mentor facilitated Mrs. Ericson’s growth in becoming a more
effective EdisonLearning culture builder by providing her with the knowledge and
technical skills, or practices, on how to implement this at Milton Place.
In addition, as an EdisonLearning protégé working with an EdisonLearning
mentor, Mrs. Ericson demonstrated skills as a culture builder and an organizational
131
leader. She said that the mentor provided her with the reassurances that she was
doing things right and this feedback helped her to become more effective in her
leadership abilities. Mrs. Ericson established a positive rapport with the parents and
included them into the learning environment of the school. This was evidenced by
the parents who volunteered as traffic guards in the morning and after school to
direct the dangerous traffic in the subzero temperatures. Additionally, the parents
were each greeted with a warm smile by Mrs. Ericson and the faculty, and many
were known to her by their first name. More specifically, as previously mentioned,
the VAL-ED data indicated Mrs. Ericson demonstrated improvement in her overall
performance level in the area of Connections to External Communities as she
progressed from Below Basic on the pre-intervention of the online VAL-ED to Basic
on the post-intervention of the online VAL-ED in her overall performance level.
Summary and Findings for Research Question One
Research question one sought to find out how working with an
EdisonLearning mentor would impact leader practice. The findings from the data
indicated that working with an EdisonLearning mentor impacted the leader’s practice
because the mentor provided her protégé with the following: 1) guidance and
support, 2) assistance with problem solving, and 3) developing technical knowledge
and skills. The EdisonLearning mentor helped the principal navigate the challenges
of leading in an urban EdisonLearning school by providing the protégé with the
essential direction and assistance when necessary. This in turn had positively
impacted the protégé’s leadership practice in developing her leadership skills as an
132
EdisonLearning principal. It was apparent that the EdisonLearning mentor guided
and directed the principal through some of the tedious aspects of running a school
especially the detailed components of opening a brand new school. However, more
notably, the EdisonLearning mentor successfully confirmed the protégé’s work and
facilitated the principal’s professional growth by reflecting on her practice and
offering suggestions and personal insight into the job. This constant encouragement
provided by the EdisonLearning mentor provided the protégé with the necessary
emotional support vital to enduring the first year as a principal of an opening school.
The data also revealed that there was a relationship between the principal’s
having worked with an EdisonLearning mentor and the improvement evidenced in
the principal’s leadership practice. Essentially, Mrs. Ericson increased her skills in
developing as a learning-centered leader. She advanced the Rigorous Curriculum at
Milton Place, created a Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior, and made
Connections to the External Communities. In doing so, working with an
EdisonLearning mentor provided Mrs. Ericson with the opportunity to improve in
her role as an EdisonLearning Instructional Leader, Organization Leader, and
Culture Builder.
133
Research Question Two: Organizational Structures That Support the
Mentoring Model
Research Question 2: What organizational structures support the implementation of
the mentoring model?
Data Collection Instruments
The primary data for this question was collected from the pre and post
intervention interviews conducted with the principal. Data were also collected from
a thirty minute interview with the Executive Director of EdisonLearning.
Additionally, data were collected from responses to a questionnaire which was sent
to two EdisonLearning mentors, Mrs. Kuhls and Ms. Stacey. Finally, information
about the mentor training and tools were gathered from the Whole School Design
Handbook (Edison Schools, 2007).
Report of the Data
Interview: EdisonLearning Executive Director
A thirty-minute phone interview with the Executive Director was conducted
in the Fall of 2008 in order to gather information about the EdisonLearning Principal
Mentoring Program. Notes were taken and recorded in a journal.
In order to assist new principals, EdisonLearning provided a mentoring
program which aligned with the Whole School Design model discussed in Chapter
Three. In response to the question, How do you prepare Edison Mentors to support
school principals? the Executive Director stated that the EdisonLearning Principal
134
Mentoring Program prepared the mentors to assist the protégés because, “It is based
on research and literature on mentoring and successful strategies for new principals.”
One of the prominent characteristics of ELPMP was its mandate for weekly
communication and opportunities for reflection between Mrs. Kuhls and her protégé
(Edison Schools, 2007). In addition, weekly goals were determined collaboratively
whereby action plans and strategies for implementation were developed. The
Executive Director discussed her answer to the following question: How does
EdisonLearning provide/ensure time for weekly meetings between the protege and
mentor?
Time for weekly meetings is dependent on Mentor Principals and Protégé
Principals to maintain and schedule each week. We rely on the program
participants upholding the requirements of the MOU [Memorandum of
Understanding] – weekly meetings being one of them…
She further elaborated on the in-depth nature of the meetings:
One of the conditions of participation in this program is an understanding and
commitment to time for ongoing meetings. This was evident when mentors
and protégés meet once per month by phone usually that lasts about an hour.
The meetings are determined by the Mrs. Kuhl and [her] protégé. They may
meet more as needed and can also have meetings via email. The protégés and
mentors meet face to face five times a year and the mentor visits the protégé
and the protégé’s school as well. They are also required to turn in logs.
Questionnaire: EdisonLearning Mentors
Additionally, two EdisonLearning Mentors, Mrs. Kuhl and Ms. Stacey,
provided information about the EdisonLearning Principal Mentoring Program
through a questionnaire administered via email in the Fall of 2008. Both mentors
responded to the same four questions:
135
When asked, how did the mentor training prepare you for your role as a
mentor? an EdisonLearning mentor (who worked with a protégé other than Mrs.
Ericson), Ms. Stacey described her preparation:
The mentor training prepared me for my role as a mentor by giving me
specific knowledge of the mentoring process, the roles of a mentor, and the
needs my protégé would most likely have during the process. Topics that I
found most helpful were: Stages of Mentoring, Four Roles of a Mentor,
Needs of Novice Principals, and Socialization Phases of Novice Principals.
In addition, the training included developing an entry plan and identifying
short and long term goals for the growth of the protégé.
Similarly, Mrs. Kuhl (who worked with Mrs. Ericson as her mentor), explained the
importance of the training program in preparing for her role as a mentor. She
described her response to the question
The program helped me to understand the various stages that a first year
principal goes through. It helped me to understand how to appropriately
interact with my protégé and how to coach through the use of questioning
rather than by offering advice. It also helped me to understand when it is
appropriate to give advice and when it is not.
As previously discussed, the purpose of EdisonLearning Principal Mentoring
Program training was to provide the mentors with the knowledge and tools to
successful guide the protégé to achieve their goals. Mrs. Kuhl was asked, do you feel
that the training provided you with the knowledge and tools to support your protégé
and in what ways? Mrs. Kuhl stated
…the training prepared me to be a better mentor to my protégé by giving me
the background knowledge of the mentoring process and what to expect. The
organizational structure also provides a framework for the process so it can
be geared toward the goals of the protégé.
136
However, Ms. Stacey felt the program did not fully address all levels of support
required in assisting new principals who have already encountered tremendous
pressure. She responded to the same question and felt that the training helped her,
to understand how to work with my protégé but I still struggled sometimes
with feeling like I was causing more of an undue stress on the principal on
top of everything else she had to do. That is one area that I continually
struggle – appropriately supporting her without being a burden.
Answering what organizational structures (such as time, documents, etc.)
support the implementation of the mentor model? Mrs. Kuhl stated that, “...setting a
weekly contact time, scheduling contacts and meetings for the following month…”
have all supported the mentoring model.
According to the EdisonLearning Principal Mentoring Program, the mentor
takes on the role of teacher, advisor, coach, and feedback provider to support the
novice school leader in the areas of technical expertise, role clarification and
socialization (Edison Schools, 2007). As was evidenced in question one, the mentor
carried out these various functions and roles to support the protégé. The mentor
acted as the listener, collaborator, and consultant. Subsequently, the relationship that
developed between the mentor and protégé was reported to be fundamental to the
mentoring process. In fact, when asked to please describe the relationship between
you and your protégé, one mentor stated, “The relationship is at the heart of the work
that the mentor and the protégé do together and is critical to the success of the
mentoring.”
137
According to Mrs. Kuhl:
The relationship provides the foundation for meeting the goals of the protégé.
When the protégé can ask for assistance, advice, or feedback from a mentor
in an environment of trust, the mentor-protégé relationship can flourish.
On a similar note, Mrs. Kuhl continued and described her relationship with
her protégé:
The relationship between my protégé and myself is best described as a
supportive relationship based on trust. My protégé has been very open and
willing to participate in the model and seems to regard it as an additional
resource available to support her in her first year as an Edison principal. As a
mentor, I also learn from my protégé.
In addition, Ms. Stacey shared her response to the same question and
experience with the protégé:
I think once the trust level is established and built, then the goals of the
principal can begin to be addressed. Trust is critical for being able to really
open up and admit where you are at and what you need to work on.
Principal Interview: Post-Intervention
As previously stated, the principal was interviewed for an hour and a half at
Milton Place Primary Center during the Spring of 2009 after she had been engaged
in a mentoring relationship for approximately six months. When Mrs. Ericson was
asked, is there anything else you would like to share about the EdisonLearning
Mentor Program? she mentioned that she felt the planning tools helped her remain
focused and set future goals. She further elaborated on her discussions with her
mentor about the weekly collaborative planning tools:
She’ll kind of just monitor them and see how I’m doing, “Hey, I see this is
one of your goals. What have you put in place to achieve this next step as
138
well?” So kind of that collaborative piece as well. And also, they are there
to offer us assistance in writing goals, helping to formulate and develop the
goals as well, and then the next steps in the action plans as well. So the
mentor is available for all of those things.
When further prompted and asked, what structures do you and your mentor
have in place to further your development? Mrs. Ericson noted that she and her
mentor have a scheduled weekly phone conversation on Fridays at 1:30. According
to Mrs. Ericson, she had been able to, “kind of recap how [their] weeks have
gone…”. She also stated that she regularly corresponded with her mentor via email.
Mrs. Ericson said that they kept a log of the conversations and “review them every
month,” which is how she monitored the progress her and the mentor have made.
When prompted, what happens to those logs and collaborative planning tools? the
principal responded, “they are turned in to the Executive Director.”
The literature review revealed the importance of building a meaningful and
professional relationship between the mentor and protégé (Bloom, et al., 2005).
According to the principal, the relationship developed because she was able to
witness her mentor in practice. This ultimately resulted in a tremendous amount of
respect and trust for her mentor. She described the development of her respect and
trust as follows:
But during the course of my travels, I was able to travel to her school in…and
I was able to shadow her and her mentor me -- just shadow and see exactly
how she ran her school and how efficient she was as an individual. So just
for me, that fostered a great deal of respect. So it’s a trust thing too, because
if you know that your mentor is very highly capable, then you know that it’s
a person you can trust and they’ve been in the business for awhile as well.
139
Whole Schools Design Handbook (2007)
The Whole School Design Handbook (Edison Schools, 2007) was utilized to
collect data on the mentoring program and the EdisonLearning Schools Design.
When investigating the structures of the training, it was found that the training
focused on equipping mentors with the knowledge base and tools needed to support
new school leaders (EdisonLearning, 2008).
As previously mentioned in Chapter Three, planning tools were one of the
components of the EdisonLearning Principal Mentoring Program (Edison Schools,
2007). It was found that the collaborative planning tool was one such document that
the mentor and protégé utilized. The Collaborative Planning Tool included the
following features: a) opening (Celebrations of what’s working!) b) Goal (for
mentoring sessions; current challenge and issues to focus on), c) Reality (of the
challenge, situation), d) Options (possible actions that could be taken), e) Will (what
specific actions will the protégé take before next mentoring encounter, f) Reflections
and g) Critical Questions for Mentor (just to think about) (Edison Schools, 2008).
It was uncovered that indeed this document was implemented on an ongoing
basis and it provided the protégé with a visual roadmap for planning out weekly
goals. It also held the mentor and protégé accountable to the mentoring process
through weekly discussion of the content included in the tool. Additionally, this tool
was used by the mentor as a resource to support the protégé in achieving short term
goals and providing guidance.
140
Likewise, Mrs. Kuhl agreed that the forms used to document conversations
and plan for their next steps were beneficial and they provided, “something concrete
to work from.”
Data Analysis
In order to answer Research Question #2: What organizational structures
support the implementation of the mentoring model? an understanding of the
components of effective support structures are necessary. The conceptual framework
developed by Davis and his colleagues (2005) was utilized to analyze the data.
Davis, et al. (2005) suggested that successful support structures were based on
research, maintained curricular coherence, and were presented through some
programs such as an internship, cohorts, or mentorships. Furthermore, Davis et al.,
(2005) asserted that individuals who participated in a support program were more
effective than leaders without support as measured on Interstate School Leaders
Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) based assessments and overall performance
evaluations. Additionally, the literature review demonstrated that mentoring is one
type of a support structure that has shown to be successful with new leaders (Daresh,
2004). Therefore, in order to analyze this research question, Daresh’s (2004)
mentoring model also provided the lens through which this question was evaluated.
The research has uncovered the significance of developing programs that are
research based and focused on enhancing the skills and knowledge of principals
(Davis, et al., 2005). The Whole School Design Handbook (Edison Schools, 2007)
revealed that EdisonLearning based the EdisonLearning Principal Mentoring
141
Program off of current research in mentoring (Daresh, 2002; and Spiro, et al., 2007).
An interview the Executive Director confirmed this finding. Further document
review revealed that the foundations for their program were to support their protégés
in cultivating their own personal knowledge and provide them with the tools to build
their capacity (Edison Schools, 2007). Furthermore, according to the framework, a
program that outlines clear content objectives and aligns its goals and activities with
theory have been the most successful support structures (Davis, et. al, 2005).
Researchers have underscored the importance of structured time between the
mentor and the protégé in an effective mentoring model (Spiro, Mattis, & Mitgang,
2007). According to the Whole School Design Handbook (2007) it was found that
int the EdisonLearning Principal Mentoring Program, structured time was mandated
and both Mrs. Kuhl and her protégé were accountable for logging their hours.
Interviews with both the Executive Director and the principal supported the
accountability for completing and turning in monthly communication logs.
The research indicated that programs that have an inherent system whereby
the mentor and protégé work together to achieve determined goals are successful
support structures (Davis, et al., 2005). According to Daresh (2005), the
development of action plans has been proven to be successful in monitoring the short
term and long term objectives. Based on the literature found in the Whole School
Design Handbook (Edison Schools, 2007), EdisonLearning created various tools
such as the Collaborative Plan Tool and Action Plan sheets that the mentor and the
protégé completed mutually and turned in monthly to the Executive Director. This
142
information further supported by the Executive Director who informed the research
team that the tools should be turned in monthly. In addition, the interview with the
principal confirmed her commitment to implementing the tools and sending them in
on time.
According to Daresh (2005), the role of a mentor requires a significant
amount of expertise in human relations. Each individual is different and the protégés
each have various learning styles that the mentor must be able to appreciate.
Furthermore, when there are difficulties with communication, the mentor
relationship becomes ineffective (Daresh, 2005). According to the Whole School
Design Handbook (Edison Schools, 2007) EdisonLearning recognized the
importance of establishing a collaborative relationship, and focused much of its
training on how to create a safe environment (Edison Schools, 2007) so that
relationship could flourish. The positive rapport that developed as a result of the
mentor and protégé relationship was confirmed by the mentors and protégé during
the interview. They unanimously agreed that having a positive relationship was
instrumental in the success of the EdisonLearning mentor program.
Summary and Findings of Research Question Two Data
Research question two investigated the organizational structures that support
the mentoring model as well as those that do not support the model. The findings
indicated four structures: 1) training, 2) time, 3) tools, and 4) relationship that proved
to be important for the mentoring process. The findings did not indicate any
structures that did not support the mentoring model.
143
According to the Whole School Design Handbook (Edison Schools, 2007),
the mentoring program was designed to provide novice principals with
individualized guidance and support to foster improved student achievement. The
data revealed that the EdisonLearning Principal Mentoring Program training
prepared mentors to enhance new principals’ knowledge base and their skill sets.
Through the training received, mentors were provided foundations to support new
leaders in becoming change agents who recognize instruction and student learning as
their foremost priority (Edison Schools, 2007).
Embedded within the training program were structured time and
documentation tools for mentors and protégés. Inherent in the EdisonLearning
schools design were opportunities for mentors and protégés to come together and
collaborate. The findings indicated that scheduled weekly phone calls were crucial
to protégé’s leadership development. With respect to documentation, the most useful
and practical tools were the Collaborative Planning Tool and logs of weekly
communication. Since these documents were submitted to the Executive Director on
a monthly basis, the accountability on the part of the mentor and protégé was upheld
as part of the program.
More importantly, the relationship that was developed between the mentor
and protégé was one that was mutually beneficial as professionals. The mentor
provided a safe, risk-free environment where the protégés were given the opportunity
to strategize and problem-solve challenging situations. In turn, the mentors were
144
able to share their expertise and knowledge which renewed their sense of
commitment to student learning.
As mentors took on their various roles, a relationship that developed between
the mentor and the protégé proved to be fundamental.
Research Question Three: Ways in Which the Leader’s Practice Impacts
Teacher Practice
Research Question 3: How do the leadership practices of the principal affect
professional practice of teachers?
Data Collection Instruments
The data for this question were obtained from the pre and post intervention
administration of the online VAL-ED survey. Additionally, as previously discussed,
45 minute interviews with three teachers and an assistant principal were conducted in
the Spring of 2009 after the principal had participated in the intervention
(mentoring). The post-intervention interview data with the principal was also
utilized. Finally, approximately a two hour, post-intervention observation of the
principal was made in the Spring of 2009.
Report of the Data
Online VAL-ED Pre-Post Assessment
As previously addressed and summarized in question one, the teachers and
principal completed the online VAL-ED pre and post survey in the Fall of 2008 and
again in the Spring of 2009. According to Murphy et al., (2006), the VAL-ED
145
measured leadership behaviors that may affect school performance. The changes in
leadership practice were previously noted in question one. However, for the
purposes Research Question #2, it was important that the changes from pre- post-
VAL-ED survey on intercorrelations between the Core Components and Key
Processes scores be evaluated more in-depth from the perspective of the leader’s
impact on teacher professional practice.
The data show that Mrs. Ericson improved on three Key Processes, or
behaviors: Implementing, Supporting, and Communication for the Core Component
of High Standards for Student Learning. This is consistent with the interviews where
teachers corroborated that Mrs. Ericson had high standards for student achievement
and communicated that through the school’s vision regularly. However, significant
changes in the Quality Instruction were evidenced as she decreased in four key
processes: Implementing, Supporting, Advocating, and Communicating. As noted
later in the interviews, teachers reported they were unaware of the principal’s role in
developing and supporting the curriculum that was implemented in the classroom.
Similarly, Mrs. Ericson decreased in four key processes of Performance
Accountability: Supporting, Advocating, Communicating, and Monitoring. This is
consistent with the interviews with the teachers who stated that they felt unsupported
and rarely received feedback from their principal. Below is a summary of the
changes in Mrs. Ericson’s overall performance level on the VAL-ED between the
pre- assessment and post-assessment. An empty box indicated no change in
146
performance level. A plus (+) symbol indicated a positive change in performance
level. A minus (-) symbol indicated a negative change in performance level.
VAL-ED Core Components VAL-ED Key Processes
Planning
Implementing
Supporting
Advocating
Communicating
Monitoring
High Standards for Learning
+ + +
Rigorous Curriculum
+ - +
Quality Instruction
- - - - -
Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior
_
_ +
Connections to External Communities
+ + -
Performance Accountability
+ - - - -
Table 4-8. A Summary of the Change in Overall Performance Scores in the
Intersection between VAL-ED Core Components and Key Processes when
Comparing the Pre- and Post- Assessment
Interviews: Teachers and Assistant Principal, Post Intervention
The following data includes information gathered from three teachers (Ms.
Helena St. John, Mrs. Kathy Richards, and Ms. Lora Caudill) and the assistant
principal (Ms. Jaimi Cornell) on the professional practices that impacted teacher
practices. The 45 minute interviews were conducted in the Spring of 2009 after Mrs.
Ericson had been engaged in six months of mentoring. As previously outlined in
Research Question #1, the teachers interviewed varied in their teaching experience
and background. Two teachers were new to the teaching profession. One was
147
trained through ‘Teach for America’ and taught first grade, the other was trained in a
similar program that does not place teachers in schools. The latter taught
kindergarten. Finally, the last teacher had been employed at various EdisonLearning
schools for the past 4 years and was a specialist teacher. Additionally, the assistant
principal had just started her fifth year with EdisonLearning and her first as an
assistant principal.
When asked, what has the principal done to promote the success of all
students and how has it influenced your teaching practice? all of the teachers
interviewed talked about workstations that they had now implemented and learned
about during professional development. Workstations were conducted during
reading as a strategy to target those students who were struggling with various
academic content standards. The teachers all agreed that workstations were
developed and implemented school-wide with the support from the principal. They
also believed they were supported through professional development and had access
to the literacy specialist who was available for demonstration lessons. Mrs. Richards
excitedly recalled her experience with this particular strategy:
I learned how to run workstations from here, and that’s like a huge thing.
I've also done that through ‘Teach for America’ too, but here is where they
really got the ball rolling, which is awesome!
Ms. Caudill corroborated
I mean I know that she is invested, and our academy director is invested, and
our reading coordinator is invested in really working in small groups with all
of our students, which to me is really the way to address improving
individual student skills.
148
When asked the same question, Ms. Cornell noted that Mrs. Ericson’s
implementation of a common language that aligned with the school’s mission and
vision was instrumental in fostering a positive learning environment for the students.
She commented on how being ON B.A.S.E. had reshaped her own thinking and
promoted a school-wide focus on constructive, rather than punitive, reinforcement.
The assistant principal summarized her overall sentiment as follows:
I think that that instills a hope for the positive. It’s focused on what the
children are doing well, as opposed to what they're not doing well. And I
think that instinctively people, including myself, initially like: stop doing
that, don’t do that, why are you doing that. And I think that this promotes a
language of being compassionate.
In addition to having the ON B.A.S.E. signs posted in the rooms, each of the
teachers also referred to a set of cards they had hanging that reflected vocabulary
words which defined the characteristics of ON B.A.S.E. They were wisdom, justice,
courage, compassion, hope, respect, responsibility and integrity. Mrs. Ericson stated
these were part of EdisonLearning’s core behaviors and were expected at Milton
Place. The students understood what the words meant and were observed practicing
the word for that particular month: compassion. Ms. St. John reflected on the value
of Mrs. Ericson having established the school-wide ON B.A.S.E. system:
That common language was really important. The fact that we can say “on
base” or use some of the terms that go along with curriculum, really has been
interesting. I didn’t have that at my last school and I like that here a lot. The
students respond to that really well.
You can ask a student -- no matter what they are doing, you can say, “Are
you on base?” and they need to know whether to check if they're being
responsible, respectful and all of our core values, just by using that term “are
you on base?” So, putting that culture in place has really promoted the
149
success of the students because they learned right away that if they hear that,
they need to do a self-check and see what they're doing.
And it really has also helped them in their academic studies as well, because
even saying, “Are you on base?” they know things like: Have I done my
homework? Am I studying? Am I listening to the teacher in class? That one
whole term has really summed up a lot of the culture here. We talked about
that a lot in our trainings, like making this -- what is our school culture going
to be? And I think that creating that culture was a good thing and it really has
made a difference.
Likewise Mrs. Richards agreed with this sentiment and the positive outcomes
that she had noticed in her classroom and throughout the school as a result of having
high expectations for students:
And then, expectations for students, some of the high expectations for
students I think are that they will achieve, that their scores will improve, that
we have this core value system and an on based theme. Like I think you’ve
probably seen that, like our students are on base and they can earn base cards
for following our core values: respect, justice, integrity, responsibility,
compassion, hope, courage and wisdom, so that they will be good human
beings is also I think an expectation will then translate as they go on in
school.
Ms. St. John had similar sentiments that resulted from the common vision
that focused on student achievement through the implementation of being ON
B.A.S.E. She experienced that teachers and staff members had “rather high
expectations for student learning.” She felt this was critical in preparing them for
their future academic success since their previous education was not as rigorous a
curriculum as they received at Milton Place. Ms. St. John strongly agreed that the
teachers were aware that their instruction was pivotal to students learning. She
further described conversations about this shared belief, “we talk about student
150
achievement and we let them know where they need to and where they’re at. I guess
that’s communicated to them and that’s part of our culture.”
When prompted with how were school goals set and evaluated? all of the
teachers interviewed expressed that the school was “driven by data” and had
benchmarks each student was intended to reach at various points in the year. When
asked what were some of the key components of the school vision? Ms. Caudill
responded, “I would say the vision was mostly on core values and improving test
scores and the testing we’re doing, and obviously student learning. That’s always
touched on and promoted.” A few of the other teachers, expressed that as new
teachers they were not as familiar with the data process, but thought it was also
important to focus on data and to work at a school where the belief is communicated
that all students can learn. In fact Ms. St. John elaborated:
She sets really ambitious goals which is a super strength for a school just to
say, “Regardless, we want 100% of our kids to achieve this, rather then”, and
maybe that’s part of my conditioning from ‘Teach for America’ that comes
through too, that we always want that for100% of kids or we want 100% of
this attendance. These are lofty goals and she consistently expresses her
beliefs, which in turn, I think, would effect our seeing that she is one of our
leaders.
It was also apparent because of the observed groupings in each of the
classrooms that the data from the benchmark assessments was utilized to address the
students’ deficits during small group workstations. As previously mentioned, the
workstations were implemented to target the groups of students who struggled with
acquiring various skills. Grade level meetings, also called House meetings were
used to discuss the data, and set goals for groups of students.
151
When asked how has your principal encouraged professional growth for
faculty and how has that influenced your practice? all of the teachers interviewed
mentioned that there was a tremendous amount of professional development.
However, the teachers’ opinions varied on their perceptions of the value of the
professional development and the impact it had on improving their practice. Mrs.
Richards felt that the professional development opportunities were simply, “watered
down versions of what [they] received in ‘Teach for America’,” while Ms. Caudill
liked a particular strategy “we use at our grade level that I learned in professional
development, but it’s not implemented school-wide.” Yet, Ms. St. John, felt that
there was “not much professional development to support the growth in her
department.” However, most teachers reported feeling supported by being provided
with additional content area staff members and encouraged to grow as professionals.
During the interview, Ms. Caudill, a kindergarten teacher, remarked that she
felt particularly supported by the lead teacher in her department, who had
periodically come in her room. As a new teacher, she had been really struggling with
how to implement a particular lesson. She felt frustrated by this and as a result, she
was provided time to observe her lead teacher. Ms. Caudill reported, “She
performed an example of doing a small group lesson. She showed us videos of other
classrooms doing small group lessons, so that’s been really helpful.” Similarly, Mrs.
Richards, a first grade teacher, commented that it was helpful to have the literacy
specialist available to ask questions about specific lessons in their program.
152
Another professional development growth opportunity that was mentioned by
the teachers was the school-wide grant writing requirement. Mrs. Richards described
that all of the teachers were expected to write at least one grant during the year as
outlined in their School Achievement Plan. She felt that this was a “great mandate”
and offered her a place to grow professionally. She excitedly said that she had
already written one and was considering another. She continued, “I mean there
really is a lot of encouragement for professional growth.” When asked do Mrs.
Ericson’s expectations for all of you to write grants prompt you to write the grants?
Mrs. Richards responded:
It definitely motivates me to write those grants, because I do want those
resources or two, I know that I can always be better and I think she
communicates all of that to us. There's some really great teachers here, but I
think a lot of even really great teachers might think that they're too great to
continuously improve. And right now, I’m at a point, obviously, because I’m
learning where I want to continuously improve.
Both Mrs. Richards and Ms. Caudill were asked, What was your impression
of the three weeks of professional development you had before school began? As
new teachers, Mrs. Richards and Ms. Caudill both found the three-week professional
development rewarding and stated that it helped expand their understanding of the
general procedures and expectations. Mrs. Richards explained, “We did do a lot of
teacher collaboration, you know, how kids are going to go to the bathroom. How we
are going to make this a safe environment. How we are going to dismiss the
students.”
153
However, unlike the Mrs. Richards and Ms. Caudill, an interview with Ms.
St. John, a specialist teacher, revealed a difference in opinion in regards the personal
value of the beginning of the year professional development. As a seasoned teacher
in EdisonLearning schools, and a lead teacher herself, she was experienced in the
EdisonLearning training and did not feel it was beneficial to Milton Place’s rather
young and inexperienced staff. In her opinion:
I think the quality of our professional development wasn’t as good as it could
have been. It was a little disappointing to me, actually. After being through
three previous professional developments with Edison, it wasn’t quite what I
would have wanted as a new Edison teacher. I know there are things that go
on at the new Edison teacher trainings that did not happen here.
The interview with Ms. Caudill revealed her dissatisfaction with how some of
the later professional development and House team meetings were conducted. When
prompted, How does the principal support your professional growth during the
House team meetings, Ms. Caudill responded, “I don’t know, honestly. I guess
going back to this probably addresses every question you’ll ask. I really don’t know
what she does.” As a new teacher, she was unaware of much of the EdisonLearning
design’s hierarchy for problem solving, which had caused her some frustration. For
example, she thought when there was a problem, it should go directly to the
principal. However, the EdisionLearning design is constructed so that dilemmas are
first discussed during House, or grade level meeting. Then the Lead teacher, which
was similar to a grade level or department chairperson, brought those issues to a
Lead Team meeting and resolved the conflict with the principal and other
instructional coordinators. The Lead teacher would then bring the resolution back to
154
their grade level and disseminate the information. Additionally, Ms. Caudill was
unaware of the role Mrs. Ericson had in implementing professional development
because most of the support she received had come from curriculum specialists or
the assistant principal who was over that area. Therefore, this made Ms. Caudill feel
the principal was not involved and seemed to not care as much as the assistant
principal who, from her perspective, played a more active role in her classroom. Ms.
Caudill expressed her frustration, “I hate to speak of the academy director (assistant
principal) again, but she has come in literally and helped me in my room many days,
especially at the beginning of the year. So many days the director (principal) would
just kind of swoop by or not come at all.”
When asked, what organizational structures have your principal
established/reinforced this year that promote a safe and efficient learning
environment and how have they impacted your practice? Mrs. Richards felt that the
morning procedures and schedules that were initiated by Mrs. Ericson had promoted
a classroom environment where the students are aware of the standards and
expectations for their behavior. Additionally, she described her feelings of less
stress since she was aware of what was required from the faculty to ensure the safety
of all of the children. Mrs. Richards summarized her feelings about the safety
procedures as follows:
It’s nice because I pretty much know what to expect for the day. I think kids
are accustom to routine and we’re just as willing to get into a routine, and
wanting and craving a routine, just as much as our students are.
155
Likewise Ms. St. John agreed that the safety procedures enacted by Mrs.
Ericson have been beneficial for the overall environment at Milton Place, because
she felt there was a monitoring for safety, the school was a place,
where we would all be to make sure that the right people were coming into
our school. We even check to make sure that the right parents are there and if
parents are supposed to go in, we’re supposed to encourage them from
coming in, “Oh your student can make it on their own.”
Additionally, Ms. St. John elaborated that the system that was in place also
helped with her teaching because there was a procedure established for teachers on
“how to handle disruptive students and remove them from the learning
environment.” She described this as making the classroom safe for all of the other
students and not impacting their learning with “students who were not ON B.A.S.E.”
However, duly noted though, Ms. St. John pointed out that the system was created
without input from the staff and was “sort of set up previous to school starting.”
The teachers, differed with Mrs. Ericson’s beliefs on the structures she had in
place for feedback and monitoring of classroom instruction. Mrs. Ericson described
herself as providing continuous feedback through the use of daily “walk throughs.”
When asked about Mrs. Ericson’s daily observations of the classrooms, Ms.
Caudill said that the principal no longer visited her classroom. She admitted:
I have not been observed by the principal. She’s been in my classroom like
when I first started in the mornings to help me transition, literally like
hanging out with my student who is autistic so I could get kids settled, and
that was for like a week when I first started. But I have not had the principal
see my workstations, seen me teach. The academy director observed me and
I had feedback from her.
156
Likewise, several of the other teachers stated similar feelings about the
feedback and observation process. They recounted several meetings where Mrs.
Ericson had informed the staff in August that they would receive regular
observations from her to help guide their instruction. Interestingly, all of the
teachers interviewed mentioned they had received feedback from the assistant
principal instead. Mrs. Richards further described this situation as follows:
We were told we would have weekly observations, informal evaluations,
formal evaluations, sit down talks, you know that we would be seeing their
face in the classroom a lot, and all of these things were required from us each
time. And there was like a rubric for us. I've actually like never been
formally observed and I've had Ms. Cornell, our academy director [assistant
principal], I’ve seen her in my classroom a lot more often then I have Mrs.
Ericson.
Mrs. Richards commented on the prompt, what are your thoughts of the
principal’s feelings of providing frequent classroom visitation and regular feedback?
Mrs. Richards strongly disagreed with the amount of classroom monitoring and
feedback and truly believed that she needed more. She felt that receiving feedback
from the principal on how she implemented her lessons was necessary for her growth
as a professional. In reflection, she stated:
So I haven't really seen the bargain being held up on their end. And I think
we could all get a lot better if those observations took place. I’d like to sit
down and have a conversation with her about some of my practices.
Two teachers, however, did mention that monitoring of their lesson plans has
been a specific ongoing process that has supported their development in the
classroom. Ms. St. John declared, “we are constantly evaluated for what our lesson
plans look like and what we include from our other subject areas.” Mrs. Richards
157
agreed, “specifically, like our policy has gotten a little stricter with lesson plans in a
good way, I would say.”
The teachers were asked what organizational structures have your principal
established/reinforced this year that promote a safe and efficient learning
environment? Two out of three said the collaboration process had been most useful.
Although they were not aware of Mrs. Ericson’s role in the process, Ms. Caudill
explained the benefits of having had the time to work with her colleagues:
I would say teacher collaboration, and I know at the beginning of the year we
addressed this a little bit more then we did before. But we used to talk about
student concerns at our house meetings with our kindergarten team. So I
think it just wasn’t a time to sit down and run through an agenda; there was a
student concerns meeting where we could talk about who is your biggest
behavior problem.
The teachers were prompted further, how do you perceive Mrs. Ericson in the
collaborative process? Two of the teachers felt “uncomfortable” going to her to
discuss issues. They remarked Mrs. Ericson’s door is closed often and they were
unsure if they were allowed to go inside. Two of the teachers were not Lead
teachers, and therefore, not part Mrs. Ericson’s Lead decision-making Team.
Therefore, it was reported that they felt excluded from much of the process and were
even unsure as to what transpired during those Lead Team meetings. Mrs. Richards
elaborated, “I’m not a Lead Teacher, so I don’t make the decisions. I don’t really
know what goes on in those meetings except our Lead Teacher brings information
back to our House Team meetings.”
158
Ms. St. John, a Lead teacher, described her experience as an improvement
since December. However, she remarked that it has been a struggle all year long and
did not always feel that her voice was heard during the decision-making. She talked
about her most recent experience in collaborating with the principal:
I still feel there's a little hostility when you bring up [issues]. I wouldn’t use
the word “hostility” that’s a little too harsh, but maybe a feel of resentment
when you see something that’s not quite working and you want to be solution
focused and you want to say, “Well, maybe could we try something
differently or do it this way?” you were looked at as not being a team player.
Mrs. Richards remarked on the structures that Mrs. Ericson put in place that
created an effective learning environment and agreed that knowing what was
calendared for the month made things easier and less stressful for her when planning
for her classroom. She said, “I think that’s very positive that it’s pretty much laid
out what we’re going to be doing for the month and what areas she pinpoints.” Mrs.
Ericson developed this professional development calendar so all teachers were made
aware of what training they would receive and the times so they could plan
accordingly.
The teachers were asked, In what ways are families and the community
incorporated into the decision-making process to ensure student success at this
school and how does that impact their practice in the classroom? The teachers
considered parent involvement an important piece in helping them to accomplish
their goals in the classroom. They viewed the parents as partners in the learning
process and thought that Mrs. Ericson’s role in the process was valuable to the
159
school. Mrs. Richards discussed the close relationship she established with her
parents:
they're expected to have 100% participation at conferences. So I met with
every single one of my parents first quarter, which was awesome and
something you're not going to find in most other Chicago Public Schools. It
really helps me to know the children a lot more. We talk on like a regular
basis. They all have my cell phone number if they need to, and that’s partly
me. You know I feel comfortable giving them my cell phone number as long
as they don’t abuse it, and then I would maybe have to say something. I
think it makes me see that the parents really do care about their kids and
really do want them.
Ms. Caudill related that since there was an open-door culture established at
Milton Place, the parents felt welcomed and encouraged to participate in their child’s
learning. She had been delighted by this collaboration with the parents:
I would say that very generally when you have positive people in a building
and kind of like trying to keep that vibe going where it could be, you know
everything is not going to be perfect in a first year school, but if we’re all
here and we’re in it together and we’re happy and we’re positive, I think that
honestly does bleed through. I think any support here and there effects
students and teachers in a positive way. So that’s just very general on a very
feel good vibe thing. I would say it directly benefits students by just
providing them with more opportunities academically.
Similarly, Ms. St. John said that she had noticed the impact parent
involvement had on the amount of participation with the school’s book fair. She was
impressed with the number of volunteers who were willing to help. Additionally,
she stated that when you have parents as a cooperative partner in their child’s
education, it became easier to make those disciplinary phone calls because she knew
the parents would work with her. She described this further as follows:
So it has made me not be afraid of the parents, as well. If I’m speaking with
the children and they do something wrong, I’m able to discuss it with their
160
parents in a nice manner, because they know who I am. I’m not just some
stranger saying, “Your kid was bad today.” So that common culture of
having them here has made me more comfortable as a teacher, I guess, with
their students.
Teachers were asked to describe your school culture in terms of teacher
morale, expectations for student achievement and parent involvement. Ms. St. John
believed that overall staff morale was lowered “because some of the teachers don’t
feel important.” She also said that “some of the teachers don’t feel recognized at all”
and described how some teachers’ birthdays were celebrated and others were
ignored. Although this was unintentional, she understood that these actions created
some sense of a lowered spirit within the school.
Ms. St. John commented, however, that there were marked changes in
communication that gave her, “much more of a positive view on where our school is
going, because I feel it’s communicated with me a little bit more.” She expressed
her delight over the change in the way staff meetings were conducted and how it was
clearly articulated to the staff to have more structured meetings. “Oh my goodness, I
loved our first staff meeting back from winter break. I had an agenda that had dates
of things that were happening in the future and I was able to plan and it really --
there really was a change.”
When prompted the question, what is your impression of Mrs. Ericson’s
overall communication skills and its impact on the school’s morale? Ms. St. John
stated:
Communication to the staff, as far as what they're doing well, I think was
lacking for a while. There was a lot of piling on of things to do, things to do,
161
what you're doing wrong, what you're doing wrong, but there wasn’t much
encouragement or noticing the things that people were doing right and
encouraging them in those areas. But I have seen a change in these things.
Although the teachers noted some challenges with communication, they all
responded that they believed Mrs. Ericson had the best interest of the students in
mind and wanted to establish a cooperative work environment. Ms. St. John
revealed, “Mrs. Ericson wants to have a complete culture of everyone working
together for student achievement.” Mrs. Richards corroborated, “I think Mrs.
Ericson has this really wonderfully calming style about her that makes everything
feel like it’s going to be okay and we’re in this together.”
Additionally, one teacher did not feel that the lack of communication was
intentional, but just that Mrs. Ericson’s job is difficult. During the interview, Mrs.
Richards expressed:
And I think sometimes she gets caught up, and like her job is really hard, like
don’t get me wrong, her job is super hard. I called her the night before winter
break, that was the first day I called in because I got really sick with food
poisoning and I called her at like 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning and she
answered her phone, because we’re supposed to call her and the office.
Interview: Principal, Post Intervention
When asked, what do you know and believe promote the success of all
students? Mrs. Ericson commented that she carried out Milton Place’s school
mission and vision to impact the teaching practices of her staff. She felt that “[she]
accomplished this through establishing a common language and core belief system
that all students can learn that transcended throughout the school.” She said, “I sent
162
you a copy of the Milton Place’s the school vision and it was adopted from the
charter school.” As previously mentioned it stated:
We envision Milton Place Primary Center to be a safe, nurturing and
welcoming environment that provides for students of all abilities. The school
team, families and community members will work collaboratively to develop
and shape children into problem solvers, critical thinkers, cooperative
learners and productive citizens. Through these collaborative efforts, our
children will succeed academically and socially to become leaders in an ever
evolving, technological society. We are ON B.A.S.E Everyday.
During the interview, Mrs. Ericson further described how she implemented a
school-wide common language, “You will see that each staff member has this
mission hung outside their door and incorporated the school’s vision throughout their
daily instruction through the implementation of a common language.” She further
described that:
Milton Place was ON B.A.S.E. every day which [meant] staff members
Believe, are Achievement-Focused, Solution-Focused, and Envision what is in
the best interest for all students.
This theme derived itself from her belief a school should be “unbiased” and
everything her staff does impacts the lives of a child. She passionately described her
philosophy as follows:
Our school wide theme of being unbiased, that carries it through as well.
And as trivial as it may sound, I’m asking teachers all the time, “Are you on
base? Are you a part of this? Do you believe that being on base means to
believe? Do you believe that this child is capable of learning what you're
instructing them and what they're supposed to learn?”
Because if you believe that and you have that sound belief that this student
could learn anything, I mean we could take them to any height, I just first
need you to believe in that child and their capabilities. And if you believe,
then you know exactly what route you need to take or you can learn whatever
163
route you need to take so that child gets to the level of your expectation or
your own individual expectation as well.
Mrs. Ericson was asked how are high expectations for student achievement
communicated to the staff? She responded:
We kind of live and breathe our mission. And when I explain something to
staff is that if you don’t understand the start of it all and where we’re trying
to take the school year, if you can't envision that, then you're kind of lost
within this. So if you have those daily reminders, if it’s incorporated in your
lesson planning, if it’s incorporated in your objectives that you present in
your subject areas and ultimately, we’re preparing students for post-
secondary education and high school and college and grad school, if they can,
and so on and so forth.
When asked, how have you promoted a school culture that facilitates growth
for faculty? Mrs. Ericson discussed her role in the grant writing process that teachers
are required to participate in at Milton Place. She confirmed that she “encouraged”
teachers to write them and “supported the teachers in [passing] on any information
via email” about opportunities for grants that she thought would be interesting to
them.
Mrs. Ericson also described the professional development process as being
helpful. She specifically said professional development “prior to the opening of the
school as [being] fundamental for setting the standards for expectations, visions, and
procedures for the school.” She also believed it was “instrumental in providing
teachers with an opportunity to collaborate, learn about the curriculum, and begin
planning for the year.”
She also described how informal observations were used to improve faculty
practice. She described this in greater detail as follows:
164
This kind of gives me a daily pulse on what's going on. And on the daily
walk thrus, I have one that’s different for each day. I may focus on just
praise, just [how] the teachers flow throughout the classroom; I may focus on
the type of questioning that’s being posed to the students. And then I may
focus on a particular grade level with that.
After classroom observations, Mrs. Ericson, further elaborated on the
information she gathered from her assessment of the classroom environments and
reiterated the importance of walking through the classrooms each day:
I have informal observations that I do monthly with the teachers to kind of
give them an overall of what I think they're doing in the classroom, how I feel
that they're impacting the student’s education, what are my areas of concerns,
or what they're doing [is] just terrific at and need to keep going at. And then,
if I have some valid concerns, then I’ll put professional development in place
for that individual teacher. Or, if it’s multiple teachers, I’ll do that as well.
Mrs. Ericson believed that her monitoring of the instructional program was
necessary and critical to improving instruction. She said that occasionally she was
required to put more pressure on some teachers so they could improve their practice.
She described this as follows:
Sometimes I have to push quite a bit if I’m not seeing what I need to see out
of a teacher, but I’ll push more so in a mentoring fashion as opposed to,
“Hey, you're not doing what you need to do. If I don’t see you doing this,
then this is a result of that.”
Mrs. Ericson was also asked, what are the organizational structures that are
in place which promote a safe and efficient learning environment? Mrs. Ericson
believed that a structure needed to be in place so that the students felt safe,
welcomed and knew that Milton Place was a place for them to come and learn. She
summarized:
165
There is a structure in place so that students know that this is a place where
they are welcomed and where each staff member has high expectations for
their academic achievement. In addition, there is a school wide disciplinary
policy that you’ll see in each classroom.
It was observed that there were data hanging outside Mrs. Ericson’s door and
in the hallway upon entering Milton Place. A follow up question was asked, Were
data analysis a structure that was implemented to promote an efficient learning
environment as well? Mrs. Ericson explained the goal setting and data analysis
process more specifically:
So monthly, we set the goal and where you need to be to meet the end of the
year goal as well, so all of that is included in their data. They write down
which students are meeting the goals, which students are not, and then they
put strategies in place on how they can re-embed so that the students are
meeting these skills levels that are set.
Mrs. Ericson felt that the only way to accomplish the school’s goals was to
build a collaborative environment. She said that this could only be accomplished by
having an open-door policy where teachers felt free and safe to discuss problems:
I definitely believe in receiving feedback from staff meetings, and I
encourage them to be very open but every solution focused in whatever
concern or question that they may have. It tells me if you're being solution
focused, you may have a problem or concern but you’ve thought through it.
You may not have the answer but I can help to guide you to the correct
answer.
When asked in what ways have you fostered collaboration with diverse
families and the outside community to promote student success? Mrs. Ericson
maintained that parents’ role in a new school was instrumental to its success. She
also felt they had a positive impact on the learning in the classroom. She described it
as follows, what she called a “triad effect”:
166
it’s the family, the school and the students, and we’re all working in the best
interest of the child. If I don’t get those parents involved and give them what
they need and satisfy them and motivate them about our school and what
their child is learning and how they can help them, then that’s a missing
piece.
Because of the diverse learning needs, it was asked, How do you promote a
school culture that respects promotes equal access and opportunities for all
students? According to Mrs. Ericson, teachers’ lesson plans should reflect the
diverse learners in their rooms. She conveyed that lessons and objectives must meet
the needs of all students, including students with special needs. She commented:
So we focus on the diversification of the learner, as I stated earlier. And so, a
part of teachers’ lesson plans there's just a section on differentiation and how
are you going to teach this set lesson to this type of learner, whether it’s a
slow learner, a low learner or if they have an IEP or so on and so forth. So
just being cognizant of what you need to do to reach that type of learner. And
so we have the teachers plan appropriately for each student.
Mrs. Ericson further elaborated on the process she had in place to assist all
teachers with planning for students with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP):
We reviewed the IEPs prior to school even starting, so that we knew, and
then the teacher received their IEP at a glance as well, so she knew exactly
what the goals would be for the child coming in and could plan accordingly
for it. And based on the fact that we had some first year teachers as well, so
we wanted to give them the information they need and to ensure that they
were knowledgeable and what strategies they could put in place for the
different kind of diverse learners as well.
At the end of the interview, Mrs. Ericson was asked How have you impacted
teacher practice? She elaborated on her role in supporting the professional
development process. She stated that she provided the teachers with the necessary
resources such as the literacy coordinators and lead teachers who were available to
167
go into the classrooms and model lessons for the teachers. She clarified that
EdisonLearning schools had imbedded within them common planning time that was
intended for professional development opportunities, and commented on her specific
role at Milton Place:
I put professional development in place for them; I put curriculum
coordinators, I arrange for them to come in and do observations, model
lessons, so that they feel like they are growing in the right direction. So just
being aware of that and just being very cognizant of it, and just being open to
meet their needs as well, and answer any questions that they have.
Observation
As previously mentioned, an observation was conducted in the Spring of
2009. During the observation, the morning routine was witnessed. Students were
welcomed by staff members, who were positioned at the front of the school, at the
hallway, and in the stairwell of the three-story building. Additionally, throughout the
day, when students used the restroom, they had to take a buddy, even though the
bathrooms were in doors.
Two “walk-thrus” were conducted, one in the beginning of the day and again
at the end of the day. During the classroom visits, it was evidenced that Milton Place
Primary Center’s school mission and vision was clearly hung outside each classroom
door, including the principal’s office. In all of the classrooms, with the exception of
one, the ON B.A.S.E. vision was evident as well as the students’ ON B.A.S.E. cards.
Additionally, in many of the classrooms, the eight core vocabulary words were
evident. Three classrooms were reviewing the ON B.A.S.E. word of the week
168
through whole group instruction. Throughout the day, the kindergarten students
were in the computer lab at various times completing their winter benchmark
assessments. Finally, three classrooms were observed implementing workstations
during reading instruction; and several other teachers used professional development
time to complete report cards or to meet with colleagues.
It was noted that a school calendar reflecting upcoming professional
development dates was on the wall behind Mrs. Ericson’s desk. In addition, the
principal’s door remained open for most of the day, with the exception of the time
when the interview with her was conducted.
Data Analysis
To answer the research question: How do the leadership practices of the
principal affect professional practice of teachers, it was important to first understand
the indirect impact school leadership has on student achievement (Leithwood et al.,
2004; Hallinger and Heck, 2005; Murphy et al, 2006). Specifically, it is the
principals’ influence on teacher practice which ultimately impacts student
achievement as teachers have a direct role in improving student learning (Marzano,
Waters and McNulty, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2006).
The analytical framework used for this research question was Hallinger and
Heck’s (1998) effects model. In particular, this model demonstrated that school
leaders have an indirect impact on student learning through their influence on school
factors such as classroom instruction, school culture and organizational structures
(Hallinger & Heck, 1998). Importantly, the literature revealed that effective school
169
leaders must then create the necessary conditions and structures in order for their
teachers to be successful (Leithwood et al., 2004; Hallinger and Heck, 2005; Murphy
et al, 2006; Darling-Hammond, 2006). Another lens through which this research
question was analyzed was Darling-Hammond’s (2006) effective teaching model.
Specifically, effective teachers are provided time to collaborate and increase their
capacity as professionals (Darling-Hammond, 2006). As a result, effective teachers
set high standards for their students and themselves as well as hold each other
accountable to improve student learning.
Moreover, the conceptual framework of Murphy et al.’s (2006) Learning-
Centered Leadership and the EdisonLearning leadership framework of five
leadership roles such as: a) instructional leader, b) organizational leader, c) culture
builder, d) site manager, and d) Edison Schools Executive (Edison Schools, 2007)
provided the lens by which the first research question was analyzed. As previously
mentioned in Research Question #1, the two frameworks were closely aligned and
the major principles of each framework corresponded to each of the key behaviors
and practices of effective school leaders. Furthermore, effective leaders create the
conditions for teacher practice by impacting the core technology of teaching and
learning (Murphy, et al., 2006).
Darling-Hammond (2006) suggested that effective teachers have the capacity
to instruct standards that addressed the needs of the diverse learning population.
Although, Milton Place’s student population was predominately African-American,
students attending had a variety of learning needs and abilities that the teachers were
170
required to address. The interviews with the teachers and the principal indicated that
Mrs. Ericson demonstrated characteristics of a learning-centered leader as she
provided the teachers with the necessary resources (Murphy, et al., 2006) to
implement workstations to differentiate the instruction and meet the various learning
needs of each of the students. Her instructional leadership and culture builder skills
were in evidence as teachers were observed implementing the workstations in their
classrooms. However, the post-intervention VAL-ED survey does not support these
findings. In fact, the data demonstrated that Mrs. Ericson’s overall performance
score in Quality Instruction, or those “effective instructional practices that maximize
student academic and social learning” (Porter, et al., 2006), decreased. She scored
Proficient on the pre-intervention online VAL-ED and Basic on the post-intervention
online VAL-ED.
A review of the literature found that learning-centered leaders promote
professional development and help teachers improve core technology of teaching and
learning (Hallinger, 2003; Murphy et al., 2006). Mrs. Ericson demonstrated
characteristics of learning-centered leadership in providing staff members with on-
going professional development and resources. Interviews with the principal
revealed that she strongly believed in supporting her staff in facilitating their growth
as professionals and strengthening their instructional abilities. Interviews with the
teachers uncovered diverse opinions on the value of professional development, but it
was agreed that collaborative planning time built in to their daily schedule was
valued. Observations of the professional development calendar supported the
171
scheduled professional development times. Additionally, as previously mentioned,
Mrs. Ericson received an overall performance score of Proficient in creating a
Culture of Learning & Professional Behavior. Furthermore, Mrs. Ericson
demonstrated her strengths as an EdisonLearning Instruction Leader, which
maintains that a leader should provide researched-based strategies to improve the
core instruction of the staff (Edison School, 2007).
Moreover, Darling-Hammond (2006) stated that providing teachers with
professional growth opportunities may improve their pedagogical skills. Thus,
teachers hone their skills and improve as professionals (Darling-Hammond, 2006)
when they are allowed to plan and collaborate. Mrs. Ericson demonstrated strong
learning-centered leadership skills as she developed as an EdisonLearning
instructional leader to ensure that the teachers at Milton Place had daily professional
development built into their schedule so they could work together.
Mrs. Ericson exhibited various learning-centered leadership traits as she
worked to continuously augment the conditions that would improve instruction. An
example of this was the implementation of the school safety plan. From a learning-
centered perspective, it is critical that a leader create a learning environment that
promotes safety and structures for discipline (Murphy et al., 2006). The school-wide
safety procedures and morning routines exemplified her role as an effective Site
Manager as the procedures were incorporated with the students’ learning (Edison
Schools, 2007). Research has suggested that effective schools are ones where safe
and structured environments are valued (Murphy et al., 2006), which created a
172
school culture that impacts classroom conditions (Hallinger, 2003). The interviews
revealed that the safety procedures that were instituted positively impacted the
environment. Teachers felt the students had structure which affected their behaviors
in the classroom. This was further supported by the overall performance level on the
VAL-ED which Mrs. Ericson scored Proficient in Culture of Learning &
Professional Behavior. Recall, that according to the learning-centered leadership
framework, a leader who demonstrates proficiency in this core component
demonstrates skills in creating the conditions of a safe school environment (Murphy,
et al., 2006). This culture of school-wide safety was also evidenced in the hallways
during recess, after school during dismissal with each teacher at their “post,” making
sure the students were walking; and in the classroom with the clearly identified
positive behavior modification charts.
A central component of the learning-centered leadership framework was the
focus on improving instructional practice through monitoring with the ultimate goal
of improving student achievement (Murphy, et al., 2006). Furthermore, performance
feedback from the school leader is an essential component to facilitating
improvement in teacher practice (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2003). The
interviews with the teachers uncovered that Mrs. Ericson demonstrated a weakness
in providing monitoring and feedback to them although she felt she demonstrated
these effective leadership skills. Mrs. Ericson’s scores in the core component area
on Quality Instruction, which from the learning-centered framework includes
immediate monitoring and feedback (Murphy, et al., 2006), supported the teachers’
173
comments. She scored lower on the post-intervention online VAL-ED with an
overall Basic rating. Additionally, the observation conducted with her revealed that
the walk-thrus did take place, but there was no feedback given to any of the teachers.
The interview with her however, revealed that she believed that she modeled
EdisonLearning’s Instructional Leader and Culture Builder roles by walking through
the classrooms with a particular focus in mind. However, learning-centered leaders
go further than simply observing a classroom. This type of leader is very involved in
the teaching process and consistently work with groups of teachers to improve their
practices (Murphy, et al., 2006). Mrs. Ericson did communicate her expectations for
high standards for teachers, and her actions for instruction by placing the specialists
in the classroom and having the assistant principal give feedback, demonstrated her
strength as a learning-centered leader to create the conditions whereby others can
support the growth of teachers. However, the lack of monitoring demonstrates her
weakness as an instructional leader from the EdisonLearning perspective.
EdisonLearning Schools strive to have leaders that promote the development
of relationships between the parents and school (Edison Schools, 2007). As an
Organizational Leader, Mrs. Ericson, enhanced the schools culture and exemplified
aspects of learning-centered characteristics as she advocated for parent involvement
at the school (Murphy, et al., 2006). The interviews with the teachers revealed that
parents were pivotal to the learning environment and Mrs. Ericson had created a
culture where the parents were active participants in their child’s learning. Mrs.
Ericson’s interview also supported this as further demonstrated strong characteristics
174
of learning-centered leadership traits as she described the importance of connecting
the outside community to the school. The results from the online VAL-ED further
supported Mrs. Ericson’s growth as an EdisonLearning Organizational Leader as she
improved in her overall performance score from Below Basic in Connections to
External Communities on the pre-intervention online VAL-ED survey to Basic on
the post-intervention of the online VAL-ED survey. Furthermore, parental
involvement and the positive community rapport were evidenced through the number
of volunteers during the morning and afternoon traffic control and the friendly
morning and afternoon greeting of every parent. Establishing a welcoming
environment for parents, teachers, and administrators to work collaboratively,
created the professional working conditions researchers have linked with supporting
students (Darling-Hammond, 2006).
Mrs. Ericson embodied learning-centered behaviors and the EdsionLearning
leadership roles such as Organizational Leader, Culture Builder, and Edison Schools
Executive as she carried out Milton Place’s vision by involving parents, using data to
drive instruction, building a collaborative professional environment (Edison School,
2007), and relentlessly pursuing high quality education for all students. In doing so,
Mrs. Ericson typified aspects of learning-centered leadership as she impacted
teachers’ awareness of the high expectations for student achievement, which was
transferred to their classroom (Murphy, et al., 2006) with the use of the ON B.A.S.E.
common language; evidence of this was provided by the interviews, VAL-ED online
survey, and observations. The teachers and principal repeatedly remarked that the
175
use of the ON B.A.S.E. language was consistently implemented school-wide by the
teachers themselves and the students. Additionally, the VAL-ED revealed Mrs.
Ericson scored Proficient in the area of High Standards for Student Learning on both
the pre- and post-intervention of the online VAL-ED survey, which displays her
commitment to setting high expectations for achievement (Murphy, et al., 2006).
Observations were made of the mission and vision posted throughout the school and
outside every classroom, parents were seen looking at pictures of the ON B.A.S.E.
All-Stars for the month that were posted in the hallway as one entered the school,
ON B.A.S.E. vocabulary words were clearly posted inside each class, and instruction
that included ON B.A.S.E. words were conducted. These further supported Mrs.
Ericson’s influence on ensuring the school’s mission is part of Milton Place’s daily
culture and demonstrated her skills as an EdisonLearning Organizational Leader,
Culture Builder, and Edison Schools Executive as she had established a school with
high standards for student achievement and communicated those beliefs to all of the
stakeholders (Edison Schools, 2007).
As a learning-centered leader and instructional leader of the school, Mrs.
Ericson believed that her staff had to remain achievement-focused. She modeled
these behaviors as she made decisions based on benchmark data, which she
disaggregated by classroom and grade level, and set goals with each grade level for
the month (Murphy, et al., 2006). As an EdisonLearning Instructional Leader she
demonstrated her ability to gather quantitative data (Edison Schools, 2007) and
devised strategies for students in the classroom. The interview with Mrs. Ericson
176
uncovered that she recognized that data was the critical component to Milton Place’s
success and therefore was the driving force behind her decision making. The teacher
interviews corroborated this and the teachers believed Mrs. Ericson was especially
focused on data and they used the information when creating their workstation
groups.
During the observation, the winter benchmark data was viewed posted
outside the principal’s door and parents, teachers, and students were witnessed
looking at the charts and graphs. Additionally, small groups of students were
observed working in various groups on differentiated activities in several of the
classrooms. According to the VAL-ED, Mrs. Ericson scored Proficient in
establishing High Standards for Student Learning. Thus, this supports her strength
as a learning-centered leader and EdisonLearning Instructional Leader as it
demonstrated her ability to implement assessment programs to monitor student
progress. Importantly noted, however, Mrs. Ericson’s overall performance score in
Quality Instruction, which were the teacher practices that were actualized as a result
of leader influence, were lowered on the post-intervention VAL-ED. On the pre-
intervention VAL-ED, her rating was Proficient, but on the post-intervention, she
scored Basic on the online VAL-ED survey. Thus, the data to support the change in
teacher practice was varied.
The fundamental component of both the learning-centered leadership and the
EdisonLearning Leadership Frameworks was the significance of communication in
carrying out the duties of a principal (Murphy, et al., 2006; and Edison Schools,
177
2007). Furthermore, Darling-Hammond (2006) state the importance of establishing
effective communication between adults at the school’s environment leads to success
in instruction. According to the principal interview, Mrs. Ericson put structures in
place to demonstrate characteristics of effective communication by developing
professional development calendars, more concise agendas for staff meetings, and
her belief in the establishment of an open-door policy. Observation supported that
Mrs. Ericson demonstrated some characteristics of learning-centered leadership as
she displayed the professional development calendar, fostered a positive rapport with
the parents, and had her door open for the entire day. However, the interviews with
the teachers revealed that there appeared to be a lack of communication between the
principal and the faculty. The online VAL-ED survey also supported the teacher
statements and demonstrated that Mrs. Ericson had decreased in the Key Processes
of Communicating in three out of the six Core Component areas. Furthermore, the
teachers’ impression of a lack of communication may have resulted in the
development of a lowered sense of staff morale that may have negatively impacted
teachers’ motivation.
Summary and Findings for Research Question Three
Research Question #3 sought to find out in how does the leadership practices
of the principal affect the professional practice of teachers. The findings indicated
that Mrs. Ericson demonstrated an overall high standard for student learning which
was communicated through the school’s mission, implemented with the ON-BASE
system, and supported it with the school safety plan. In addition, Mrs. Ericson used
178
data to drive instruction, support professional development to enhance classroom
instruction, and created a culture that involved parents in the learning process.
Mrs. Ericson demonstrated characteristics of effective leadership practice as
she continuously communicated the school’s mission on a daily basis and ensured
that each teacher had the vision posted in their classroom. Her influence was
evidenced as the teachers interviewed remarked that they were well aware of Milton
Place’s vision that all students could and would achieve. The ON B.A.S.E. theme
Mrs. Ericson developed was prevalent throughout the school and in every classroom.
The teachers, students, and staff members had incorporated the vocabulary and the
words were heard in the hallways of the school. Implementations of the lessons
associated with the introduction of the core word of the week were witnessed in the
classrooms. Mrs. Ericson guaranteed that teachers, staff members, and students were
cognizant of the safety procedures and requirements and that the correct personnel
were visible in their areas during supervision. The findings revealed that these
practices Mrs. Ericson had implemented ultimately had an impact on teacher practice
on Milton Place; however, the extent to which they influenced all teacher practice is
unclear.
In her continued pursuit of academic excellence, Mrs. Ericson influenced
teachers with her use of data as a tool to measure student success. Teachers were
exposed to various novel data analysis measures and implemented them when they
developed workstation groups for their struggling reading students. The teachers’
new learning provided them new learning opportunities to work with data and
179
assisted them with improving their practice so they could ultimately enhance student
outcomes. Likewise, Mrs. Ericson recognized the importance of teacher
collaboration and ensured that the EdisonLearning model was persistently
implemented at her school. This fostered a school culture where teachers worked
together as professionals to improve in their pedagogical skills that focused on
student learning. Finally, Mrs. Ericson displayed effective leadership practices as
she developed relationships with the parents and the community and believed that
parents are instrumental in the success of the students’ learning. This impacted
teachers’ practice as parents became more active in the classroom and an overall
school culture was created that focused on making the connections between the
home and the school.
Again, the findings from the interviews with the teachers and the principal,
along with the observation and the online VAL-ED, which measured a summary of
leadership effectiveness revealed some important findings. Mrs. Ericson
demonstrated various characteristics of a learning-centered leader and she developed
and honed her skills as an EdisonLearning Instructional Leader, Organizational
Leader, Culture Builder, Site Manager, and Edison Schools Executive. However, the
degree to which Mrs. Ericson impacted all teacher practice remains unclear. The
data suggested a positive relationship in High Standards for Student Achievement.
180
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND THEORETICAL FINDINGS
Statement of the Problem
The research has indicated that educators have made growth in closing the
overall achievement gaps among students of color as compared to their White and
Asian peers (Wirt & Kirst, 2005; and Johnson, 2002); however, students attending
high poverty, urban schools have continued to fall behind their peers as determined
by their achievement scores on standardized tests (Darling-Hammond, 2007). The
literature suggests that many factors may be linked with the indicators of student
outcomes. Several recent studies have attempted to investigate the profound effects
the school principal has on student outcomes because as leaders they create the
conditions necessary for teaching and learning (Hallinger & Heck, 2005; and
Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Researchers (Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, &
Porter, 2006; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; and Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, 2005) have argued that the school principal plays a pivotal role
in a school’s overall success as measured by state achievement data. Furthermore,
Elmore (2000) asserts, the context of a school influences the type of leadership
necessary for that particular setting. Urban schools differ from a suburban and rural
school in their demographics, teacher qualifications and ability, and student access to
resources. More specifically, the current conditions of principal leadership training
have produced leaders that are unprepared to contend with the various problems
181
encountered in an urban setting because they are often left unsupported once they
completed the program and are placed in a urban school context.
Purpose and Significance of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the
EdisonLearning Mentor/Protégé model and effective urban school principal
leadership practice. The EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program implemented a
mentoring support structure to strengthen the leadership practices of its principals in
five areas: Instructional Leader, Organizational Leader, Culture Builder, Site
Manager, and Edison Schools Executive. These standards of expectations for
leadership practice were aligned with effective research based leadership practices
(Murphy et al., 2006; Leithwood et al, 2004; and Marzano, Waters, McNulty, 2005).
The EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program model was also aligned with
research-based mentoring practices (cite Daresh, 2004; and Davis et al, 2005).
This study was significant because it sought to add to the knowledge base
regarding the strengths and weaknesses of principal mentoring support structures and
their relationship to effective leadership practice in the urban school setting.
Additionally, it sought to fill some of the gaps in the literature on the effect
principal’s practice has on effective teacher practice.
182
Research Questions
This research study examined the following three questions:
1. How does working with an EdisonLearning Principal Mentor
Program Mentor affect the leadership practices of an urban school
principal?
2. What organizational structures support the implementation of the
mentoring model?
3. How do the leadership practices of the principal affect professional
practice of teachers?
Methodology
This study implemented a mixed-methods, purposive case study approach to
analyze the impact that working with an EdisonLearning mentor had on the
principal’s leadership practices. EdisonLearning is a support structure which was
designed to prepare novice EdisonLearning principals for their role as leaders and
equip them with the tools to improve their capacity in the five EdisonLearning
leadership roles. The quantitative portion of the research employed the use of the
Vanderbilt Assessment for Leadership in Education (VAL-ED), while the qualitative
component included an in-depth case study of an EdisonLearning principal.
Participants and Setting
This study involved a case analysis of a single principal in an urban school
setting located in the south side of Chicago, Illinois. This was her first year as a
principal. However, prior to her current position, she had worked in various
183
capacities for EdisonLearning Schools for the past eight years. She had experience
as a teacher, instructional coordinator, test coordinator, and academy director
(assistant principal). Ninety-nine percent of the approximately 570 students students
were African-American and 88% of the students received free and reduced-price
lunch. Additionally, interviews with the EdisonLearning Executive Director,
principal, three teachers and the assistant principal at Milton Place, and a
questionnaire from two EdisonLearning mentors proved invaluable sources of
information.
Instrumentation and Procedures
Data were collected utilizing various methods such as the use of the online
Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED), interviews with
principal, teachers, assistant principal, EdisonLearning Executive Director,
EdisonLearning mentors, and observations document analysis. The VAL-ED is
based on the Learning-Centered Framework developed by Murphy and his
colleagues (2006). The survey was administered again in the Spring of 2009 to
determine if there were changes to leadership practices as measured by the VAL-ED.
A two-hour observation was conducted in the Spring for the purposes of
witnessing the principal’s leadership practices in a naturalistic setting. According to
Patton (2002), observations provided another perspective that interviews alone do
not always capture. Finally, document analysis of the School Achievement Plan
(SAP), Milton Place’s school mission, and Whole School Design Handbook (Edison
184
Schools, 2007) provided meaningful details (Patton, 2002) and background data on
Milton Place and EdisonLearning.
Data Collection and Analysis
A summative analysis of the data for this study was done utilizing Creswell’s
(2003) generic six step process: 1) arrange the data, 2) read through the data, 3) put
the data into specific groups, 4) create suitable descriptors or common themes,
5) express common themes in narrative form, and 6) explain and interpret the data.
Creswell’s (2003) process was strictly followed during the data collection and
analysis process which maintained the integrity of the coding process.
Once the data was organized and themes emerged, the information was
analyzed using various theoretical frameworks. The first research question sought to
uncover the impact that working with an EdisonLearning mentor had on the
leadership practices of an urban school principal. Therefore, the leadership
frameworks of Learning-Centered Leadership (Murphy et al., 2006) and
EdisonLearning Leadership Framework (Edison Schools, 2007) served as a lens to
analyze the behaviors and practices of successful school principals. This question
also investigated the impact of the mentor, which is a support structure. Therefore, it
was also important to utilize the research conducted by Davis et al. (2005) and
Daresh (2004) as a lens through which to analyze the data.
Research question #2 investigated the organizational structures that support
the mentoring model. Therefore, the data was analyzed using the conceptual
framework developed by Davis et al. (2005) and Daresh (2004).
185
Research question #3 examined how the leadership practices of the principal
affect the professional practices of teachers. Hallinger and Heck’s (1998) Effects
Model was used to explore the conditions the principal creates in order for the
teacher to be successful. Learning-Centered Leadership (Murphy et al., 2006) and
the EdisonLearning Leadership Frameworks (Edison Schools, 2007) were used to
explore effective leadership practices. Finally, Darling-Hammond’s (2006) Effective
Teaching Model was used as the model for effective teaching methods.
The following is a discussion of the significant findings from the study. They
are organized by each of the three research questions and the themes which emerged
during the data analysis. The research questions explored the 1) impact of the
EdisonLearning mentor/protégé model on leadership practice, 2) organizational
structures that supported the implementation of the EdisonLearning mentor/protégé
model, and 3) ways in which the leader’s practice impacted teacher practice.
Summary of Findings
Research Question # 1: How does working with a mentor from the EdisonLearning
Principal Mentor Program affect the leadership practices of an urban school
principal?
The research on mentoring argues that mentors influence protégé’s practices
through the use of various strategies such as the consultative and facilitative
approaches (Bloom, et al., 2005). During the consultative approach, the mentor
provides guidance, expert knowledge on technical aspects of the school, and advice
on how to solve dilemmas. The facilitative approach encompasses the mentor and
186
protégé working together through coaching, feedback, and a reflecting questioning
process that is geared towards providing the protégé the skills to develop solutions
themselves with the guidance and support of the mentor (Bloom, et al., 2005).
Daresh (2004) indicated that a collaborative approach has been a successful
tool to support novice principals in navigating the complexities of their positions.
He suggested that mentors are instrumental to improving an organization because
they can facilitate the growth of others. Daresh’s (2002) research suggested that the
objectives of a mentor program is threefold: 1) provide the novice principal with an
awareness of how to perform their job (technical expertise), 2) help principals
understand who they are as leaders of a school (role clarification), and 3) assist them
with adjusting to the school and surrounding community (socialization).
The findings from the data revealed that the mentor provided her protégé
with the following: 1) guidance and support, 2) assistance with problem solving, and
3) developing technical knowledge and skills. The findings further indicated that
working with an EdisonLearning mentor had positively impacted the principal’s
leadership practice as she enhanced her skills as an EdisonLearning principal.
Guidance and Support
Researchers Bloom et al. (2005) have also suggested that the facilitative
approach is another strategy used to enhance the protégé’s practice by guiding the
principal to examine their own practice with the implementation of reflective
questioning. The findings from this study are consistent with the extant literature in
that facilitative mentoring fostered the protégé’s development of analyzing their own
187
practice and determining actions on how to achieve their goals. An elaboration of
this process was the ongoing conversations that took place between Mrs. Ericson and
her mentor in regards to Mrs. Ericson’s previous training and experience with
EdisonLearning. As the learning-centered leadership framework stated, a principal
brings with them prior skills that affect their leadership (Murphy, et al., 2006). She
had amassed many of her own experiences, especially in the area of school-wide
expectations for student achievement. Mrs. Ericson did not need advice on what to
do, but simply to have been given the opportunity to have a mentor who asked the
right questions like: How are you planning on implementing ON B.A.S.E.? The
mentor did not provide her protégé with new information, but rather guided her
through the process of evaluating existing information (Bloom et al., 2005).
Working with a mentor from the EdisonLearning Principal Mentoring
Program improved Mrs. Ericson’s practice in the area of Rigorous Curriculum from
a learning-centered framework (Murphy, et al, 2006). A leader from this perspective
demonstrated a determination that all students were provided impressive academic
content in each of their core subject areas (Murphy, et al., 2006). Through the
ongoing support of the mentor and the consultative and facilitative methods
described above, Mrs. Ericson continued to improve in this area throughout the year.
In addition, the ultimate goal of an EdisonLearning principal was to become
more effective in the five EdisonLeadership roles which were defined as: 1)
Instructional Leader, 2) Organizational Leader, 3) Culture Builder, 4) Site Manager,
and 5) Edison Schools Executive (Edison School, 2007). Therefore, the mentor’s
188
role was to provide them the needed support so they could advance in those
leadership roles. The findings supported the outcomes set forth by EdisonLearning
Principal Mentor Program as of Spring 2009. Mrs. Ericson had improved as an
Instructional Leader, Organizational Leader, and as a Culture Builder. This was
evidenced by her use of data to drive instruction, sustaining professional
development time, and creating a school that involves all stakeholders in the learning
process. However, like much of the previous gaps in the literature have indicated,
the extent to which the mentor had impacted principal practice remained unclear.
The findings from this study also add to the literature base on the impact the
EdisonLearning Mentoring Program mentor had on enhancing a principal’s learning-
centered behaviors. As previously mentioned, it was found that Mrs. Ericson
improved in the core components of Rigorous Curriculum and Culture of Learning
& Professional Behavior. According to Murphy, et al. (2006) a learning-centered
leader develops their skills in this area and provides time for teachers to build their
internal capacity through professional development, and utilizes student achievement
data as the foundations for all decision-making, and enhances the core technology of
teaching. Mrs. Ericson exemplified these behaviors as she allotted time for teachers
to collaborate, introduced them to data analysis, and supported new pedagogy
(Murphy, et al., 2006). Additionally, the EdisonLearning mentor facilitated her
growth in Connections to External Communities. With guidance and feedback from
her mentor, Mrs. Ericson was successful in demonstrating learning-centered
189
leadership characteristics as she engaged the parents and involved them with the
school (Murphy, et al., 2006).
Assistance with Problem Solving
The findings from this study support and strengthen the extant literature on
mentoring. One of the strategies Mrs. Ericson’s mentor employed which augmented
her work in the Core Component of Rigorous Curriculum was providing assistance
with problem-solving. The implementation of the consultative process, whereby the
mentor offered her own knowledge and skills (Bloom et al., 2005), provided Mrs.
Ericson’s with the necessary strategies to accomplish various tasks she would not
have otherwise accomplished as successfully. For example, as an EdisonLearning
principal, the mentor had implemented successful data analysis strategies with her
own staff members.
As a learning-centered leader and an EdisonLearning Instructional Leader,
Mrs. Ericson understood the importance of communicating data and setting goals for
student achievement (Murphy, et al., 2006; Edison Schools, 2007). However, Mrs.
Ericson had some initial difficulties with sharing the data with the teachers at Milton
Place because many of them had not worked with data before. Mrs. Ericson did not
have an awareness of her staff’s readiness for data analysis. After listening to her
mentor discuss her previous experience and success with data analysis at her school,
Mrs. Ericson decided to implement a new way of presenting data to her staff. This
supports the research and demonstrated how the mentor helped her protégé using her
190
personal knowledge and expertise to assist the principal in improving her practice
(Bloom, et al., 2005).
Developing Technical Knowledge and Skills
Another example of how the findings support the existing literature on the
affects of mentoring on leadership practice is how the mentor implemented the
consultative approach to assist the protégé as she solved problems at her school site.
According to the literature, the consultative method was used most often for
dilemmas that related to technical issues such as school policies, procedures, and
programs (Bloom et al., 2005). The findings supported the literature that the novice
school principal needed assistance with procedural information that was easily
obtained from the expert knowledge of the EdisonLearning mentor. More
specifically, when a contractual and potential legal issue came up, the mentor was
able to impart her understanding of how it should be handled according to the
procedures and guidelines set forth by EdisonLearning protocols.
Research Question # 2: What organizational structures support the implementation
of the mentoring model?
The findings from the data revealed four organizational structures support the
implementation of the mentoring model. They were: 1) training, 2) time, 3) tools,
and 4) relationship.
Training
The literature on effective support structures contend that effective mentoring
programs encompass several components that are necessary for successful
191
implementation. Davis et al. (2005) have argued that a program must possess a solid
curricular foundation that is consistent. Additionally, Spiro et al. (2007) have stated
that high-quality mentor training is necessary to enhance the outcomes for the
principals. It was revealed that EdisonLearning incorporated these research-based
components when developing their mentor model. This was made evident through
the use of sound, researched-based strategies and their three-day mandated training
which included various techniques such as the consultative and facilitative approach
and activities that aimed to meet the needs of a novice school principal (Edison
Schools, 2007). The results from this study were consistent with the current research
on the organizational structures, such as training, that support the successful
implementation of the mentor model. This was revealed during the interviews with
the mentors who stated that the training prepared them to work with a novice school
principal and was also supported by the findings for the impact the mentor had on
principal practice.
Time
As a structure, EdisonLearning implemented mandated meeting times to
support the development of the protégé (Edison Schools, 2007). It was found that
organized time was consistent with their belief and supported the implementation of
the mentor model. The results from this study indicated that changes in practice took
place as a result of the conversations and emails, which may not have occurred had
the time not been arranged into the mentor and protégé’s weekly schedule. This
192
finding adds to the existing literature on support structures in that weekly meetings
proved to be beneficial and supported the mentoring model.
Planning Tools
Daresh (2001, 2005) described the importance of setting goals and the
development of an action plan so that the protégé had a visual indicator as to when
those objectives were achieved. Consistent with the literature, EdisonLearning
developed Collaborative Planning Tools whereby the protégé and mentor
collectively created short term and long term goals based on the needs for the school
that aligned with the EdisonLearning leadership roles (Edison Schools, 2007). In
strengthening the extant literature, it was uncovered that these planning tools assisted
both the mentor and protégé with the mentor process and held them accountable for
their actions. In addition, another aspect that may have influenced their
implementation was the accountability component that included these tools being
turned in monthly to the Executive Director of EdisonLearning.
Relationship
Researchers Bloom et al. (2005) asserted that in order for a mentor to
effectively provide consultative and facilitative support to the protégé, a relationship
must be established that is grounded in trust. The findings from this research uphold
the research and revealed the importance of building a positive rapport. Bloom et al.
(2005) described that trust could be defined, “as an assessment of sincerity,
reliability, and competence” (p. 27). It was evidenced during the interviews with
193
Mrs. Ericson that her mentor exhibited these characteristics, especially in terms of
competence which was referenced throughout the interview and the observation.
Research Question # 3: How do the leadership practices of the principal affect
professional practice of teachers?
The research on leadership effects contends that principal practice impacts
the professional practice of teachers in various ways in order to effectively create the
conditions that make teaching and learning successful (Hallinger & Heck, 1998).
These leadership practices have an indirect affect on student outcomes, (Murphy, et
al., 2006; Marzano, Waters and McNulty, 2005; and Darling-Hammond, 2006). The
extant research on effective teacher practice in urban schools identified two
characteristics of effective teacher practice in this context. An effective teacher has
the ability to teach the content standards to all of the students and differentiate the
lessons so that students’ learning needs are addressed (Darling-Hammond, 2006).
Additionally, effective teachers sharpen their skills and become more knowledgeable
when they are provided the time for professional collaboration (Darling-Hammond,
2006). It was evidenced by the implementation of the workstation reading groups
that students’ challenges with particular reading standards were instructed at the
ability level. The teaching staff at Milton Place, had professional development time
scheduled into their daily agenda. They often met with their House Team (grade
level team) to plan lessons, discuss difficulties in the classroom, and talk about
curriculum implementation. In fact, during the interviews with the teachers, it was
found that they felt this collaboration time was very beneficial for their growth as
194
professionals and implemented many strategies, such as behavior modification for
individual students and blending lessons, into their own classroom.
Researchers (Leithwood, et al., 2004; Hallinger and Heck, 2005; Murphy et
al., 2006; and Darling-Hammond, 2006) have reported that effective principals must
then establish the essential conditions and structures so that teachers can be
successful. The findings from this study indicated that Mrs. Ericson’s direct impact
on teacher practice was through communicating her high standards for student
learning which was modeled through the school’s mission and vision, ON B.A.S.E.
theme, supporting the overall instruction with school safety plan and data analysis.
In addition, she supported professional development opportunities, and developed a
school culture that fostered parent involvement. These conditions demonstrated her
skills as a learning-centered and EdisonLearning leader whose vision for high
standards for student learning and created an overall school culture that worked to
achieve this goal. However, the measurable impact on all teacher practice was
undetermined.
High Standards for Student Learning
Milton Place’s Mission and Vision
As a learning-centered (Murphy, et al., 2006) leader who believed that the
Milton Place staff should “live and breath” the school’s vision, Mrs. Ericson ensured
that the vision was placed throughout the school, the song was played every morning
during announcements, and each classroom had the ON B.A.S.E. theme in the
classroom. Mrs. Ericson demonstrated learning-centered leadership as she impacted
195
teacher practice in advancing the school’s mission to the staff (Murphy, et al., 2006).
She also demonstrated effective principal practice as she ensured everyone remained
focused (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005) on ensuring high standards for student
learning.
ON B.A.S.E. Theme
The findings from this study were consistent with the research that principals
create the conditions that impact teacher practice (Leithwood, et al., 2004; Hallinger
and Heck, 2005; Murphy et al., 2006; and Darling-Hammond, 2006). It was evident
during the visit to the school that the school vision was integrated into teachers’ daily
routines. Teachers were observed instructing mini-lessons where students learned
the new ON B.A.S.E. word for the week. Other teachers were observed distributing
stickers to students who were awarded for ON B.A.S.E. behavior. Another teacher
was witnessed asking a student if he was ON B.A.S.E. when he was off task during a
lesson. The teachers interviewed noted that this theme resonated throughout the
school, however, it could not be determined the degree to which it affected teacher
practice.
Safety Plan
The research on learning-centered leadership practices argues that learning-
centered leaders establish school-wide routines and procedures for discipline as well
as a safety plan (Murphy, et al., 2006) that will positively impact the conditions in
the classroom (Hallinger, 2003). The findings from this study supported the research
and indicated that the safety structures Mrs. Ericson implemented supported
196
classroom instruction. Teachers reported that the students seemed calmer and
seemed to understand what was expected when they first walked in the doorway at
Milton Place. Additionally, students were aware of the procedures for walking in the
hallway and going to the bathroom. In eliminating some of the problems with safety
procedures, the teachers were able to focus more on instruction, and less on having
to deal with trouble that happened before or during the school day. It is important to
note, that the overall impact on the amount teacher practices was affected by the
safety plan was undetermined.
Data Analysis
According to the learning-centered framework, an effective leader
implements student data to inform decisions and drive instruction (Murphy, et al.,
2006). As an EdisonLearning Instructional Leader, Mrs. Ericson demonstrated these
characteristics as she introduced her staff to benchmark data analysis (Edison
Schools, 2007). She created graphs and charts and placed them outside her door, met
with grade levels to discuss students’ progress, and ensured teachers grouped
students for workstations during reading to address their deficit areas. In effect, as
the learning-centered leader, Mrs. Ericson, started to shape the culture of Milton
Place into one where teachers became more familiar with the implementation of data
a source for information on students’ progress and determining future lesson plans to
target students’ weaknesses. The findings from this supported the literature that
effective learning-centered leaders implement data analysis to impact teacher
197
practice, however, the data collected did not reveal how often or to what extent all of
the teachers utilized data in their classroom.
Support Professional Development
Unique to many elementary schools, the EdisonLearning design had
professional development integrated into each teacher’s daily schedule (Edison
Schools, 2007). Each grade level had one period where they were able to meet with
their colleagues to lesson plan, receive professional development on a new
pedagogy, meet with their House team (as a grade level), or plan individually. As a
learning-centered and EdisonLearning Instructional Leader, Mrs. Ericson recognized
the importance of professional growth opportunities and ensured her teachers were
scheduled for House team meetings where they collaborated with colleagues,
planned lessons, and discussed challenges in their classroom. It is important to note
that while the interviews supported the research that often teachers find collaboration
valuable to their professional development; the data did not indicate its effects on
teacher practice.
School Culture that Involves Parents
The literature on learning-centered leadership has discussed that effective
leaders involve all of the stakeholders to advocate for student achievement (Murphy
et al., 2006), which will create an environment that supports student learning
(Hallinger & Heck, 1998). This study is consistent with the research that effective
leaders engage the community and create a school culture that embraces parental
involvement (Murphy, et al., 2006). Mrs. Ericson encouraged all parents to be
198
active participants in the Milton Place and welcomed them into the learning process.
She demonstrated effective learning-centered leadership skills as she had over 100
parents involved on the PTA and made sure the hectic parking situation was handled
each morning by volunteers. Additionally, this sense of community involvement
filtered into the classrooms as teachers recognized the importance as well in
involving parents in students’ academics. However, it was difficult to measure the
impact on practice for all teachers at Milton Place.
Limitations (Internal and External Validity)
Caution should be exercised in the generalization of the results of this
purposeful study. Although great care was taken in conducting this study to
maximize to the fullest and triangulate the data collected from this information rich
case, the results cannot be generalized beyond this school.
Implications for Future Research
Mentoring has been found to be a successful structure to support the novice
school principal as they navigate the myriad challenges of an urban school setting.
According to Daresh (2001), the mentoring process is continuous and one where the
protégé is provided encouragement and direction as they build their capacity in their
knowledge and skills on effective leadership practices. The findings from this study
indicated positive outcomes for the protégé/principal mentor relationship in the
EdisonLearning model. The implications of this study highlight several areas of
focus for future research in this field. Further research is needed to augment the
199
current literature on effective mentoring practices and their impact on leadership
practice:
• The effectiveness of the implementation of tools, such as the
Collaborative Planning Tools, weekly phone logs, and Action Plans to
determine protégé’s needs as well to evaluate progress towards meeting
goals.
• Descriptions of how the facilitative approach is implemented in practice.
For example, what components of the reflective process guide the protégé
in becoming independent (i.e., arriving at their own solutions without the
advice from their mentor).
• Analyze the affects of expanding the EdisonLearning model to
incorporate structured daily professional development and weekly teacher
collaboration and its impact on non-EdisonLearning Schools.
• Analyze the determining factors for effectively matching protégés with
their mentors. In addition, determine what are effective steps to take
when the mentor-protégé relationship is found to be a poor match.
• Development and implementation of measurement tools to quantify and
evaluate effective leadership practice.
Implications for Policy and Practice
The findings from this research study suggested there are several implications
for policy reform at the state and federal level. Those areas include the provision of
adequate funding for mentor programs that contain research-based practices, district
200
level practices that involve the adoption and implementation of a 360˚ evaluation
tool that is geared towards improving leadership practice, and the need to design and
implement appropriate knowledge building professional development to orient new
school professionals to the design expectations of EdisonLearning Schools and
enhance communication efforts.
Funding for Mentoring
Research has indicated that there has been an increase in the number of states
and/or school districts who are now implementing mentoring as a structure to
support novice school principals (Spiro, et al., 2007). The current financial crisis, it
is uncertain which programs will be on the cutting block as districts attempt to cut
their budget by millions of dollars. Furthermore, Daresh (2005) indicated that
funding for mentoring programs has been a difficult process. However, with the
understanding that within the next five years, as many as 40% of the administrators
working in schools are reaching retirement age (Spiro, et al., 2007), and the
numerous challenges they face in the field, it has become more evident that there is a
need for mentoring.
Funding adequacy required of quality mentoring programs is difficult to
ascertain; however, it is evident that developing researched-based strategies, finding
competent mentors, providing excellent training and resources, and allotting time for
the mentors to meet with their protégés does not come cheap. Insufficient funding
has often led to low quality programs and poor outcomes for the protégé. The old
saying, you get what you pay for, has proved true for many mentoring programs.
201
Therefore, when there are programs that have demonstrated success with sound data
in improving principal practice and impacting teacher practice, they should be
supported and replicated across other states and districts. Thus, money must be
allocated or rewards should be given from the state and federal level to accomplish
this task.
Recommendations
Implementation of 360˚ Principal Evaluation
The current research indicates the important role a leader plays in the success
of student achievement (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Additionally, the
principal’s leadership impacts the practice of teachers at their school (Hallinger &
Heck, 1998; Leithwood, 2004; and Murphy et al., 2006), and has an indirect impact
on student achievement. In order to provide principals with the tools to continually
improve in their practice school districts should require a 360˚ Principal Evaluation
if their principals are supported with a mentor and or coach. In providing them with
this data tool and the reflective support structure, it may increase the leader’s
capacity. Moreover, the principal may then be able to create the conditions that
could enhance the professional practice of teachers (Hallinger & Heck, 1998), which
would ultimately improve student outcomes.
The 360˚ Principal Evaluation tool should be distributed to the teachers,
supervisor, and the principal and used as a reflection piece on how to improve his or
her own leadership practice. It should also be used in conjunction with a mentor, so
that short term and long term goals can be set and re-evaluated again at the end of the
202
year to see if the principal’s practice had changed. Additionally, the use of a 360˚
Principal Evaluation in conjunction with a mentoring program, would provide the
empirical data needed to support the effectiveness of the program and the
information needed to sustain financial backing.
EdisonLearning Professional Development
EdisonLearning had professional development for teachers implemented into
its daily schedule and at the beginning of the year as part of its overall design.
However, as a brand new EdisonLearning School, with over 12 new teachers who
were unfamiliar with the school’s design, more professional development should be
incorporated to the beginning of the year that focuses on the EdisonLearning design.
The design has a team approach inherently built into the structure where the
leadership is distributed among lead teachers, curriculum coordinators, literacy
specialists, assistant principal (the academy director), and the principal (director).
Specifically, each person takes on a role in various aspects of the school such as
implementing curriculum, problem solving at the grade level, and decision-making
process. At Milton Place the uncertainty of who was responsible for what role
played a significant role in the communication problems between the staff and the
principal, which ultimately affected the overall school morale.
Conclusion
With the onset of high stakes accountability as set forth by NCLB (2002), as
well as myriad challenges urban school leaders face, principals are often ill-equipped
and unprepared. Taking into consideration the pervasive achievement gaps, the
203
impetus for proficiency in reading and mathematics on high stakes accountability
measures, along with the enumerable dilemmas an urban school faces, it is no
wonder districts are forced to look elsewhere to support their principal. As a
solution, some districts have implemented support structures to build principal’s
capacity and assist them as they improve their knowledge and skills as a novice
school principal. Mentoring has been suggested as one effective structure to support
the principal in his/her leadership role as they help to fill the disparities in the current
leader preparation programs that often leave these principals ill-prepared to work
with diverse student populations.
The EdisonLearning Principal Mentoring Program is one such program that
incorporates research-based practices of effective leadership to support their
principals. This program implements the learning-centered framework as it aims to
develop principals who lead from an integrated approach to leadership as they
incorporate the high standards for excellence in their work. The mentor successfully
provided the protégé with the knowledge and tools to help them navigate the first
year in the principalship and established a support system within the EdisonLearning
school district. The principal’s practice was positively impacted by her work with
the mentor and she implemented her knew knowledge, thereby impacting the
practice of teachers.
The impetus to change the conditions of urban school is mounting and the
call to change the current status quo of principals is necessary if this country is going
to continue reverse the growing trends in achievement gaps among minority students
204
as compared to their White and Asian peers. The change begins with the leader.
Support structures such as mentoring are needed to build the capacity of school
leaders to ensure that they are able to make and sustain the necessary organizational
changes to positively impact student achievement.
205
REFERENCES
Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto Schooling: A Political Economy of Urban Educational
Reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Archibald, S. (2006). Narrowing in on Educational Resources that Do Affect Student
Achievement. Peabody Journal of Education. 81(4), 23-42.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1989). Potential Biases in Leadership Measures: How
Prototypes, Leniency, and General Satisfaction Relate to Ratings and
Rankings of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Constructs.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, pp. 509-527.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness
Through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Bates, R. (2006). Education, Citizenship and Social Justice. Educational
Administration and Social Justice, 1(2), pp. 141-156.
Blanco, R. I. (2003, May). Social services, public schools and the poor. Paper
presented at the 5th International Conference on Education, Athens, Greece.
Bloom, G., Castagna, C., Moir, E., & Warren, B. (2005). Blended Coaching: Skills
and Strategies to Support Principal Development. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice,
and Leadership. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bogotch, I. E. (2000). Educational Leadership and Social Justice: Theory into
Practice. Earlier version of paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA). Albuquerque,
NM.
Brooks-Gunn, J. & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The
Future of Children, 7, 55-71
California Department of Education (2006). Standarized Testing and Reporting
(STAR) Program: Summary of Results. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/documents/yr06rel89summ.pdf on March 29,
2008.
206
California Department of Education (2007). School Report-Base API, Ranks and
Targets. Retrieved from
http://api.cde.gov/AcntRpt2008/2007BaseSch.aspx?allcds=01612426001622
Cambron-McCabe, N. & McCarthy, M. M. (2005). Educating School Leaders for
Social Justice. Educational Policy, 19(1), pp. 201-222.
Capper, C. A., Theorharis, G, & Sebastian, J. (2006). Toward a framework for
preparing leaders for social justice. Journal of Educational Administration,
44(3), pp. 209-
Cuban, L. (1988). The Managerial Imperative and the Practice of Leadership in
Schools. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Cuban, L. (2001). Leadership for student learning: Urban school leadership-
Different in kind and degree. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational
Leadership.
Coldren, A. F. & Spillane, J. P. (2007). Making Connections to Teaching Practice:
The Role of Boundary Practices in Instructional Leadership. Educational
Policy, 21(2), pp. 369-396.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cross, C. T. (2004). The Kennedy and Johnson Years. Political Education (pp. 15-
40). Teachers College Press.
Cross, C. (2004). Political Education: National Policy Comes of Age. Chap. 7.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Daresh, J. (2004, October). Mentoring School Leaders: Professional Promise or
Predictable Problems? Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), pp.
495-517.
Daresh, J. (2005). Leaders Helping Leaders: A Practical Guide to Administrative
Mentoring. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006, October). Securing the Right to Learn: Policy and
Practice for Powerful Teaching and Learning. Educational Researcher,
35(7), pp. 13-24.
207
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The Flat Earth and Education: How America’s
Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future. Educational Researcher,
36(6), pp. 318-334.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004, October). Inequality and the Right to Learn: Access to
Qualified Teachers in California’s Public Schools. Teachers College Record,
106(10), pp. 1936-1966.
Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr, M. T., & Cohen, C. (2007).
Preparing School Leaders for a Changing World: Lessons from Exemplary
Leadership Development Programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University,
Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., Lapointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School
Leadership. Study: Developing Successful Principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford
Educational Leadership Institute.
Department of Education (2006, August). Highly Qualified Teachers for Every
Child. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teachers/stateplanfacts.html on April 26,
2008.
Department of Education (2000). Growing Pains: The challenge of overcrowded
schools is here to stay. A back to school special report on the baby boom
echo. Washington, DC. pp. 1-32.
Dwyer, D. C. (1986, Fall). Understanding the principal’s contribution to instruction.
Peabody Journal of Education. 63(1), 3-18.
Edison Schools, Inc. (November 2007). Whole School Design Handbook. (Draft).
The Education Trust (2003). Latino Achievement in America. Retrieved from
www.edtrust.org on March 27, 2008.
The Education Trust (2003). African American Achievement in America .
Retrieved from www.edtrust.org on March 27, 2008.
The Education Trust-West (2004). African American Achievement in California.
Retrieved from www.edtrust.org on March 27, 2008.
The Education Trust-West (2004). Latino Achievement in California. Retrieved
from www.edtrust.org on March 27, 2008.
208
The Education Trust (2004). The ABCs of “AYP” Raising Achievement for All
Students. Retrieved from www.edtrust.org on March 27, 2008.
The Education Trust-West (2004). Achievement in California: How is Our
Progress? Retrieved from www.edtrust.org on March 27, 2008.
EdSource (2007). 2007 Resource Cards on California Schools. Mountain View, CA
Elmore, R. F., (2000, Winter). Building a New Structure for School Leadership.
The Albert Shanker Institute: Washington, DC.
Esch, C. E., Chang-Ross, C. M., Guha, R., Humphrey, D. C., Shields, P. M., Tiffany-
Morales, J. D., Wechsler, M. E., and Woodworth, K. R. (2005). The Status
of the Teaching Profession, 2005. Full Report. The Center for Teaching and
Learning: Santa Cruz.
Furman, G. (2003). Moral leadership and the ethic of community. Values and
Ethics in Educational Administration, 2(1), 1-7.
Garcia, G. E. (2002). Chapter 1 (Introduction). In Student Cultural Diversity:
Understanding and Meeting the Challenge (3rd ed.), (pp. 3-39). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Gooden, M. (2002). Stewardship and Critical Leadership: Sufficient for Leadership
in Urban Schools? Education and Urban Society, 35(1), pp. 133-143.
Greenwald, R., Hedges, L., & Laine, R. (1996). The effect of school resources on
student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), pp. 361–397.
Grissom, J. B. (2004, July 30). Reclassification of English learners, Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 12(36). Retrieved June 16, 2008 from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n36/.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000, January). How Long Does It Take
English Learners to Attain Proficiency? Stanford University. A paper
prepared for The University of California Linguistic Minority Research
Institute. Policy Report 2000-1.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading Educational Change: reflections on the practice of
instructional and transformational leadership, Cambridge Journal of
Education, 33(3), pp. 329-351.
209
Hallinger, P. (2007). Research on the practice of instructional and transformational
leadership: Retrospect and prospect. Research presented at a conference
entitled: The Leadership Challenge: Improving learning in schools.
Retrieved from http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/RC2007_Hallinger-
RetrospectAndProspect.pdf on April 15, 2008.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the Instructional Management
Behavior of Principals. Elementary School Journal. 86(2), 217-47.
Hansford, B., & Ehrich, L. C. (2006). The Principalship: How Significant Is
Mentoring? Journal of Educational Administration. 44(1), 36-52
Hausman, C. S., Crow, G. M., & Sperry, D. J. (2000). Portrait of the "Ideal
Principal": Context and Self. NASSP Bulletin. 84(617), 5-14.
Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2005). The Study of Educational Leadership and
Management: Where Does the Field Stand Today? Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 33(2), pp. 229-244.
Hopkins, D. (n.d.). Instructional leadership and school improvement. National
College for School Leadership, University of Nottingham. Retrieved from:
http://www.ncsl.org.uk/mediastore/image2/kpool-evidence-hopkins.pdf on
April 15, 2008.
Ingersoll, R. (2004). Why Do High-Poverty Schools Have Difficulty Staffing Their
Classrooms with Qualified Teachers? Center for American Progress and
Institute for America’s Future, pp. 2-15.
Johnson, R. (2002). Using Data to Close the Achievement Gap: How to Measure
Equity in Our Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., Plecki, M. L., Portin, B. S., & colleagues (2006,
October). Improving Leadership for Learning: Leading, Learning, and
Leadership Support. Seattle: Center for Studying Teaching and Policy,
University of Washington.
Kose, B. W. (2007). Principal Leadership for Social Justice: Uncovering the Content
of Teacher Professional Development. Journal of School Leadership, 17(3),
pp. 276-312.
Lalas, J. (2007). Teaching for Social Justice in Multicultural Urban Schools:
Conceptualization and Classroom Implication. Multicultural Education.
14(3), 17-21.
210
Lamb, S., & McKenzie, P. (2001). Patterns in the Success and Failure in the
Transition from School to Work in Australia. Research Report. Australian
Council for Educational Research. pp.1-79.
Leithwood, K. (n.d.). Educational Leadership: A Review of the Research. Prepared
for The Laboratory for Student Success at Temple University Center for
Research in Human Development and Education.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Silins, H., & Dart, B. (1993, Winter). Using the Appraisal
of School Leaders as an Instrument for School Restructuring. Peabody
Journal of Education, 68(2), pp. 85-109.
Leithwood, K. A. & Montgomery, D. J. (1982, April). Patters of growth in principal
effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K (2004). How
leadership influences student learning (Learning From Leadership Project
Executive Summary). New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Marks, H. M., & Pinty, S. M (2003, August). Principal Leadership and Social
Performance: An Integration of Transformational and Instructional
Leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
Marshall, C. (2004). Social Justice Challenges to Educational Administration:
Introduction to a Special Issue. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(3),
3-13.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in
Education: Revised and Expanded from Case Study Research in Education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McKenzie, K. B., Christman, D. E., Hernandez, F., Fierro, E., Capper, C. A.,
Dantley, M., Gonzalez, M. L., Cambron-McCabe, & Scheurich, J. J. (2008).
From the Field: A Proposal for Educating Leaders for Social Justice.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(1), pp. 111-138.
211
McKenzie, K. B., & Scheurich, J. J. (2004). Equity Traps: A Useful Construct for
Preparing Principals to Lead Schools That Are Successful With Racially
Diverse Students. Educational Administration Quarterly. 40(5), 601-632.
Mitchell, R. E. & Mitchell, D. E. (2005, April). Student Segregation and
Achievement in Year-Round Schools. Teachers College Record, 107(4), pp.
529-562.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S.N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2006, October). Leadership
for learning: A researched-based model and taxonomy of behaviors. New
York: The Wallace Foundation.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S.N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2006, August). Learning-
Centered Leadership: A Conceptual Framework. New York: The Wallace
Foundation
National Center for Education Statistics (ED) (1996). Labor Market Outcomes of
Literacy and Education. Indicator of the Month. Washington, DC.
Neufeld, B. & Roper, D. (2003, June). Coaching: A Strategy for Developing
Instructional Capacity Promises & Practicalities. The Aspen Institute
Program on Education. Prepared for The Anneberg Institute for School
Reform.
New Teacher Center at the University of California Santa Cruz. Coaching Leaders to
Attain Student Success: Professional Development for Coaches of Site
Administrators (3rd ed.).
Normore, A. H., & Blanco, R. I., (2006). International Electronic Journal for
Leadership in Learning. A referred academic journal, 10(1), pp. 1-25. Name
of article on google search—Leadership for Social Justice and Morality:
Collaborative Partnerships, School-Linked Services and the Plight of the
Poor. Retrieved on March 27, 2008 from
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/volume10/normore_blanco.htm
Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership: Theory and Practice. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Patton, M.Q., (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
212
Porter, A. C., Goldring, E., Murphy, J., Elliot, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2006,
September). A Framework for the Assessment of Learning-Centered
Leadership. Prepared for the Wallace Foundation Grant on Leadership
Assessment, Vanderbilt University.
Porter, A. C., Goldring, E., Murphy, J., Elliot, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2007, March).
Assessing Learning-Centered Leadership: Connections to Research,
Professional Standards, and Current Practices. Prepared for the Wallace
Foundation Grant on Leadership Assessment, Vanderbilt University.
Porter, A. C., Murphy, J., Goldring, E., and Elliot, S. N. (2008, Spring). Vanderbilt
Assessment for Leadership in Education: Assessing Learning-Centered
Leadership. A power point presentation, University of Pennsylvania.
Porter, A. C., Polikoff, M. S., Goldring, E., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., and May, H.
(2008, May). Building a Psychometrically Sound Assessment of School
Leadership: The VAL-ED as a Case Study. A paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New York, NY.
Portin, B. S. (2000). The Changing Urban Principalship. Education and Urban
Society. 32(4), 492-505.
Portin, B., Schneider, P., DeArmond, M., Gundlach, L. (2003, September). Making
Sense of Leading Schools: A Study of the School Principalship. A Report to
the Center on Reinventing Public Education. University of Washington,
Seattlle: Washington.
Rivera-Batiz, F. L. & Marti, L (1995). A school system at risk: A study of the
consequences of overcrowding in New York City Public Schools. IUME
Research Report No 95-1. Columbia University, New York, NY. pp. 1-19.
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and Schools. Washington, DC: Economic Policy
Institute. pp 1-59.
Rumberger, R. & Gandara, P. (2004). Seeking equity in the education of
California’s English learners. Teachers College Record, 106(10), 2032-2056.
Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the Fear Factor: The
Challenge of Leading 21st-Century Schools in an Era of Accountability.
Educational Policy. 22(1), 181-203.
213
Shen, J., Rodriguez-Campos, L., & Rincones-Gomez (2000, August).
Characteristics of Urban Principalship: A National Study. Educational and
Urban Society, 32(4), pp. 481-491.
Spiro, Mattis, & Mitgang (2007). Getting Principal Mentoring Right: Lessons from
the field. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Strong, M., Barrett, A., & Bloom, G. (n.d.). Supporting the New Principal:
Managerial and Instructional Leadership in a Principal Induction Program.
New Teacher Center: University of California, Santa Cruz. (check APA)
Theoharis, G. (2007). Social Justice Educational Leaders and Resistance: Toward a
Theory of Justice Leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2),
pp. 221-258.
Tracey, J. B. & Hinkin, T. R. (1998, September). Transformational Leadership or
Effective Managerial Practices? Group & Organization Management, 23(3),
220-236.
United States Department of Education (2008). Facts and Terms Every Parent
Should Know About NCLB. Retrieved on March 25, 2008 from
http://www.ed.gov/print/nclb/overview/intro/parents/parentfacts.html
Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (n.d.) retrieved from
www.vanderbilt.edu/lsi/valed/theory.html on April 16, 2008.
Vanderhaar, J. E., Munoz, M. A., Rodosky, R. J. (2006). Leadership as
Accountability for Learning: The Effects of School Poverty, Teacher
Experience, Previous Achievement, and Principal Preparation Programs on
Student Achievement. Journal of Personal Evaluation in Education. 19(1-
2), 17-33.
Webb & Norton (2009). Human Resources Administration: Personnel Issues and
Needs in Education (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
WestEd (2003). Moving Leadership Standards Into Everyday Work: Descriptions of
Practice. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Wirt, F. & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The Political Dynamics of American Education,
(3rd ed.), chap. 1 and 2. Richmond, CA: Mcutchan Publishing.
214
Wiziers, B., Bosker, R. J., and Kruger, M. L. (2003, August). Educational
Leadership and Student Achievement: The Elusive Search for an Association.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), pp. 398-425.
215
APPENDIX A
PRINCIPAL PRE-INTERVENTION PROTOCOL
October 2008
1. How many years have you been in administration?
2. How long have you been in the district and at this site?
3. Please describe the schools’ mission and vision?
4. How do you plan to influence teacher practice?
5. In what ways do teachers collaborate with each other?
What is your role in that process?
6. What are the school’s goals for student learning this year?
7. How were the goals determined?
8. Who determined these goals?
9. How do you plan to measure the goals?
10. Are there objectives/initiatives for meeting those goals?
11. What are your expectations for the mentoring experience?
12. How do you meet the learning needs of your diverse student population?
Low SES students?
EL students who are not performing up to their potential or not at all?
216
APPENDIX B
PRINCIPAL POST-INTERVENTION PROTOCOL
January 2009
Tell me a little more about your background in education.
• How many years in the classroom? Where? What type of school setting?
(high performing? Low SES? High number of EL students, etc.?)
• How long have you been in the district? Any other districts? Any other
positions in or outside of education?
• What degree and credentials do you hold? (teaching/admin/specialist/etc.)
• What made you choose a career in education?
ISLLC #1 & VAL-ED – High Standards for Student Learning
1. What do you know and believe promote the success of all students? How has
mentoring help facilitate these beliefs? Why do you think mentoring shaped
those beliefs? What do you now do as a result of mentoring to promote the
success of all students?
• How is the schools’ vision incorporated in your daily school
operation? Can you provide some concrete examples?
• In what ways do you communicate high expectations for your
students?
• How have you ensured continuous school improvement?
Has mentoring helped you improve in these areas?
ISLLC #2 & VAL-ED Rigorous Curriculum, Quality Instruction, Culture of
Learning & Professional Behavior
2. How have you promoted a school culture that facilitates growth for students
and faculty? How has mentoring helped you develop the school’s curriculum
and instruction?
217
• How have you supported high quality, rigorous instruction?
• What teaching strategies have you seen your staff incorporate into
daily lessons as a result of your leadership this year?
• How are learning opportunities (e.g., PD, any learning activities,
collaboration, etc.) for teachers supported by you as the school
leader?
ISLLC #3 & VAL-ED Organizational Learning Culture
3. What are the organizational structures (e.g., instructional experts, coaches,
safety plan, decision-making body, team meetings, time, data, collaboration,
etc.) that promote a safe and efficient learning environment? How has
mentoring provided you the tools to foster a safe and learning environment?
• How are staff concerns in this area brought to your attention? What role
have you played in creating these conditions?
• How have you created a collaborative school culture that fosters the belief
that all children can learn? Has this been a goal for you this year? What
role has mentoring played in helping you achieve this?
ISLLC #4/6 & VAL-ED Connections to the External Community
4. In what ways have you fostered collaboration with diverse families and the
outside community to promote student success? Has mentoring given you the
tools to communicate with outside organizations (parents, community
members, businesses, etc.)? If so, what were the tools?
• How are families encouraged to be partners in their child’s education?
• Do you receive feedback from the community? How has feedback from
the community been incorporated into your practice? What types of
feedback do you receive and how has the feedback been incorporated…
ISLLC #5 & VAL-ED Culture
5. How do you promote a school culture that respects diversity? How has
mentoring provided you the skills to promote equal access and opportunities
for all students?
218
• How are high expectations for professionalism communicated to the
staff?
• How do get a feel or a sense of your school culture (e.g., teacher morale,
student expectations, teacher-student interaction, parent involvement) and
monitor its overall tone?
• How has the students’ voice been used to shape the school’s culture?
ISLLC #3 & VAL-ED Performance Accountability
6. What organizational structures (e.g., intervention programs, enrichment
activities, benchmark assessments, tutoring, etc.) have you incorporated that
ensure student success? How has mentoring enabled you to make decisions
and/or implement these programs?
• How is data used by you and your teachers?
• What programs are in place to support students that are not meeting
identified state standards?
7. What organizational structures (e.g., time, budget, relationship, etc.) support
the implementation of the mentoring model? What structures are in place for
mentoring to occur?
• How is time structured for mentoring to take place?
• How have the weekly meetings helped you achieve your goals?
• How have the collaborative planning tools been used to help you with
your action plans?
• What are your thoughts on the mentoring program and the relationship
that has been developed between you and your mentor?
8. Do you believe you have an impact on teachers’ instructional practice?
Please describe how you have impacted teacher practice. What role has
mentoring played in your impact on teacher practice this year?
9. Is there anything else you would like to share about the mentoring process
and your leadership practice?
219
APPENDIX C
TEACHER POST-INTERVENTION INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS
January 2009
Tell me a little bit about yourself (how long have you been in education/years in the
classroom/Edison School)
General Questions:
• Do you know if your principal is participating in a principal mentoring
program?
o What do you know about Edison School’s principal mentoring? (If
answer is NO to 1
st
question, skip this question)
• How do you think principal mentoring has influenced your principal’s
practice? (If answer is NO to 1
st
question 1, skip this question)
• Have you noticed any change in your instructional practice as a result of your
principal receiving mentoring?
• (If answer is NO to 1
st
question 1, ask the following question: Have you
noticed any change in your instructional practice from September until now?)
• Describe your principal’s current leadership practice compared to her practice
at the beginning of the school year? (Are there any differences?)
ISLLC #1 & VAL-ED – High Standards for Student Learning
1. What has the principal done to promote the success of all students? How has
it influenced your teaching practice?
• How has the principal communicated the school’s vision?
• In your opinion, does your principal hold high expectations for
students and teachers? What are some of the high expectations that
your principal has communicated to you and faculty?
• How does your principal ensure continuous school improvement?
220
• How does your principal provide feedback with regard to meeting
school goals/student achievement plan/school vision?
ISLLC #2 & VAL-ED Rigorous Curriculum, Quality Instruction, Culture of
Learning & Professional Behavior
2. How has your principal encouraged growth for students? How has your
principal encouraged professional growth for faculty? How has that influenced
your practice?
• How have you been supported in providing high quality, rigorous
instruction?
• What new teaching strategies have you learned this year and
incorporated into daily lessons?
• What kinds of learning opportunities have you been provided with?
How often have you been time/PD/meet/etc.
ISLLC #3 – VAL-ED Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior
3. What organizational structures (e.g., safety plan, time for teacher
collaboration, positive behavior support plan, decision-making teams,
professional development, etc.) have your principal established/reinforced
this year that promote a safe and efficient learning environment? How have
they impacted your practice?
• How are concerns with safety and learning brought to your school
leader’s attention?
• Do you feel you are included in high stakes (e.g., decision-making and in
what ways?
ISLLC #4 & VAL-ED Connections to the External Community
4. In what ways are families and the community incorporated into the decision-
making process to ensure student success at this school? How has
collaboration with the external communities impacted your classroom
practice?
• How are families encouraged to be partners in their child’s education?
221
ISLLC #5 & VAL-ED Culture
5. Describe your school culture in terms of teacher morale, expectations for
student achievement and parent involvement. What role has your principal
played in establishing respect for diversity? How has the culture of the
school influenced your teaching practice?
• How does your school leader resolve conflicts surrounding diversity?
• How is diversity celebrated at your school?
Is there anything else you want to share about school principal in terms of her
leadership practice?
222
APPENDIX D
MENTOR QUESTIONNAIRE
University of Southern California Study on EdisonLearning Principal Mentor
Program
Questions for EdisonLearning Mentor
Kimberly Vladovic, Graduate Researcher
January 25, 2009
1. How did the mentor training prepare you for your role as a mentor?
2. Do you feel that the training provided you with the knowledge and tools to
support your protégé? In what ways?
3. What organizational structures (such as time, documents, etc.) support the
implementation of the mentor model?
4. Please describe the relationship between you and your protégé.
5. How does that relationship impact meeting the goals of the protégés?
223
APPENDIX E
QUESTIONS FOR TRAINERS OF EDISON MENTORS
USC-Edison Leadership Study
October 2008
1. How do you prepare Edison Mentors to support school principals
a. How often do they meet? By phone? In-person? Email?
2. How are the goals determined for each principal? What are the desired
outcomes for each principal?
a. How do they determine area(s) of focus for each principal?
i. Mission? Vision?
ii. Alignment with Edison Schools?
3. How are the goals measured?
a. Measured by the rubric?
4. How is the rubric utilized in measuring those outcomes?
a. How is the Edison leadership rubric used to facilitate the development
of principal outcomes/expected outcomes?
5. What types of evidence will the principals provide which demonstrates their
growth?
a. Documents? Artifacts? Professional development?
224
APPENDIX F
PLACE FOR TITLE
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the EdisonLearning Mentor/Protégé (ELMP) model and effective urban school principal leadership practice. The (ELMP) implemented a mentoring support structure to strengthen the leadership practices of its principals in five areas: Instructional Leader, Organizational Leader, Culture Builder, Site Manager, and Edison Schools Executive. These standards of expectations for leadership practice were aligned with effective research based leadership (Murphy et al., 2006
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Building and sustaining effective school leadership through principal mentoring in an urban school context
PDF
A new era of leadership: preparing leaders for urban schools & the 21st century
PDF
The effects of coaching on building and sustaining effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator
PDF
Building capacity in urban schools by coaching principal practice toward greater student achievement
PDF
Sustaining success toward closing the achievement gap: a case study of one urban high school
PDF
Building capacity for leadership in urban schools
PDF
An exploration of leadership capacity building and effective principal practices
PDF
Outperforming expectations: a case study of an urban high school
PDF
Preparing leaders for the challenges of the urban school
PDF
Preparing leaders for the urban school context: a case study analysis for effective leadership
PDF
A case for change: building leadership capacity in urban high schools
PDF
A case study of factors related to a high performing urban charter high school: investigating student engagement and its impact on student achievement
PDF
Closing the achievement gap: successful practices at a middle school -- a case study
PDF
Student engagement in a high performing urban high school: a case study
PDF
The leadership gap: preparing leaders for urban schools
PDF
School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from a high-performing, high-poverty urban school
PDF
A case study: school-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing, high poverty urban schools
PDF
Closing the achievement gap: breakthrough in the urban high school
PDF
Perceived factors for narrowing the achievement gap for minority students in urban schools: cultural norms, practices and programs
PDF
Bringing the 21st century into California schools: a case study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Vladovic, Kimberly
(author)
Core Title
The effects of mentoring on building and sustaning effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/11/2009
Defense Date
05/14/2009
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
leadership,learning-centered leadership,mentor,OAI-PMH Harvest,Principal
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Reed, Margaret (
committee chair
), Gothold, Stuart E. (
committee member
), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (
committee member
)
Creator Email
KVladovic@aol.com,vladovic@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2346
Unique identifier
UC1489804
Identifier
etd-Vladovic-2998 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-568197 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2346 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Vladovic-2998.pdf
Dmrecord
568197
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Vladovic, Kimberly
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
learning-centered leadership