University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content REFORM STRATEGIES USED BY SYSTEM LEADERS IN EDUCATION TO
IMPACT STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: A CASE STUDY
by
Patricia Galarza Ramos
____________________________________________________________
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 Patricia Galarza Ramos
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my family, for without their love, I would
never have pursued, nor survived this experience. First to my husband Damon
Ramos, whose love, faith and encouragement have always allowed me to dream big
and reach for my wildest dreams. To my mother Dina Guerrero, who modeled for
her family the overarching themes in this dissertation: leadership, courage, and
service to others. To my brothers and sister, Fermin, Carlos and Jay and Cecilia, who
always made their little sister feel loved and protected. I am blessed to have received
their profound love and kindness, and I will never forget them. I owe my success in
this life to all of you, and I dedicate this, my greatest accomplishment thus far, to
you.
Finally, to my great uncle Dr. Ernesto Galarza a model to many who sought
to improve the conditions of working-class Chicanos in the United States. There is a
strong humanistic orientation and a dream of a better world in much of his writings. I
regret I did not have the pleasure and honor of meeting Don Ernesto Galarza but his
intellectual vigor, his sense of action, his belief in change, his humanity and humility
have left a profound impact on my life and his spirit is alive in me.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge and thank all of those people who have
encouraged, challenged, and supported me throughout my doctoral program
experience. I am particularly grateful to Dr. David Marsh who served as my chair
and also my mentor during my three years at the University of Southern California.
You were for me that great professor every student seeks to have. Thank you Dr.
Rudy Castruita, my co-chair, and Dr. Monte Perez my committee member. The three
of you guided my intellectual curiosity, pushed me to a level of work beyond what I
thought possible, and you always believed that I would make it through. I am
inspired by your leadership and am eternally grateful to you.
To Dr. Margaret Quinones-Perez, thank you for believing in me and always
‘holding my circle’. You set the bar high I am blessed to call you friend and role
model. To my Santa Monica College Trojan family, Teresita, Al and Roberto, your
love, friendship, and support will be a valued part of my life for years to come. To
the other members of my dissertation group, especially Dave H., I thank you for your
support and encouragement, this was an amazing journey to take with all of you.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge and thank the other members of my
family, especially Diana. To my closest amigitas, Angelica, Nathalie and Naomi who
not only make life fun but have long believed in my greatness, even when I did not.
And to my unnamed but not less valued friends, colleagues, classmates, and
teachers/professors who supported and encouraged me to always Fight On!
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ………………………………………………………………………….ii
Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………… ...iii
List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………. ...v
Abstract …………………………………………………………………………...vii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ……………………………………………...1
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ……………………………………….. ...22
Chapter Three: Research Methodology ……………………………………….. ...62
Figure 1: The Urban School Leadership House Model …………………………...71
Chapter Four: Findings, Analysis, and Discussion ……………………………....84
Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ………………...171
References …………………………………………………………………….....193
Appendix A: Superintendent Interview Guide ………………………………. ...208
Appendix B: Key Player Interview Guide ……………………………………...210
Appendix C: Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide ……………... ...211
Appendix D: Quality Rubric …………………………………………………....215
Appendix E: Implementation Rubric (All Levers) …………………………... ...235
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Relationship of Data Collection Instruments to Research Questions ......75
Table 2. Data Collection Activities ……………………………………………....79
Table 3. District Demographics ……………………………………………….. ...87
Table 4. Perceived Strengths at the Time of the Superintendent’s Arrival …… ...91
Table 5. Perceived Challenges of the District at the Time of the ……………... ...92
Superintendent’s Arrival
Table 6. Superintendent’s Entry Plan ………………………………………….. ...96
Table 7. Rubric Ratings of House Model Reform Strategies …………………...104
Table 8. Rubric Scoring of Strategic Plan ……………………………………....105
Table 9. Addressing Change in Strategic Plan ……………………………….....107
Table 10. Strategic Plan Rating by Rubric Component ………………………...109
Table 11. Rubric Scoring of Assessment …………………………………….....110
Table 12. Addressing Change in Assessment ………………………………......110
Table 13. Assessment Rating by Rubric Component …………………………...112
Table 14. Rubric Scoring of Curriculum …………………………………….. ...113
Table 15. Addressing Change in Curriculum …………………………………...114
Table 16. Curriculum Rating by Rubric Component …………………………...115
Table 17. Rubric Scoring of Professional Development …………………….. ...116
Table 18. Addressing Change in Professional Development …………………...117
Table 19. Professional Development Rating by Rubric Component …………...119
Table 20. Rubric Scoring of HR System and Human Capital Management … ...119
vi
Table 21. Addressing Change in HR Systems and Human Capital Management...120
Table 22. HR System and Human Capital Management Rating by Rubric............122
Component
Table 23. Rubric Scoring of Finance and Budget ……………………………....122
Table 24. Addressing Change in Finance and Budget ……………………….....123
Table 25. Finance and Budget Rating by Rubric Component ……………….. ...124
Table 26. Rubric Scoring of Communications ………………………………. ...125
Table 27. Addressing Change in Communications …………………………......126
Table 28. Communications Rating by Rubric Component …………………......128
Table 29. Rubric Scoring of Governance and Board Relations ………………...129
Table 30. Addressing Change in Governance and Board Relations …………....130
Table 31. Governance and Board Relations Rating by Rubric Component ….. ...131
Table 32. Rubric Scoring of Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations …… ...132
Table 33. Addressing Change in Labor Relations …………………………… ...133
Table 34. Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations Rating by Rubric ……. ...135
Component
Table 35. Rubric Scoring of Family and Community Relations …………….. ...136
Table 36. Addressing Change in Family and Community Relations …………...136
Table 37. Family and Community Engagement Rating by Rubric Component ...138
vii
ABSTRACT
In the last decade, the role of the school superintendent has changed.
Historically the superintendency has primarily been managerial and administrative in
scope with such duties as budget oversight, operations and discipline. Today’s high
stake accountability and unprecedented social and political environments in which
urban school system leaders operate, requires knowledge and ability to address the
pressing challenges of low-performing schools and gaps in student achievement.
To improve educational quality and advance student achievement in the
United States, urban school system leaders must be prepared to implement
appropriate and effective change strategies that impact student achievement. Critical
issues facing urban education demands that universities and education programs,
which prepare superintendents and higher education system leaders, to teach
effective and sustainable change strategies that are appropriate to actual practice and
that allow for district-level reform to occur.
1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
The public education system in the United States has been the focus of many
reform efforts in recent years due to decades of gaps in educational achievement
which have resulted in low test scores and low graduation rates for many students
attending public schools (Johnson, 2001, Thernstrom & Ternstrom, 2003). Yet,
despite years of effort and educational reform, a majority of students in primary and
secondary schools are not learning and performing at proficient levels in reading,
math, science, and in other subjects, which later impacts the post-secondary
education systems. The rapid shift in our national economy from a manufacturing
society to a knowledge and service economy driven by technology, now requires
students to be highly literate in English, math and science in order to achieve a good
standard of living in our society (National Research Council, 1991a, 2002;
Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, 1991).
Today’s urban school systems leaders at the K-12 and community college
level are expected to address the gaps in achievement and low performing schools. In
order to undertake these challenges, today’s systems leaders, and the colleges and
universities who prepare them, must address pressing educational challenges. In
order to improve educational quality and advance student achievement,
superintendents and community college system leaders must be prepared to
implement appropriate and effective change strategies. Historically, the role the
federal government has played in education has been restricted and limited
2
constitutionally. Therefore, standards for educational policy and curriculum have
been left to state and local policy makers. However, state and local educational
problems have taken on a national urgency in the past two decades. Starting in the
late 1980’s, educational reforms brought about a movement for testing, standards and
accountability due to years of neglect, as revealed by the gaps in student
achievement. In 1983, a report by the National Commission on Excellence entitled, A
Nation at Risk revealed that not only were 23 million Americans unable to read and
write, alarmingly, Americans lagged behind their international counterparts in
literacy comparisons, putting our nation at risk socially, economically and politically
(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Decades later, the U.S.
currently ranks 28
th
out of 40 countries in math, 20
th
of 40 in science, and 19
th
in
reading achievements.
Throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s, progress was made in narrowing student
achievement gaps for low income and students of color. Yet, in the 1990’s, those
gaps began to widen again bringing about national standards for the education of all
school children. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) accountability measures
require that all students in the K-12 system be at or above grade level in math and
reading by 2014, according to standards and testing programs developed by
individual states.
In the past five years, our nation’s youngest students have shown some
academic improvement. Since 1969, the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) often referred to as the “Nation’s Report Card” has tracked U.S.
3
student academic performance. In 2004, the NAEP revealed that academic
performance has reached historical highs in reading and math among our nation’s
fourth graders. Achievement gaps for this grade have not been smaller historically,
according to the Center for Educational Statistics (2004). However, despite gains
made, students attending schools in large urban school districts still score below
other students in statewide comparisons (Snipes, Williams, Horwits, Soga, &
Casserly, 2007). The disparities in achievement by race, ethnicity, and family
income, are especially a cause for concern for students in large K-12 urban districts.
The nation’s largest urban districts are responsible for educating nearly 25
percent of all school-aged children. Seventy percent are from minority groups, and
60 percent live below the federal poverty level (Quinn, 2007). There has been little
or no improvement in closing achievement gaps for African-American and Latino
middle school and high school students in reading. The result is that by their senior
year, African-Americans students are typically four years behind white and Asian
students, and Latino students are not faring much better, according to the NAEP
(Thernstrom & Ternstrom, 2003). High school students are exiting school with
weaker skills than their student counterparts had twenty years ago, heavily impacting
higher education institutions, particularly the community college system, where a
majority of our nation’s Latino and African-American students begin their college
education.
The national trend toward greater accountability as illustrated by the
implementation of NCLB has reached the community college system. In California,
4
2004 ushered in the creation of a performance measurement system for the
California Community Colleges (CCC). This comprehensive system has become
known as “ARCC” (Accountability Reporting for the Community Colleges).
Accountability measures such as NCLB and ARCC makes the role of the
superintendent and the community college system leader increasingly more difficult
because of the complex systems in which they operate and the societal issues that
impact student achievement. In a longitudinal study conducted by Stanford
University, researchers found that 88% percent of 8
th
graders expect to participate in
some form of college, including 80% of Latino and African-American students.
Approximately 70% of high school graduates actually go on to college (Venezia,
Kirst, Antonio, 2002). Data from the U.S. Census illustrates the significant economic
returns of an enhanced education. In 2000, the median annual earnings for workers
aged 25 with a high school diploma was $24,267 compared to $30,774 for workers
with an associate’s degree and $40,314 for those with a bachelor’s degree. Even
community earning college certificates improve students’ future earning potential.
However, despite their high aspirations, teenagers are leaving the K-12 system at
large rates, not prepared for college level work (Venezia, Kirst, Antonio, 2002).
Disconnected K-12 and post-secondary education systems not only undermine
student aspirations, they also perpetuate learning challenges for students that must be
later solved by higher education leaders.
The act of going to college and earning a degree is more important than ever
to today’s youth and our society. The community college access mission is built on
5
low tuition, convenient location, flexible scheduling, an open-door admissions
policy, and programs and services designed to support at-risk students with a variety
of social and academic barriers to postsecondary success (Cohen & Brawer, 1996).
Unfortunately, post-secondary degree completion is not equal in the United States.
Students of color, those from low-income backgrounds, and first-generation students,
are less likely to have the proper preparation to apply for, and subsequently enroll in
postsecondary education. If they do, they are still less likely to persist to degree
completion. This is true for educational institutions at the community college and
four-year universities (Swail, Cabrera, & Lee, 2004).
In preparing students to enter college adequately prepared, the role that local
districts play in improving school performance has changed significantly in the past
few decades. Due to increased state and federal No Child Left Behind requirements,
superintendents are under increased pressure to turn around low-performing schools.
Research shows that effective district leadership can significantly lead to student
achievement if their efforts are broad and address all aspects of the organizational
structure of a district (Childress, Elmore & Grossman, 2006). Childress et al. (2006)
see the role and responsibility of the school district office to enable all schools, to
become high functioning. They call this strategic functioning; a framework to view
school organizations as integrated systems with all parts linked to the teachers and
students at the classroom level. Their research found that large urban districts often
do not see solutions to their instructional challenges as inter-related. Low-performing
schools advance when they are supported at a district level with systematic strategies
6
that target instructional support, professional development, and performance plans
with annual targets (Elmore, 2003).
The Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy reviewed several
longitudinal studies in California. What emerged from the study was a model
identifying seven domains needed to successfully reform schools, system-wide. The
domains include: 1) defining teaching and learning, 2) developing the profession, 3)
communicating externally and internally, 4) responding to and contending to external
policy, 5) acquiring and allocating human, fiscal and physical resources, 6) creating
local systems of accountability, and 7) partnering with non-systems actors. From
these seven action items, researchers found that outcomes were influenced when
leaders focused on enhancing the quality and equity of student outcomes. Further,
outcomes were positively influenced when equity standards were utilized to inform
action (Olson, 2005).
In the last decade, the role of the school superintendent has changed. The role
has historically been one involving managerial and administrative duties such as
budget oversight, operations and discipline. In addition to their administrative duties,
today’s chief leaders need to be strong instructional leaders if they hope to positively
impact student achievement. For example, they need to understand how students are
motivated to learn, how educational systems are organizationally structured and
governed; how to support instruction with effective use of fiscal and human
resources; what roles families, language, culture, and the media play in student
learning; and be knowledgeable in how educational policy impacts economic
7
development on a local, state and national level (National Research Council, 1991).
The role is worth examining more closely due to the complexity of the position and
its ability to impact change.
On an instructional level, Leithwood, Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom’s
(2004) research shows that superintendents can significantly improve math and
reading achievements in students. Waters, Marzano and McNulty (2003) also found
that chief school systems leaders play an important role in driving and improving
student performance. Their research identified 21 leadership responsibilities that are
associated with increased academic achievement and sustained performance.
Waters and Marzano (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of research and found
a positive correlation between district leadership and student achievement, showing
the importance of the superintendent’s role. Their research revealed that district
leadership does matter; that effective superintendents focus their efforts on creating
goal-oriented districts; student achievement is positively correlated to tenure of the
superintendents; and effective superintendents provide principals with “defined
autonomy”.
Successfully planning and implementing comprehensive change at a district
level is problematic in the current climate of turnover frequency. The average tenure
is between 5 to 6 years for superintendents (Byrd, Drews, & Johnson, 2006) and
lower in larger urban districts. Inadequate preparation to handle the tremendous
organizational, political, instructional, social, and cultural challenges urban
superintendents face in providing an equitable and quality education for their
8
students are significant factors that contribute to their longevity (Fuller, Campbell,
Celio, Harvey, Immerwahr, & Winder, 2003).
Start up strategies that new system leaders use are important to examine as
they relate to the impact on student achievement. Fullan (2001) believes that by
focusing on key dimensions, leaders can improve their effectiveness. Upon arrival, a
new leader must assess a district’s needs, evaluate policies and practices, develop
solutions to its problems, inspire its staff, and ensure compliance with local, state,
and national standards in order to impact student achievement in their respective
districts. Jentz and Murphy (2005) argue that during the entry period, relationships
must be built with stakeholders, a method for learning about the organizations must
be developed, and premature or presumptuous approaches to change must be
avoided. The authors argue that using the entry period to develop an entry plan
allows the new administrator the opportunity to establish a clear impression of how
to begin the transition. Watkins (2003) posits that without a structured transition plan
with key areas addressed, the new leader will be less effective, be exposed to more
risks, and the time to reach the “break-even point” will take longer. He proposes a
90-day transition acceleration plan to help new leaders meet key transitional
challenges by providing tools to diagnose the organizational situation and develop a
customized entry plan. Neff and Citrin (2005) suggest that a 100-day plan to gather
information, create alignment, and build expectations, are critical to the success of a
new leader.
9
The House Model, designed by the Urban School Leadership Institute, is an
organizational change model that includes an entry plan to be utilized in the first 100
days. The House Model involves a systematic three-year approach to be used by
educational systems leaders. It was designed to help superintendents implement a
comprehensive strategy for organizing and managing their school system according
to the challenges and strengths of their individual school district. The House Model
involves a redistribution of resources in year one; instructional alignment,
operational excellence, stakeholder connections and satisfaction in year two; by year
three, increased educational achievement is demonstrated by a decrease in
achievement gaps and increased college readiness for all students in the district.
Chief leaders who are aware that their schools are complex, yet interrelated
social systems, are more successful at moving their organizations forward (Senge,
1990). Senge (1990) refers to this as “systems thinking”, a conceptual framework
that encourages leaders to see the whole complex organization with many
interdependent components. A systems perspective encourages educators to make
decisions related to improving student performance while understanding the future
impact of each decision on the organization.
As the role of school system leaders becomes more complex and challenging,
so must preparation programs that train these chief educational leaders. For example,
with impending leadership turnovers in K-12 and community colleges due to
upcoming baby-boomer retirements, universities need focused and effective
10
leadership preparation programs to ready future leaders for the challenges they will
face in urban education today.
A model of effective school leadership emerged from a study that examined
the interactions of several superintendents during their first two years of tenure
(Johnson, 1996). Johnson observed that the superintendents operate from three
different perspectives, as Educational, Political, and Managerial leaders. As
Educational Leaders, they diagnosed and created educational strategies to meet
needs. They were Political Leaders, negotiating with unions, elected officials and
different funding sources to make improvements, and lastly, superintendents were
Managerial Leaders, operating within their organizational structures to influence and
motivate personnel to effect reform.
Similar competencies are needed for community college system leaders. In
2005, the American Association of Community Colleges identified the Competencies
for Community College Leaders. They provide a framework that community college
system leaders need to successfully lead their institutions (Ottenritter, 2006). The
competencies include: 1) organizational strategy, 2) resource management, 3)
communication, 4) collaboration, 5) community college advocacy, and 6)
professionalism. Community college presidents, superintendents and chancellors
face enormous challenges in providing an equitable and quality education for their
students, many of whom come out of high school under-prepared for college level
work. The six competencies will inform preparation programs by teaching leaders
11
the actual skills needed for today’s community college system leader (Ottenritter,
2006).
The effectiveness of school leadership preparation programs in the United
States has been the focus of research and analysis in recent years (Murphy &
Vrisenga, 2006). Critique of the effectiveness has led to efforts to strengthen the
preparatory function of school superintendent preparation programs. The Carnegie
Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) is a project intended to rethink how
educational university preparation programs are designed. University programs have
struggled over the years to find a balance between practice and research and
according to Shulman, Golde, Bueschel & Garabedian (2006) there is a need for
alternative programs that prepare urban educational leaders. Newly redesigned
educational doctoral program models have only recently begun to address this need
as demonstrated by the emergence of university programs that blend research and
practice to better prepare new educational leaders for the challenges they will face in
urban education (Dembo & Marsh, 2007). Over the years however, universities have
failed, by and large, to adequately prepare superintendents and other educational
leaders with the knowledge and skills needed to effectively lead reform efforts,
according to Bjork, Kowolski & Browne-Ferrigno (2005).
Past university failures have led to alternative preparation programs (Bjork et
al., 2005). Prominent philanthropic organizations and foundations with educational
missions have been actively involved in transforming national education and making
a case for alternative preparation programs. For example, The Broad Foundation and
12
Thomas B. Fordham Institute called for the deregulation in superintendent training.
A research study they conducted in 2003, led to their report entitled Better Leaders
for America’s Schools which they found, revealed three themes: 1) university-based
preparation programs and state licensing standards are meaningless hoops that are
not necessary; 2) business executives and retired military officers would be willing
to take on the role of superintendents if they could circumvent the traditional
educational route to superintendency; 3) school reform efforts have failed largely due
to the ineffectiveness of educational leaders.
With new accountability measures in place and high stakes testing now the
norm, the hiring of non-traditional superintendents in large urban districts is a
direction that many school districts have been moving towards, and there is no sign
the movement is waning. These new chief leaders in education from the business
industry and the military bring non-traditional systems thinking to the school districts
they are leading (Mathews, 2001). The Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI) is
one such innovative, intensive10-month executive management program. USLI
prepares CEO’s and senior executives to lead urban public school systems.
Exceptional leaders with diverse backgrounds and experience are recruited from
various industries such as business, military, government, and education sectors,
including recruits with prior superintendent experience. Those chosen for their
highly selective program, attend seven weekend training sessions in which they learn
(or refine) CEO level skills in the areas of educational finance, management,
13
operational excellence, organizational systems, and instructional design models that
positively impact student achievement (Quinn, 2007).
Superintendents chosen to lead districts who have prior educational work
experience, have advantages and strengths they bring to their positions. Mainly such
strengths involve knowledge and experience of instructional pedagogy. Conversely,
established leaders from other sectors with no prior educational background who
choose the superintendency also find their prior success and leadership adds value to
the superintendency (Quinn, 2007).
There is a need for further research to determine the effects of prior
experience on the effectiveness of superintendents. Research shows that even
superintendents with educational backgrounds feel underprepared when they
undertake positions as chief leaders of their district (Fuller et al., 2003).
The high stakes accountability and unprecedented social and political
environment in which urban superintendents and other urban educational system
leaders operate require preparation programs to address critical issues in education
such as closing the gaps in achievement and low-performing schools. Educational
programs must prepare system leaders to overcome these and other challenges by
teaching effective and sustainable change strategies that are appropriate to actual
practice and that allow for district level reform to occur.
Statement of the Problem
The nation’s largest urban districts are responsible for educating nearly
twenty-five percent of all school-aged children. Yet, despite years of effort and
14
educational reform in the United States, a majority of students in primary and
secondary schools are not learning and performing at proficient levels in reading,
math, science, and other subjects, which later impacts the post-secondary education
systems. The disparities in achievement by race, ethnicity, and family income, are
especially a cause for concern for students in large K-12 urban districts.
In the last decade, the role of the school superintendent has changed. Today’s
high stake accountability and unprecedented social and political environments in
which urban school system leaders operate, requires knowledge and ability to
address the pressing challenges of low-performing schools and gaps in student
achievement. To improve educational quality and advance student achievement in
the United States, urban school system leaders must be prepared to implement
appropriate and effective change strategies that impact student achievement. Critical
issues facing urban education demands that universities and education programs who
prepare superintendents and higher education system leaders to teach effective and
sustainable change strategies that are appropriate to actual practice and that allow for
district-level reform to occur.
Efforts that lead to sustained academic improvements in the nation’s largest
school districts would have a significant impact on the status of education in the U.S.
Studies of school leadership preparation in the United States reveal there is little
research on the preparation of administrators, and a gap in the literature regarding
superintendent preparation specifically (Murphy & Vriesenga, 2006). Little is know
about what reform strategies are effective in raising student achievement when
15
coupled with contextual strengths and challenges of the district upon arrival of a
system leader. Analysis of how previous educational or career experience influences
a leaders decision to use specific reform strategies is missing from the research
literature and would be of great benefit to the field of education.
Purpose of the Study
The main purpose of the study is the identify reform strategies utilized by
urban superintendents that improve student achievement in their respective districts.
Secondly, a related purpose of the study is to identify what influence the district
context and preparation program had on the system leader’s use of key reform efforts
to student performance and achievement. Additionally, knowledge gained in reform
efforts that impact student achievement in the K-12 system can inform community
college system leaders and institutions that prepare them since they both operate in
similar bureaucratic, political, and organizational environments.
This study is part of a larger project to evaluate ten recent graduates of Urban
School Leadership Institute leading large urban public school systems so as to better
understand reform strategies implemented to improve student achievement.
Importance of the Study
The significance of identifying reform strategies that successfully impact
student achievement at the K-12 level will have implications that extend beyond the
student, school, or district level for several reasons. First, the role of the
superintendent and the community college system leader has become increasingly
more difficult because of the complex systems in which they operate and the societal
16
issues that impact student achievement. “Systems thinking” encourages leaders to
see the whole complex organization with many interdependent components (Senge,
1990). If public education (grade K-16) is viewed as a “system,” then positively
impacting one part of the system will likely impact another. Also, systems-thinking
is not unique to the K-12 system. Community college leaders as systems leaders
would greatly benefit from the successful identification of reforms efforts of systems
leaders in the K-12 system. The interconnectedness of K-12 and higher education is
evident when viewing the disparities in achievement by race, ethnicity, and family
income. High school students are exiting school not prepared for college level work.
Students of color, those from low-income backgrounds, and first-generation students,
are less likely to have the proper preparation to apply for, and subsequently enroll in
post-secondary education. Successful identification of reform strategies is of
importance to educators at all levels, the institutions that prepare them, and equally
for policy makers at a local, state and federal levels.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study include:
1. How are the ten key change levers being used by USLI superintendents in
their respective districts?
a. How does the quality and degree of implementation of ten key change
levers correspond to the strengths and challenges in the district when
the superintendent took office?
17
b. What additional major change levers (if any) were used? How do
they correspond to the elements of the House model?
c. How does the choice and implementation of the ten key change levers
correspond to the previous background/experiences of the
superintendent?
Assumptions
This study assumes that student performance can be improved by identifying
successful change levers used by USLI graduates in their respective districts.
Further, reform strategies implemented by the interviewees are truthful and therefore
the information obtained by them is reliable and true.
Limitations
This study employed a qualitative case study to identify various changes
levers used by USLI trained superintendent. This limits the generalizability to
different school settings in K-12. Although efforts were made to eliminate as much
bias as possible, the researcher did not have any control over any biases that
participants brought to their responses. Finally, the analysis of the data was subject to
the researchers interpretation.
Delimitations
The collection of data is limited to one system leader of an urban educational
setting. The intention if the study is to identify various change strategies used by
successful leaders to improve student achievement in their respective districts.
18
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are operationally defined as
follows:
Accountability: A system of monitoring, reporting, and responding to student
achievement results that holds students, parents, teachers, and administrators
responsible for learning outcomes (American Institute for Research, 2003).
Assessment: Activities which enable districts to know whether students are
learning what they are supposed to learn (i.e., the standards). Common, regularly-
scheduled district-wide assessments should connect directly with standards,
curriculum, pacing guides, and professional development.
Reform Strategies: Strategies used by superintendents/system leaders to
improve student performance.
Communications: Public relations or communications office staffed with
experts on dealing with the media to enable the district to communicate its vision to
the public or proactively build support.
Curriculum: The materials used to teach. Classroom materials—textbooks,
worksheets, pacing guides, etc.—should address the scope and sequence of the
district’s learning standards.
Data Dashboard: A collection of key indicators that can give the pulse of the
district. The actual indicators selected will depend on the district’s strategic plan.
19
Family and Community Engagement: All stakeholders/residents of a school
district’s jurisdiction. Districts should offer ways for the community/families to
interact and be involved with the district in support of student success.
Finance and Budget: Financial management to ensure that the district’s
budget is balanced and sustainable. Budget should be closely aligned to instructional
priorities.
Governance/Board Relations: School district boards elected from the local
community to govern the district with the responsibility of setting policy.
Superintendents may be involved in developing policy but are mainly responsible for
executing it. Superintendent/board relations are critical for effective district
progress.
House Model: Conceptual framework developed by the Broad Academy of
the reform model used in its superintendent preparation/training program.
Human Resource System and Human Capital Management: Recruitment and
hiring processes as well as support and retention strategies for teachers and
principals with attractive compensation packages.
Instruction: The how of teaching – the way in which teachers deliver the
curriculum. Instructors adept at different instructional practices can engage their
students in deeper learning and differentiate their lessons to reach more students.
Labor Relations/Contract Negotiations: Relationships with certificated and
classified unions’ leadership and contract negotiation.
20
Learning: The process of acquiring new and lasting concepts, skills,
knowledge, behaviors, and mental representations as well as associations (Ormrod,
2006).
Professional Development: Any program or course intended to improve
teachers’ and principals’ effectiveness. It may center on content, instructional
techniques, leadership, or collaboration among teachers in the same grade-
level/subject matter.
Reform Strategies: Strategies used by superintendents/system leaders to
improve student performance.
Strategic Plan: Defines the district’s mission, goals, and vision. It also
assigns performance indicators and work plans to each of the district’s primary goals
and serves as the guiding document for district decisions and priorities.
Superintendent: Chief administrator of a school district selected and
evaluated by the district’s board of education and responsible/accountable for all of
the school district’s operations and management.
Teaching: The systematic instructional practices carried out by teachers to
transfer the learning of concepts, skills and knowledge to students.
Theory of Action: Superintendent’s written theory of action of change for the
district to improve, based on the district’s context and capacity as well as the
superintendent’s personal belief system.
21
Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI): A 10-month executive
management program designed to prepare both education career based and non-
education career based leaders to lead urban public school districts.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of the study includes: the introduction to the of study, the
statement the problem, the purpose and the research questions of the study, the
significance of the study, the limitations, delimitations, and assumptions of the study,
and the definitions of terms. Chapter 2 is a review of the relevant literature. Chapter
3 includes the research methodology used in the study, the research design, sampling
procedures, and the instrumentation, and sections on data collection, analysis and
summary. Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study along with an analysis and
discussion of the results. Chapter 5 includes a summary of the study, a summary of
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations for action and further research.
22
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
A review of current and past literature is critical to the discussion of the role
that urban school system leaders play in educational reform and the strategies
employed to improve student achievement in large urban settings. Legislative policy
changes now mandate increased accountability for student outcomes and these
changes have intensified demands for meaningful school reform. However, there
continues to be a major disconnection between an ever-growing body of research on
effective educational practices and what is actually occurring in many schools.
Critical issues facing urban education requires superintendents and higher education
system leaders to understand and implement effective and sustainable change
strategies that are appropriate to actual practice and that allow for district-level
reform to occur.
Beginning with a historical perspective, this chapter will synthesize the
literature to explore student achievement trends in the United States, the role local
systems play in meaningful school reform; the role urban superintendents play in
improving student achievement and the strategies implemented by them; connecting
those actions to increase student performance for all students, and the urgent demand
for preparation programs to prepare leaders to meet the high stakes accountability
standards imposed by the state and federal guidelines at the K-12 and community
college level.
23
Student Achievement Trends
Background
Historically, the federal government was restricted in the role it played in
education because of constitutional limits. Educational policy, achievement
standards, and curriculum, therefore, were left to state and local policy makers.
However, state and local educational problems took on a national urgency with the
publication of A Nation at Risk by the National Commission on Excellence in
Education (1983). The report now twenty-five years old, served to stimulate demand
for meaningful school reform nationwide. The report warned that American students
were not being adequately educated and lagged behind other industrialized nations at
various performance levels. The imperative behind A Nation at Risk was to increase
the awareness that the achievement gaps in our educational system threatened us
from the inside if the United States did not grow its capacity for public education.
Thomas Friedman’s (2005) The World is Flat has similarly popularized the threat to
the United States related to a globally integrated economy and the economic and
social consequences of a mediocre educational system.
Accountability in the No Child Left Behind Era
In 2002, congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) commonly referred to as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Federal
legislation reauthorized the ESEA of 1965, leading to significant changes in general
education policy. NCLB mandates that schools provide a high-quality education for
all students. To demonstrate that a high-quality education is provided for all students,
24
schools must establish benchmarks with the U.S. Department of Education indicating
100% of their students are making adequate yearly progress in academic subjects as
measured by statewide achievement tests by the year. NCLB requires that all
students in public education be at or above grade level in math and reading by the
year 2014 and to report progress toward achieving benchmarks annually, by
disaggregated achievement data according to several demographic categories
associated with educational disadvantage (e.g., students with disabilities, students
with limited English proficiency).
Although, NCLB mandates are complex, the premise of the federal
legislation basically assumes that increased accountability for schools will produce
better outcomes for students. To accomplish this goal, accountability focuses on the
behavior of teachers, principals, and school systems, and aims to end local and state
practices such as “social promotion” or minimum assessment standards for high
school graduation. Federal mandates in NCLB require schools to meet proficiency
targets or face sanctions, including the threat of restructuring and eventual closing
(Goldrick-Rab, & Mazzeo, 2005).
International, National, and Local Trends
In international comparisons, students from the United States have been out-
performed by their international peers on multiple assessments. The Program for
International Assessment (PISA), compares, among other factors, the science and
mathematics scores of 15 year-olds from the U.S. to their international peers. First
implemented in 2000, PISA is sponsored by an intergovernmental agency of 30
25
member nations named Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD). In 2006, 57 jurisdictions participated in PISA including 30 OECD
jurisdictions, and 27 non-OECD jurisdictions. The results were:
• The average combined literary scale score of U.S students was lower than
the OECD average;
• U.S. students scored lower on science literacy than their peers in 16
OECD jurisdictions;
• U.S. students scored lower on science literacy than their peers in 6 of the
27 non-OECD jurisdictions;
• On the mathematics literacy scale, the U.S. student scored lower than the
OECD average;
• 31 jurisdictions (23 OECD, 8 non-OECD) scored higher on average than
the U.S. in mathematics literacy (Baldi, Jin, and Skemer, M, 2007).
There is evidence of inadequate performance on other international
assessments. The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)
was conducted in 2003 to assess students’ mathematics performance at grade 4 in 25
countries and at grade 8 in 45 countries. The curriculum based assessment measures
what students have actually learned against what is typically taught in the
participating countries by the end of grades 4 and 8. Students in the United States at
grades 4 and 8 scored above the international average in 2003. On average, fourth-
graders in the U.S. scored higher than students in 13 countries, while students in 11
countries outperformed U.S. students. The average 8th grader in the U.S., scored
26
higher in mathematics than those of students in 25 countries, but below the average
scores of students in 9 countries (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2005).
At a national level, evidence of inadequate educational achievement of U.S.
students is demonstrated on the results of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), also referred to as “The Nation’s Report Card.” NAEP tracks U.S.
achievement over time and it is the only ongoing assessment of U.S. educational
achievement in numerous subject areas (Lubienski & Lubienski, 2006). In 2005,
assessment results on the NAEP showed that white student out performed their
African American and Latino counterparts, demonstrating that achievement gaps
existed amongst students. In reading, fourth grade African American students scored
29 points lower than white students, and Latino students scored 26 points lower than
white students. Eighth grade African American students scored 25 points lower than
white students, and Latino students scored 27 points lower than white students. In
math, fourth grade African American students scored 26 points lower than white
students, and Latino students scored 20 points lower than white students. In the
eighth grade, African American students scored 34 points lower than white students,
and Latino students scored 27 points lower that white students (U.S. Department of
Education, 2007d).
The Achievement Gap and the Urgent need to Improve
If the educational patterns cited above do not improve and the gaps in
educational attainment persist as students advance through their school years, then
27
these children will be continue to be left behind, negatively impacting their economic
future, and that of our society’s. In fact, by the age of 17 on the nations most reliable
tests in 2005, Latino and African American students scored at least 80% lower than
white students. On the NAEP, a majority of black students scored in the lowest
category-Below Basic, typically four years behind their white and Asian classmates.
The result is that African American students are exiting high school with a junior
high school education, and Latino students a tad better. The disparities in
achievement by race, ethnicity, and family income, are especially a cause for
concern for students in large K-12 urban districts. The nation’s largest urban districts
are responsible for educating nearly twenty-five percent of all school-aged children.
Seventy percent are from minority groups, and 60 percent live below the federal
poverty level (Quinn, 2007).
Despite educational reforms, Black students of both low and high SES are
being left behind (Thernstorm & Thernstorm, 2003). In 2002, African American
students were more than twice as likely as Latino students to attend an institution
where they made up at least 80 percent of the total enrollment (Quinn, 2007). This is
alarming because a great majority of minority students are being educated in urban
school districts failing to adequately educate students. For example, in 2000 the
Education Trust found that Latino and Africa American students are much more
likely to drop out of high school. The study found that nationwide, white students
had an 8% drop out rate, compared to 14% for African Americans and 30% for
Latinos.
28
However, in large urban schools, the drop out rate is much higher with fewer
than 50% of ninth graders being retained to become graduating seniors four years
later (McAdams, 2006). Failing to adequately educate and engage all students in
knowledge and skills attainment, leads to negative social impacts. Given public
education’s failure of many minority students, it should be no surprise that 80% of
the U.S. prison population is illiterate and that 75% of that inmate population is
Latino or African American (Blankstein, 2004).
One notable and controversial requirement in NCLB, is the mandate that
schools close the achievement gaps between majority and minority students.
Researchers like Darling-Hammond (2007), posit that of NCLB has failed to achieve
the goal of closing gaps due to complex requirements that have created consequences
including: a narrowed curriculum, a focus on low-level skills generally reflected on
high stakes tests, inappropriate assessment of English language learners and students
with special needs, and strong incentives to exclude low-scoring students from
school, so as to achieve test score targets (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
In other examinations on the intersections of race and SES in achievement
and instructional practices data, researchers KewalRamani, Gilbertson, Fox, and
Provasnik, (2007) examined the achievement gap using a large sample of students
from a wide variety of school districts across the United States. The researchers
found significant differences between the academic performance of poor students
and wealthier students and between minority students and their non-minority peers,
commonly known as the achievement gap. The gaps in educational achievement
29
were examined by measuring student achievement and student growth along a
continuous, cross-analysis measurement scale. Significant differences were revealed
in achievement and growth among the students studied in mathematics and reading
in grades three through eight.
NCLB and the effects on post-secondary education
The long-term implications of NCLB are most often thought of in terms of
achievement and attainment in elementary and secondary education. While mandates
strictly aim to reform K–12 education, the literature shows that NCLB will effect the
tertiary level and national workforce participation (Educational Policy Institute,
2005; Goldrick-Rab, & Mazzeo, 2005) and have serious implications for these
sectors (Venezia, Kirst, 2001; Johnson, Cheatham (1999). In 2003, The Education
Trust found that African American college completion rates have not improved and a
gap in college attainment still remains.
Achievement gaps and high rates of remediation caused by lack of
preparation at the secondary level create significant teaching and learning challenges
for community college leaders at the post-secondary level because they too are
charged with closing gaps in achievement. The national trend toward greater
accountability as illustrated by the implementation of NCLB has reached the tertiary
level. In resent years, regional accreditation standards have required community
colleges to indicate student learning outcomes and institutional learning outcomes,
known as SLO’s and ILO’s respectively. Measurement and reporting of progress
towards SLO’s and ILO’s standards are also required. While these accountability
30
standards differ from the federal mandates seen in NCLB, a more comprehensive
accountability has been introduced for the largest community college system in the
United States, the California Community College System.
In 2004, the performance measurement system for the California Community
Colleges (CCC) called Accountability Reporting for Community Colleges (AARC)
was ushered in. AARC includes seven system-wide measures for the CCC system
across four major categories:
1. Student Progress and Achievement – Degree/Certificate/Transfer;
2. Student Progress and Achievement – Vocational/Occupational/Workforce
Development;
3. Pre-Collegiate Improvement – Basic Skills and ESL; and
4. Participation Rates (by age, ethnicity and gender).
ARRC data trends have revealed achievement gaps similar to those in the K-12
system, with disproportional achievement between minority students and their non-
minority peers (ARCC Data 2008).
Research has shown that students who have stronger high school records,
who come from higher income families, whose parents also went to college, who do
not delay college entry after high school, who attend full time, and who do not
interrupt their college studies, are more likely to graduate (Rosenbaum, 2001; Choy,
2002). The intensity and the quality of a student’s high school curriculum is one of
the best predictors that a student will matriculate to degree completion (Adelman,
31
1999). African-American, Latino, and Native American students continue to lag
behind their white and Asian counterparts (Education Trust, 1999).
The difference between the earnings of those with at least a bachelor’s degree
and those with less education has grown dramatically. Males with a bachelor’s or
higher degree earned 19 percent more than male high school completers in 1980. Yet
in 2005, they earn 64 percent more than male high school completers, underscoring
the importance of degree attainment This pattern generally held for male, female,
white, Black, Hispanic, and Asian subgroups (Department of Education, 2004;
National Center for Education Statistics, 2007).
For example, research indicates that there is a relationship between education
and annual earnings. Studies conducted in 2004 showed that the median annual
earnings in constant 2004 dollars for young adults ages 25–34 who worked full time
for a full year between 1980 and 2005 increased when education level increased.
Young adults with at least a bachelor’s degree consistently had higher median
earnings than those with less education. This pattern generally held for male, female,
white, Black, Hispanic, and Asian subgroups (Department of Education, 2004;
National Center for Education Statistics, 2007).
In addition to increased earnings, a relationship has been shown to exist
between unemployment and educational attainment. Generally speaking, the more
education a person attains, the less likely that person is to be unemployed. This
pattern holds for white, Black, and Hispanic young adults. Meaning that students
who have equal skills and knowledge will roughly have the same earning, regardless
32
of ethnic background (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, 2007). Collectively, this sobering data reveals an urgent need to improve
public education because skills and knowledge attainment has appears to be an
equalizer, if not the key to racial equality in the United States.
The Role of Local Systems in Improving Student Performance
Systems theory has been used as a framework for analyzing and solving
problems in schools for several decades (Elmore, 2003). Systems related to schools
include, districts, grade-level teams, intervention assistance teams, classrooms, and
state departments of education. Each of these systems contains subsystems but also
exists within a larger system or systems. Understanding this reciprocal influence is
central to a systems perspective because change in any part of the system can result
in change in other parts (Elmore, 2003; Childress, Elmore, Grossman & King, 2007;
Senge, 1990).
The local system is made up of internal and external constituents including
students, parents, collective bargaining teams, the Board of Education, community
members, media, political officials, and business organizations. It is the job of the
educational leader to build allies and coalitions to achieve the agreed upon mission
(Meier & O’Toole, 2003).
The role that local districts play in improving school performance has
changed significantly in the past few decades. Due to increased state and NCLB
requirements, districts superintendents are under increased pressure to turn around
low-performing schools. Effective district leadership can significantly lead to student
33
achievement according to research. The implementation of standards-based reform
has been a goal of state policy makers for the last 10 years.
Marzano (2003) ranked five school-level factors that are needed in order to
create reform needed to increase student achievement. They include: a guaranteed
and viable curriculum, challenging goals and effective feedback, parental and
community involvement, a safe and orderly environment, and collegiality and
professionalism. Yet, reform measures will only be effective to the extent that a
school can implement and bring them forward (Marzano, 2003).
However Massell (1998) found that even the high standards of reform, and
the strong incentives to encourage the change are not sufficient. "Capacity-building"
strategies, which refer to the need to translate high standards and incentives into
effective instruction and strong student performance, must be effectively
implemented. Seven areas of the capacity of classrooms essential to improving
teaching and learning fall under two categories: classroom level capacities, and the
other, school, district, and state organizational capacities. Four common capacity-
building strategies include: building external infrastructure to provide professional
development and technical assistance, setting professional development and training
standards, providing curriculum materials, and organizing and allocating resources
(Massell, 1998).
Childress, Elmore & Grossman (2006) report that efforts must be broad and
address all aspects of the organizational structure of a district. Childress et al. (2006)
see the role and responsibility of the school district office to enable all schools to
34
become high-functioning. They call this strategic functioning; a framework to view
school organizations as integrated systems with all parts linked to the teachers and
students at the classroom level. Their research found that large urban districts often
do not see solutions to their instructional challenges as inter-related. Low-performing
schools advance when they are supported at a district level with systematic strategies
that target instructional support, professional development, and performance plans
with annual targets. The authors contend that in order to improve achievement,
districts must continually strengthen teachers’ skills and knowledge, engage students
in the learning process, and ensure that curriculum is academically challenging to
students (Childress et al., 2007).
Achieving excellence on a broad scale requires a district-wide strategy for
improving instruction in the classroom and an organization that can implement it.
Only the district office can create such a plan, identify and spread best practices,
develop leadership capabilities at all levels, build information systems to monitor
student improvement, and hold people accountable for results. School-based
solutions, while important, are not always enough. If they were enough, urban
systems would have high-functioning schools and low-performing schools would be
able to reform themselves (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006). Increasingly
however, a more sophisticated understanding of how districts implement large-scale
change has begun to emerge, offering new lessons for implementing district-wide
reform.
35
The Public Education Leadership Project (PELP) from the Harvard Graduate
School of Education’s study of 2003 developed a framework called the PELP
Coherence Framework. It is designed to help leaders effectively implement an
improvement strategy by strengthening coherence among actions at the district,
school and classroom level. The framework emerged out of interactions with
hundreds of U.S. public schools to identify ways to better organize and manage their
complex organizations The overall goal of the framework is to assist the leader in
making all parts of a large district focus on student success and work together with
the district strategy (Childress & Elmore, Grossman, & Johnson, 2007).
More evidence of school districts’ role in the reform process comes from a
study that examined the role of the district in promoting good instruction across
systems within the organization by McLaughlin, Gilbert, Hightower, Husbands,
Marsh, Young, & Talbert (2002); Togneri, (2003). The seven factors that emerged
for a district to strategically improve instruction include: 1) acknowledgement of
poor performance, 2) utilized system wide approach, 3) vision focused on students
learning, 4) data driven decision making, 5) focused and sustained professional
development, 6) redefined leadership roles, and 7) commitment to growth over time.
Much of the research on student achievement shows that teacher
effectiveness is critical in improving student performance. Marzano (2003)
researched the effects of school and teacher effectiveness on student achievement.
Findings from his study reveal that teacher effectiveness is the most influential factor
that affects student achievement. For example, if a student enters a school at the 50th
36
percentile and was instructed by the least effective teacher in the least effective
school setting, that student would perform at the 3rd percentile after two years. If the
same student attended the same school yet were instructed by the most effective
teacher, that student would perform at the 63rd percentile. Teachers need to show
their effectiveness in three areas: instructional strategies, classroom management,
and classroom curriculum design.
Elmore (2003) has made the case that accountability systems implemented by
states should provide the material framework for schools to turn around low
performing schools. The author suggests that accountability systems are necessary to
assist urban leaders in creating coherent, high performing urban school districts.
Elmore (2003) supports the notion that governors and other policy makers need to
design accountability systems that force all schools to keep improving. Indeed to
become learning organizations that focus on student learning) (Elmore, 2003; Senge,
2000). Research substantiates the notion that it is the responsibility of the school
district to provide a supportive and motivating environment (Datnow, Borman,
Stringfield, Overman & Castellano, 2003; MacIver & Farley, 2003). Thus, on a
comprehensive level, research suggests that there is a need to develop local systems
to better prepare students to become competitive, productive members of society.
Role of System Leaders in Improving Student Performance
Leadership Matters
Recently, research has shown that if school reform is going to improve
student achievement, the role of leadership is critical and systematic reform requires
37
effective leadership at the district level. The successful transformation of schools
does not happen by chance but rather, student achievement outcomes are influenced
by leaders who focus on quality and equity in education (Olson, 2005). In other
words, for schools to be great, school systems need great leaders (Finn, 2003).
Applying systems theory and organizational change principles to schools has
been explored with increasing frequency in the literature in recent years, and what
we know about essential elements in effective change efforts has grown as well
(Fullan, 2001; Senge, 1990). For example, the literature indicates that school change
efforts may be more likely to fail when there is no visionary leader (Fullan, 2003),
when consultation is provided by an expert who leaves the system (Fuchs, & Fuchs,
1996), when the innovation is not well matched to the culture of the agency or school
(Kame'enui & Simmons, 1998; Ringeisen, Henderson, & Hoagwood, 2003), or when
school personnel are not concerned with the problem the school change is intended
to address (Hall & Hord, 2001).
School initiatives that are mandated by legislation, even if supported within
the organization can fail if those charged with implementation lack an understanding
of the rationale and commitment to the new procedures (Fullan,1997). Similarly, a
lack of a systems perspective and understanding of the change initiative as being
integral to other aspects of the school, could determine failure for even well
supported initiatives (Curtis & Stollar, 2002; Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, &
Smith, 1994).
38
The importance of effective leadership is further supported by Ogata’s
research (2005) which substantiated the importance of the role of local systems in
improving student achievement and identified leadership as a key factor in
successful reform. Ogata utilized the framework developed by the Center for the
Study of Teaching and Policy to examine a district’s influence on system-wide
instructional improvement and identifying seven domains needed to successfully
reform schools, system-wide. These domains included: 1) defining teaching and
learning, 2) developing the profession, 3) communicating externally and internally,
4) responding to and contending with external policy, 5) acquiring and allocating
human, fiscal and physical resources, 6) creating local systems of accountability, and
7) partnering with non-systems actors. From these seven action items, researchers
determined that outcomes were influenced by leadership focused on enhancing
quality and equity of student outcomes, and equity standards utilized to inform
action (Ogata 2005). In order to truly transform an organization to achieve large-
scale sustainable reform, there is a need for system leaders to have an understanding
of the change process, to practice organizational leadership skills, and to engage in
leading a learning organization (Senge, 1990; Broad Foundation & Thomas B.
Fordham Institute, 2003; Harvey, 2003).
Superintendents Matter
Successfully planning and implementing comprehensive change at a district
level is problematic in the current climate of turnover frequency. The average tenure
is between 5 to 6 years for superintendents (Byrd, et al., 2006) and lower in larger
39
urban districts. Inadequate preparation to handle the tremendous organizational,
political, instructional, social, and cultural challenges urban superintendents face in
providing an equitable and quality education for their students are significant factors
that contribute to their longevity (Fuller et al. 2003).
In public education, principals and district superintendents are recruited
almost exclusively from the ranks of practice, as is the case in the military and in
religious organizations. In education, one does not get the opportunity to lead
without being well socialized to the norms, values, predispositions, and routines of
the organization that one is leading, according to Elmore (2000). Yet, Waters &
Cameron (2007) posit that simply knowing what to do to increase student
achievement is not enough for transformation to occur. Educational leaders must
know why certain practices work, in which contexts, and how to skillfully apply
such practices in districts and schools.
The correlation between superintendent leadership and student achievement
is reflected in the literature. In a large quantitative meta-analysis conducted by
Waters and Marzano (2006), the researchers identified the challenges urban
superintendents face in addressing student performance. Three main findings from
this study indicate that: 1) district-level leadership matters; 2) effective
superintendents focus their efforts in creating goal-oriented districts; 3) a
superintendent’s length of time in the position is correlated with the level of student
achievement. On an instructional level, (Leithwood et al., 2004) research shows that
superintendents can significantly improve math and reading achievements in
40
students. Waters et al., (2007) also found that chief school systems leaders play an
important role in driving and improving student performance. Their research
identified twenty-one leadership responsibilities that are associated with increased
academic achievement and sustained performance.
Shifts in the Role of Superintendents
In the last decade, the role of the school superintendent has changed which
has made leading an urban school system much more complex. Historically, the
responsibilities of a superintendent were primarily managerial and administrative in
scope with such duties as budget oversight, operations and discipline.
Superintendents were deemed successful if they were able to manage buildings,
buses, books, budgets and bonds referred to as the “killer B’s”. Today,
superintendents must processes skills to effectively manage what are known as the
“crucial C’s” connection, communication, collaboration, community building, child
advocacy and curriculum in order to be successful (Houston, 2001).
Due to the unprecedented social and political environments in which urban
school system leaders operate, knowledge and ability to address the pressing
challenges of low-performing schools and gaps in student achievement are needed
(Fuller, et al. 2003; Johnson, 1996; Cuban, 1998). New and sophisticated skills sets
are needed by school system leaders to effectively address all the aspects of the data-
driven systems education had become. The Superintendent needs to be able to
analyze strengths and challenges in the district, select and implement reform
strategies that result in gains in student achievement (Takata, et al., 2007).
41
Strategies Employed by System Leaders
Concerns about the current delivery of educational services have led to a call
for a service delivery model that is precise enough to select appropriate interventions
for specific students, yet flexible enough to provide a continuum of services for
students who demonstrate diverse needs. Senge describes how companies can rid
themselves of the learning "disabilities" that threaten their productivity and success
by adopting strategies of a learning organization—ones in which new and expansive
patterns of thinking are nurtured, collective inspiration is set free and people are
continually learning how to create results they desire (Senge, 1990).
Start-up strategies utilized by new system leaders are important to examine as
they relate to the impact on student achievement. Fullan (2001) believes that by
focusing on key dimensions, leaders can improve their effectiveness. Upon arrival, a
new leader must assess a districts needs, evaluate policies and practices, develop
solutions to its problems, inspire its staff, and ensure compliance with local, state,
and national standards in order to impact student achievement in their respective
districts.
The political, economic, and social challenges chief educational leaders face
in running large urban districts, require new approaches and strategies. Some popular
theoretical frameworks in educational reform have come from business models.
While business models have their limitations in that they cannot accommodate for all
possible variables in a process, they do provide a kind of blueprint for
superintendents because superintendents face similar managerial and leadership
42
dilemmas that a CEO in business might face. The more complex society becomes,
the more sophisticated leadership must become (Fullan, 2001).
Boleman, & Deal (1997), find that leadership can be confusing in an
increasingly complex society and requires problem solving to be reframed, or viewed
from alternate perspectives. In their book, Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice
and Leadership they describe their conceptual framework as a tool to help leaders
navigate through turbulent and often conflicting environments. Their model offers
four perspectives: structural, political, human resources, and symbolic to reframe a
situation at hand, until the leader understands it. One frame (or perspective) or
multiple frames may be used to develop both a diagnosis of what they are up against
or to develop strategies to move forward.
In Good to Great, Jim Collins (2001) makes the point that leaders must have
a vision and the foresight to put the best team together in the right positions or what
he calls “getting the right people on the bus” as essential to a high functioning
organization. In a study of why good companies fail, Sull (1999) describes the
characteristics that lead to failure. They include: the continuance of outdated
processes, the hardening of values, and when the status quo replaces fresh thinking.
However, Sull (1999) also cautions new executives from the outside. The author
believes that often they end up doing more harm than good when they throw out the
“old ways” in pursuit of a common vision. However, organizational vision is
critically important. John Kotter, professor of leadership at Harvard Business School,
believes that companies must look to the future to be successful in the present. He
43
states that all institutions need effective leadership, but the need is greatest in
organizations seeking transformation (Kotter,1998).
In an empirical study sponsored by the National Center for Education
Leadership at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, Johnson (1996) examined
the interactions of the superintendents during their first two years of tenure, and a
model of effective school leadership emerged. Johnson observed that the
superintendents in the study operated from three different perspectives. They were
Educational Leaders, diagnosing and creating educational strategies to meet needs,
Political Leaders, negotiating with unions, elected officials and different funding
sources to make improvements, and superintendents were Managerial Leaders,
operating within their organizational structures to influence and motivate personnel
to effect reform.
At the post-secondary level, similar competencies are needed. Community
college presidents, superintendents and chancellors face enormous challenges in
providing an equitable and quality education for their students due to numerous
external and internal constraints. In 2005, the American Association of Community
Colleges (AACC) identified core competencies needed by today’s community
college leaders to successfully lead their institutions. The competencies include: 1)
organizational strategy, 2) resource management, 3) communication, 4)
collaboration, 5) community college advocacy, and 6) professionalism (Ottenritter,
2006).
44
The Start Up and Entry
Applebaumm, Molson, & Valero (2007) recommend that new leaders
leverage the valuable time prior to entry, using it to prepare, learn, and plan.
Approaches should be tailored to fit the technical, political, and cultural situations of
the organization. Jentz and Murphy (2005) argue that during the entry period,
relationships must be built with stakeholders, a method for learning about the
organizations must be developed, and premature or presumptuous approaches to
change must be avoided. The authors argue that using the entry period to develop an
entry plan allows the new administrator the opportunity to establish a clear
impression of how to begin the transition.
Watkins (2003) posits that without a structured transition plan with key areas
addressed, the new leader will be less effective, be exposed to more risks, and the
time to reach the “break-even point” will take longer. Watkins (2003) proposes a 90-
day transition or acceleration plan, to help new leaders meet key transitional
challenges to diagnosing the organizational situation and developing a customized
entry plan. Similarly, Neff and Citrin (2005) suggest a 100-day plan to gather
information, create alignment, and build expectations, which are critical to the
success of a new leader.
The House Model
The Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI) developed a model for urban
school reform using multiple strategic elements called the House Model. The
elements within the House Model are intended to provide strategic direction for new
45
superintendents in their efforts to reform large urban districts in years one through
three. Over 20 research-based elements exist within the model, however the USLI
has highlighted ten strategic elements of reform, which contribute to effective
leadership and increased student achievement. They include: 1) strategic plan, 2)
assessment, 3) curriculum, 4) professional development, 5) human resource system
and human capital management, 6) finance and budget, 7) communications, 8)
governance/board relations, 9) labor relations/contract negotiations and, 10) family
and community engagement. The House Model is one conceptual framework utilized
by the researchers in this study. The methodology for the implementation of this
model will be discussed in Chapter Three.
Strategic Plan
Whether a leader is experienced or not, the first priority of a leader should be
to create a vision. Those who can take that common vision and integrate it with their
experiences will be better leaders within the organization (Senge, 1990).
Organizations create value by developing strategies that are unique and sustainable
(Kaplan, & Norton, 2001). The key to vision creation is the involvement of all
stakeholders. The most common strategic planning models include the vision,
mission, and values of the organization. The plan moves to analysis of needs, to
developing strategies to meet those needs, and lastly, creating action plans for those
strategies (Reeves, 2002). In a school district, stakeholders include the entire
community. The key to vision creation is the involvement of all stakeholders.
Objectives and action plans are what the organization must achieve in order to
46
capture the vision and accomplish its mission and these objectives ought be specific
and result in student achievement (Reeves, 2002; Cook, 2001).
Assessment
The research indicates that summative assessment can be utilized as a reform
strategy by establishing: 1) clear expectations of program goals, 2) systematic levels
of proficiency, 3) explicit data revealing performance levels, and 4) progressive
accountability outcomes (Fuller, & Ruenzel, 2004; O’Day, Bitter, Kirst, Camoy,
Woody, & Buttles, 2004; Popham, 2007). 5) Promote educator accountability for the
achievement of students (Barton, 2007; Stecher, Hamilton, & Gonzalez, 2003; Earl,
& Torrance, 2000). Assessment is an informative strategy utilized to gauge and
monitor the level of proficiency and performance of any one particular set of
knowledge or skills over a period of time (Chappuis & Chappuis, 2007). Benchmark
assessments aligned to standards, curriculum, and instructional practices lead to
explicit and guided performance for higher student achievement (Ainsworth, 2007;
Gallagher & Ratzlaff, 2007/2008). “Best practice” refers to gathering of data,
analysis, interpretation, discussion, publicizing, and strategically utilizing both
summative and formative data as a tool for decision-making (Marzano, 2007).
Assessment data is needed to improve instructional practices, decision-
making, and support for learning (Gregory & Kuzmich, 2004) and to drive results-
oriented improvement efforts (Schmoker, 1999). Data and information guide
teachers in improving the quality of their instructional program and inform their
decision-making about student learning so they may tailor instructional practices to
47
meet different students’ diverse needs (Chappuis, Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, 2005).
Allocation of district resources (both capital and human) are needed to support
assessment practices and advance accountability for performance (Elmore, 2006).
Leadership is instrumental in the process of assessment practices (Reeves, 2007).
Curriculum
Educational leaders are increasingly aware in the current highly-political
environment of accountability and performance standards, there is great demand and
need for decision-making about curriculum and instruction to be linked to standards
frameworks (MacIver & Farley, 2003). A written curriculum contains essential
knowledge and skills (School Works, 2007). The SchoolWorks quality criteria
developed for the Broad Prize awarded to districts for excellence in Urban
Education, contend that clarity is achieved when districts and schools formally
identify their standards and then use them consistently throughout the curriculum
process. The district must provide and make available, materials to support and
enhance implementation of the curriculum and provide a resource bank of high-
quality standards-based classroom assessments, units of study, and published
materials that can be shared and used across classrooms and schools (Carr & Harris,
2001; MacIver & Farley, 2003). Districts must continually update the units of study
to include new and revised information, current standards, and appropriate
instructional strategies (MacIver & Farley, 2003).
48
Professional Development
The research by Marzano, Pickering & Pollock (2001) points to great
variations in quality of instruction by individual teachers and found them to have a
profound influence on student learning. High quality professional development
instruction builds human capacity to impact student outcomes and needs to be
closely related to its intended outcomes (Marzano, Pickering & Pollock, 2001).
Training outcomes should consider the intended context of district and school goals,
problems and priorities and promote continuous learning for all staff (Joyce &
Showers, 2002). Darling-Hammon’s (1999) research showed that teacher quality
linked to student achievement reinforces the fact that professional development leads
to improved student achievement, and requires ongoing study of teaching and
learning throughout the school year, not just a one shot sessions or separate,
unconnected projects. Professional development must be focused and supportive of
district and school practices. Research indicates that the practice of teachers meeting
together regularly to review student work and review instructional practices nurtures
and fosters a collaborative culture of on-going professional development, in-class
support which includes demonstration lessons, expert observations and feedback,
collegial support, data collection and analysis (Fullan, 2000; Eaker, Dufour, &
Burnetter, 2002).
Communications
The literature notes that effective communication galvanizes support,
motivates people and persuades them to endorse and lobby for or against an issue
49
(Howlett, 1993). People will support their local schools the closer people get to them
and this occurs with an effective external and internal communications plan
(Carlsmith, & Railsback, 2001). The National School Public Relations Association
(2002) found that an organization’s written procedures should be implemented
according to the governing board’s policies and should provide clear direction for
public relations issues and the plan should focus on meeting the goals of the
organization and ultimately on improving education, enhancing student achievement.
Districts must have an internal strategic plan before its public relations can be
effective (Carlsmith, & Railsback, 2001).
In effective districts, the director of communications/public relations is a
member of the superintendent’s cabinet, directly accountable to the chief executive
officer because the person with public relations responsibilities is involved with the
strategic management processes of the organization (The National School Public
Relations Association, 2002). Parents and community are critical to school
improvement, but poor community relations can create obstacles (Shatkin &
Gershberg, 2007).
Governance and Board Relations
Researchers have given considerable attention to the obstacles
superintendents face when implementing reform efforts and school boards can
impede that process (Glass, Bjork & Brummer, 2000; Elmore, 2000). Mc Adams
(2006) stresses the distinctions between the role of the board and that of the
superintendent in urban school reform, and it is not equal in the governance
50
structure. Most school boards in our democracy are locally elected officials who act
as trustees for the public to directly govern the district (although they are restricted
by federal and state laws).
A high functioning board sets policies based on a set of core beliefs and a
theory of action and that engenders a strategic plan, vision and goals. It is the board
whose role it is to allocate resources and mediate the relationship between the public
and the district. The reform-oriented superintendent cannot succeed without a
reform-governance board of education working in partnership with the
superintendent. In a high-functioning district, the superintendent is responsible for
implementation of policy, and effective management of the system (McAdams,
2006).
The relationship between the board and the superintendent is critical to urban
school reform. Strict accountability requires effective superintendents to ensure that
lines between roles and responsibilities are demarcated so as to positively impact
student achievement (McAdams, 2000; Waters & Marzano, 2006; Leithwood, 1995).
The superintendent may facilitate this by arranging for the board to participate in
board governance training (McAdams, 2000).
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations
It is critical for superintendents to build relationships in an effort to
understand the priorities of union leaders for effective collective bargaining.
Research by Ingram & Snider (2008) supports the premise that collaborative work is
essential to education reform as well as planning and analysis for negotiating
51
contracts. Negotiations should be guided by ethical behavior that stems from core
values. Credibility is a cornerstone to ensure fiscal accountability of public funds
(Ingram & Snider, 2008). Research by Hannaway & Rotherham, 2006 and Hewitt,
2007 shows that unions and management stay committed to improving student
achievement when management form partnerships that value the mutual needs and
common interests of both groups. This is not easy due to do in the inherently
political climate of negotiations.
Hess & West (2006) discuss the challenges associated with the demands
placed on leaders in relationship to union negotiations. The authors posit that
contract provisions are greatly constrained due to the policy climate and political
environment in which agreements are negotiated. They propose to school reformers
to collaborate with unions to increase flexibility, accountability and decrease self-
interests to provide children with a quality education especially as it relates to
teacher contracts since it is their work that most greatly impacts student success.
Family and Community Engagement
Research indicates that district leaders play a key role in how schools engage
in partnerships with families and communities to improve student achievement. A
study by Epstein & Sanders (2006) reveals dramatic gaps between how leaders
conduct effective partnerships. Research conducted by Henderson & Mapp (2002)
found that programs and interventions that engage families in supporting their
children’s learning at home are linked to higher student achievement. In elementary
schools where teachers reported high levels of outreach to parents, test scores grew
52
40 percent higher than in schools where teachers reported low levels of outreach.
Students made greater and more consistent gains when teachers were active in their
outreach. Outreach to parents includes: meeting with parents face to face, sending
materials on ways to help their child at home, and telephoning parents routinely
when their child is having problems. Starkley and Klein (2000) posit that parent
programs and interventions work best when strategies respect the needs of families,
when programs and initiatives focus on building respectful and trusting relationships
among school staff, families, and community members, and when they are effective
in creating and sustaining family and community connections with school. Districts
build strong connections between schools and community organizations by assisting
families with parenting and child-rearing skills, understanding child and adolescent
development, and helping parents create home conditions that support school
children at each age and grade level (Warner, 2000).
White, middle-class families are more involved than other types of families
when it comes to school involvement. However, research shows that students with
involved parents, no matter what their income or background, were more likely to
earn higher grade and test scores, enroll in higher-level programs, pass their classes
and earn credits, attend school regularly, have better social skills, show improved
behavior, adapt well to school, graduate, and go on to postsecondary education
(Henderson & Mapp, 2002). On the effects of parental involvement on minority
children’s academic achievement, research by Jeynes (2003) reveals that parental
53
involvement is important in influencing the academic outcomes of their school
children.
Human Resources System and Human Capital Management
When considering reform strategies that most impact student achievement,
one can’t overlook the importance of human resources and human capital
management, especially as it relates to teacher selection. Research shows that teacher
effectiveness is critical to improving student performance. Marzano (2003)
researched the effects of school and teacher effectiveness on student achievement
and found it to be the most influential factor that affects student achievement.
Teachers effectiveness is demonstrated in three areas: instructional strategies,
classroom management, and classroom curriculum design. An Education Trust
(2003) research substantiates the research of Marzano (2003) about teacher
effectiveness. Low-performing schools advance when they are supported at a district
level with systematic strategies that target instructional support, professional
development, and performance plans with annual targets. In order to improve
achievement, districts must continually strengthen teachers’ skills and knowledge,
(Childress et al, 2007).
Finance and Budget
The Superintendent needs to understand all aspects of school finance in order
to ensure fiscal solvency vital to district survival. Being knowledgeable and skilled
in the areas of data management, development and management of budgets, legal
facets of fiscal compliance and problem solving is imperative to lead a district to
54
improved student achievement (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Superintendents that
align the budget with instructional priorities are likely to have increases in the
academic achievement of students as well (Childress, et al., 2007; Waters &
Marzano, 2006).
Leadership Preparation
The effectiveness of school leadership preparation programs in the United
States has been the focus of research and analysis in recent years (Murphy &
Vrisenga, 2006). The high stakes accountability and unprecedented social and
political environment in which urban superintendents and other urban educational
system leaders operate require preparation programs to address critical issues in
education such as closing the gaps in achievement and low-performing schools.
Educational programs must prepare system leaders to overcome these and other
challenges by teaching effective and sustainable change strategies that are
appropriate to actual practice and that allow for district level reform to occur (Fuller,
Campbell, Celio, Harvey, Immerwahr & Winder, 2003; Johnson, 1996; Cuban,
1998). Several researchers suggest that over the years, universities have generally
failed to adequately prepare superintendents and other educational leaders with the
knowledge and skills needed to effectively lead reform efforts (Bjork, Kowolski &
Browne-Ferrigno, 2005).
Other critical issues such as impending leadership turnovers in K-12 and
community colleges due to upcoming baby-boomer retirements, require effective
leadership preparation programs to ready the next generation of leaders for the
55
challenges they will face in urban education today. Leadership preparation programs
must support the need for the recruitment of candidates with high-level political
managerial and leadership skills and better pre-service and in-service programs that
focus on public management as well as education theory (Fuller et al., 2003).
New Leaders for New Schools
The complexity of political, economic, and social challenges in large urban
districts weighs heavily on the professional and personal lives of urban
superintendents and may contribute to the difficulty of attracting able leaders to
these. In an attempt to improve school system performance, several states passed
laws over the past decade changing certification requirements for superintendents,
effectively permitting a nontraditional superintendent (a non-educator) to be hired by
a district. Although non-traditional Superintendents who come from outside the K-12
arena often have political skills and finesse, they are still challenged with
overcoming the same issues as their traditional counterparts (Fusarelli, 2006).
With new accountability measures in place and high stakes testing now the
norm, the hiring of non-traditional superintendents in large urban districts is a
direction that many school districts have been moving towards, and there is no sign
the movement is waning. These new chief leaders in education from the business
industry and the military bring non-traditional systems thinking to the school
districts they are leading (Mathews, 2001). It is important to note however, that
improved leadership alone cannot replace the need for reworking and even re-
56
conceptualizing district governance, preparation and support programs (Bjork, et al.
2005).
Innovative University and Non-University Preparation Programs
University programs have struggled over the years to find a balance between
practice and research and there is now a need for alternative programs that prepare
urban educational leaders (Shulman, Golde, Bueschel & Garabedian, 2006).
Critiques about the effectiveness of school superintendent preparation programs have
led to efforts to strengthen the preparatory function of such programs. The Carnegie
Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) is a project intended to rethink how
educational university preparation programs are designed.
Newly redesigned educational doctoral program models have only recently
begun to address this need as demonstrated by the emergence of university programs
that blend research and practice to better prepare new educational leaders for the
challenges they will face in urban education (Dembo & Marsh, 2007). The
University of Southern California Ed.D. program, is a three-year practitioner model
that embraces four core values including: leadership, accountability, diversity, and
learning. The overall goal of the program is to produce highly skilled leaders and
problem solvers prepared to improve public education. The program is designed for
practitioners in the field of education. Correspondingly, the Ph.D. program in the
USC School of Education, is grounded firmly in conducting research as opposed to a
practicum experience.
57
Past university failures have led to alternative preparation programs (Bjork et
al., 2005). Prominent philanthropic organizations and foundations with educational
missions have been actively involved in transforming national education and making
a case for alternative preparation programs. For example, The Broad Foundation and
Thomas B. Fordham Institute called for the deregulation in superintendent training.
A research study they conducted in 2003, led to their report entitled Better Leaders
for America’s Schools which they found, revealed three themes: 1) university-based
preparation programs and state licensing standards are meaningless hoops that are
not necessary; 2) business executives and retired military officers would be willing
to take on the role of superintendents if they could circumvent the traditional
educational route to superintendency; 3) school reform efforts have failed largely
due to the ineffectiveness of educational leaders.
Need to Improve Leadership Programs
The preparation of school superintendents is critical to improving education,
although there are dilemmas and difficulties inherent in the process. In research
conducted, superintendents believed that there was a need to improve training
programs, but critical to their success as educational leaders was experience (Glass,
Bjork and Brunner, 2002; and Bjork, et al., 2005).
The research and analysis of programs, certificates, and policy surrounding
the preparation of school superintendents by Cooper, Fusarelli, Jackson, & Poster
(2002) revealed five problematic areas: 1) Training programs in university settings
are confronted with the dilemmas of coordinating the preparation to the time
58
superintendents actually take office and found this timing critical to becoming an
effective leader, 2) university programs strive to connect theory-based academic
degrees (doctorates) and practice, 3) superintendents need more than a two-year
program; they require life-long help and instruction, 4) superintendents want national
and regional learning networks to give them the support and knowledge they need,
and 5) professionals in the field seek to be kept current in the latest theories of
leadership, technology, curriculum theory, law, labor relations, and finance (Cooper
et al., 2002).
There is a need for further research to determine the effects that prior
experience, district context and needs has on the effectiveness of superintendents.
Research shows that even superintendents with educational backgrounds feel under
prepared to undertake positions as chief leaders of their district (Fuller et al., 2003).
The Urban School Leadership Institute
Urban educational system leaders require preparation programs that address
critical issues in education such as closing the gaps in achievement and improving
low performing schools. Educational programs must prepare system leaders to
overcome these and other challenges by teaching effective and sustainable change
strategies that are appropriate to actual practice and that increase their capacity to
implement district level reform.
The Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI) is one such innovative and
intensive preparation program. USLI is a 10-month executive management program
that prepares CEO’s and senior executives to lead urban public school systems.
59
Exceptional leaders with diverse backgrounds and experience are recruited from
various industries such as business, military, government, and education sectors,
including recruits with prior superintendent experience. Those chosen for the highly
selective superintendent program, attend seven weekend training sessions in which
they learn (or refine) CEO level skills in the areas of educational finance,
management, operational excellence, organizational systems, and instructional
design models (Quinn, 2007).
Superintendents chosen to lead districts who have prior educational work
experience, have advantages and strengths they bring to their positions. Mainly such
strengths involve knowledge and experience of instructional pedagogy. Conversely,
established leaders from other sectors with no prior educational background who
choose the superintendency also find their prior success and leadership adds value to
the positions as superintendents (Quinn, 2007).
Summary
This chapter began with a historical perspective of the legislative policy
changes now mandated to increase accountability for student outcomes. Synthesis of
the literature explored student achievement trends in the United States and revealed
sobering achievement gaps between minority and majority students. The research
presented in this literature review provided student performance trends in the United
States as compared to students in other countries. U.S. students are not performing at
the same high levels as their international counterparts. Such inadequate
performance in international comparisons does not bode well for the United States as
60
global competitiveness could weaken our economy and our standard of living if we
do not produce a future workforce that is viable.
The literature review highlighted numerous research studies citing the
importance of local systems in improving student achievement. Further, the literature
reflected the role urban superintendents play in improving student achievement as
significant. Numerous strategies informed the review of the literature. These
strategies included:
1. Strategic Plan
2. Assessment
3. Curriculum
4. Professional Development
5. Human Resource System and Human Capital Management
6. Finance and Budget
7. Communications
8. Governance and Board Relations
9. Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations
10. Family and Community Engagement
A need to prepare urban superintendents for the challenges they face in an
increasingly political climate has led to newly redesigned educational doctoral
program models and the emergence of non-university programs that blend research
and practice to better prepare new educational leaders for the challenges they will
face in urban education. One such alternative program is the Urban School
61
Leadership Institute, an innovative superintendent training program teaching
effective and sustainable change strategies that are appropriate to actual practice to
increase a superintendent’s capacity to implement district level reform.
Researchers at the Urban School Leadership Institute developed a systemic
reform model called the House Model. The House Model also provided a conceptual
framework for this study of reform strategies engaged by a system leader to improve
student achievement in a large urban school district. The methodology for how this
model was used will be discussed in the next chapter.
62
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the research design, sample, instrumentation and
methodology for data collection and data analysis applied in this study. The main
purpose of the study is to describe and analyze ten key change levers utilized by
urban superintendents, which have been identified by The Urban School Leadership
Institute (USLI) as those most likely to positively impact student achievement. A
related purpose of the study is to identify what influence the district context and
superintendent’s preparation program had on the system leader’s use of the key
change levers. These ten change levers of focus on: (a) assessment, (b) curriculum,
(c) professional development, (d) human resource system and human capital
management, (e) finance and budget, (f) communications, (g) governance and board
relations, (h) labor relations/contract negotiations, (i) family and community
engagement and (j) the district’s strategic plan. These elements are part of USLI’s
three-year model, designed to aid the system leader in planning sustainable student
achievement. This analytic case study will examine two research questions and
related four sub-questions.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study include:
1. How are the ten key change levers being used by USLI superintendents in
their respective districts?
63
a. How does the quality and degree of implementation of reform strategies
correspond to the strengths and challenges in the district when the
superintendent took office?
b. What additional major change levers (if any) were used? How do they
correspond to the elements of the House model?
c. How does the choice and implementation of the ten key change levers
correspond to the previous background/experiences of the
superintendent?
Qualitative Method-Case Study
This qualitative research design includes conceptual frameworks and utilizes
a case study mixed-methods approach. A good qualitative study “seeks to discover
and understand a phenomenon, a process, or the perspectives and worldviews of the
people involved” (Mirriam, 1998, p.11). This in-depth analytic case study of an
urban school superintendent called for a qualitative methodology. According to
Patton (2002) case studies are particularly valuable when they are well constructed,
they are holistic, and they are context sensitive. The use of detailed, descriptive case
studies provide rich information that yield insights and in-depth understanding as
opposed to empirical generalizations.
In some cases, researchers are interested in studying phenomena in depth for
the purpose of uncovering fine details. For example, The National Research Council
(2002) points out: “To better understand a high-achieving school in an urban setting
with children of predominantly low socioeconomic status, a researcher might
64
conduct a detailed case study of such a school. The scientific description can provide
rich descriptions of the policies, procedures, and contexts in which the schools
operate and generate plausible hypothesis about what might account for its success”
(p. 105-106).
This research study seeks to explore the process of school reform in order to
bring about necessary changes to improve student achievement, therefore a case
study is appropriate (Cresswell, 2003). This research design calls for a case study
because little is known about reform strategies levers or key strategies used by urban
school systems leaders that improve student achievement. Further, a case study
would shed light on what influences, if any, the district context and preparation
program had on the district leader’s use of key reform strategies. (Cresswell, 2003).
The unit of analysis for this research study is an urban school district and its
district leader, the superintendent. The superintendent is a graduate of The Urban
School Leadership Institute. USLI has been innovative in exploratory research
seeking to understand more about district reform strategies used by successful USLI
superintendents and the impact the training academy had on their work in their
respective districts. This study builds upon Phase I of a pilot research project
conducted May 1, 2007 to Nov. 30, 2007 by principal investigators Dr. David Marsh
and Dr. Rudy Castruita from the University of Southern California, and Dr. Jennifer
Welsh Takata from The Urban School Leadership Foundation.
The overall purpose of Phase I was to create useful findings based on a
conceptual framework and case study methodology. In Phase I, the principal
65
investigators studied two graduates of the Broad Superintendents Academy, and
generated theses and recommended future research for Phase II of the research
project. In Phase I, the research project sought to explore and learn more about how
prospective urban superintendents are being prepared through the Urban School
Leadership Institute (Marsh, Castruita & Takata, 2007). The principal investigators
preliminary findings revealed that a continuation of the study would provide
meaningful data by diversifying the sample of districts and USLI graduates, and
suggested the following recommendations to enhance the study for future research:
1. Cross-site comparison of eight to ten USLI graduates to confirm and
extend the tentative findings from this study;
2. Extended data collection including observations of a board meeting
and/or classrooms;
3. Evaluation of degree of implementation (high, medium, low) of various
House elements using rubrics;
4. Evaluation of district documents (entry plan, strategic plan, etc.) using
rubrics;
5. Interview current USLI participants to identify current gaps in curriculum
and training as well as potential, future coaching needs, etc.;
6. Analysis of case studies and other USLI materials that would determine
alignment between teaching tools and elements of the House Model
(p.24).
66
The purpose of Phase II was to create a set of useful ideas, findings, and
implications that fundamentally enhances the preparation of urban superintendents
and systems leaders and that supports their early work. Phase II summarizes and
builds on the Phase I work and the findings for 10 additional graduates of the Broad
Superintendents Academy. To accomplish the Phase II data collection in a timely
and cost efficient manner, Professors David Marsh and Rudy Castruita engaged a
cohort of USC doctoral students in the study. Each student was an advanced
doctoral student who had the appropriate educational background and perspective to
qualify for work on this study.
Sample Criteria and Population
One large school district superintendent was purposefully selected due to
meeting the criteria set for this study. Purposeful sampling allows one to learn a great
deal of in-depth information by selecting information-rich cases that are centrally
important to the purpose of the study. Purposefully selecting an urban school district
superintendent allowed for powerful insights through inquiries that revealed
strategies used to improve student achievement. Further, purposeful sampling
allowed for inquiries to better enable an understanding of the influences that the
district context (Patton, 2002) and the preparation program had on the system
leader’s use of key levers.
Participants for this analytic case study were identified with the assistance
and consultation of the Urban School Leadership Foundation and the University of
Southern California, using criterion sampling. Prior to being invited to participate in
67
the case study, superintendents who met the selection criteria for the study were
informed about the purpose of the study. They also decided who at each site should
be included in the study. It was decided that “key players” would be included to
further triangulate the data collected. Key players included executive staff members
and others mentioned by the superintendent to have some level of expertise in the
superintendent’s and the districts use of the ten reform strategies selected for
analysis. For the interview portion of the study, those individuals in key positions
identified by the superintendent who were considered highly knowledgeable in the
district and system leader’s use of the key change levers were interviewed. This case
study included multiple participants. They included: the district superintendent, two
key-players, and key reform strategy personnel (for example: cabinet level officers,
district-level directors and principals). All persons involved in this study participated
voluntarily and were given assurances that their confidentiality and anonymity would
be protected. The principal investigators, and the ten USC doctoral students in the
study collectively identified the following parameters established for the research.
1. The district must be identified from the largest 125 school systems in the
United States;
2. The superintendent must have been in office for at least two years and
since 2006;
3. The superintendent must have graduated from the Urban School
Leadership Institute superintendent preparation program, and still be in
office.
68
Fourteen districts were initially selected as potential sites. From these, ten
were ultimately selected. The ten doctoral student researchers on the team conducted
parallel research at the ten chosen districts. Each researcher selected one district to
conduct the analytical case study. The district for this researcher’s case study was
selected because it met the size criteria set for the study, the district had a USLI
graduate, the superintendent had been in office for at least two years, since 2006, and
the superintendent was still in office. The methodology for data collection was
designed and mutually agreed upon by the research team of ten doctoral students and
principal investigators, Dr. Marsh and Dr. Castruita. Researchers used an interview
guide for the superintendent and key players.
Selected District Profile
Selected District Profile and Demographics
The Rocky Mountain Public School District (RMPSD) has an average
enrollment of 32,200 students as of October, 2007. It has 48 schools including: 32
elementary schools (49.8% of total enrollment); 7 middle schools (22.7%) and 4 high
schools (25.9%). The remaining 1.6% of the school population is divided among 3
charter schools, 1 alternative school, and one technical center.
RMPSD’s students speak 84 languages, with 89% being Spanish speakers.
Thirty seven percent are second language learners. The student population groups
include: Native American (0.9%); Asian (4.1%); Black (20.8%); Hispanic/Latino
(51.6%); and White (22.6%).
69
The district’s strategic vision aims to graduate every student with the option
to go to college without remediation. Currently, the graduation rate is 61.8 percent
(four-year cohort), and the dropout rate is 9.9%. The annual budget for the 2006-
2007 year was 246 million dollars. The district allocates seventy-seven cents of
every dollar from the total RMPSD operating budget to support instructional
programming. Fifty-nine percent of students receive free and reduced lunch.
Instrumentation
The methodology for the data collection, including instrumentation utilized,
were designed by a cohort of ten doctoral students who met regularly in a
dissertation seminar under the advisement of Dr. David Marsh and Dr. Rudy
Castruita in the winter and spring of 2008. The cohort research team collaboratively
developed the research design, planned the methodology for data collection and
analysis, and designed the interview guides. After numerous revisions, the cohort
developed and finalized the design instruments that would best address the research
questions. The key components of the study, including the research questions, data
collection procedures, and the processes for data analysis were all specifically
developed and emerged from three conceptual frameworks.
In order to design a research study with connection and relevance between
data needs, data sources and data collection instruments, it was decided that two
research questions and four sub-questions would require three frameworks. The
conceptual frameworks served as a means to focus on the key components of the
questions.
70
Conceptual Framework #1-House Model
The first research question asked, “How are the ten key reform strategies
being used by USLI superintendents in their respective districts”? The House Model
is the conceptual framework developed by the Broad Academy staff through a
review of relevant current literature and research based best practices. The model
provides a visual representation of the reform strategies used by the USLI in its ten
month training sessions and curriculum. Figure 1 depicts the House Model.
Overall, the model represents a map of various strategic elements that today’s
educational leaders must address in their roles as systems leaders. The House model
has four broad parts referred to as “rooms” which include: Foundational Elements,
Instructional Alignment, Operational Excellence, and Stakeholder Connection &
Satisfaction. These rooms are designed for the new systems leader to address the
strategic element or organizational issue, in sequential order.
71
Figure 1. The Urban School Leadership House Model
Instructional
Alignment
- Standards
- Curriculum
- Professional
Development
- Assessment
- Program
Effectiveness
Operational
Excellence
- Organizational
Chart
- Leadership Team
Effectiveness
- Performance
Management
System /
Accountability
Plan
- Human Resources
- Finance
- Facilities
Stakeholder
Connections &
Satisfaction
- Governance
- Labor Relations
- Stakeholder
Satisfaction
Survey
- Constituent Service
- Politics / VIP
Relationships
- Communications
Theory of Action Resource Reallocation
Strategic Plan Data Dashboard
Entry Plan 100
Days
1
year
3 years
2 years
Increasing Student Achievement
Closing Achievement Gaps
Improving College Readiness
72
For example, the strategic components located in the Foundational Elements
room are to be addressed during year one of the superintendent’s arrival. They
include: the Entry Plan (first 100 days), Strategic Plan, Theory of Action, Data
Dashboard, and Resource Reallocation. Instructional Alignment has various
components. Operational Excellence, Stakeholder Connection and Satisfaction also
have multiple components or strategies, designed to be implemented in year two. In
total, the four rooms of the House model have roughly 24 areas or elements that can
be used strategically to positively impact student achievement. The model was
designed to successfully guide the district by year three, toward progress in
achieving the end goals. These include:
• Increasing student achievement
• Closing achievement gaps
• Improving college and workplace readiness
These are the goals toward which USLI believes any K-12 school system should
strive to achieve. They represent a district’s “bottom line” or the most critical
measures of success.
Conceptual Framework #2-Ten Key Reform Strategies
From the elements in the House Model, ten key change levers have been
identified for inquiry in this study. The ten reform strategies in the house model will
focus and ground this research project because they have been identified in current
research as those most likely to positively impact student achievement (The Urban
School Leadership Academy, 2004).
73
As described earlier, the ten key reform strategies focused on in this study
include: 1) Assessment, 2) Curriculum, 3) Communications, 4) Family and
Community Engagement, 5) Finance and Budget, 6) Governance and Board
Relations, 7) Human Resource System and Human Capital Management, 8) Labor-
Relations and Contract Negotiations, 9) Professional Development, and 10) Strategic
Planning.
Research questions one and the three sub-questions were designed to reveal
information about the superintendent’s change strategies. Phase I of this research
project revealed that there are two factors that have great influence over the desired
outcomes in relation to the reform strategies. These include:
1. The level of the implementation
2. The quality of the implementation
To help answer the research question, rating rubrics were developed for each of the
ten reform strategies that are the focus of this study. The rubrics were developed
based on current research by the research team, to evaluate the quality, selection, and
implementation of the ten reform strategies used by the system leader.
Conceptual Framework #3-Strengths and Challenges Strategy
By assessing strengths and challenges, systems leaders are equipped with
information to drive their reform efforts. For example, new educational systems
leaders must assess their particular situation and determine the strengths and
weaknesses of the district. The new leader will need to understand how the
74
challenges of the particular situation, environment, and available resources will
allow for the appropriate strategies to be formulated, communicated and actualized.
In Chapter 4, the researcher discusses the implications of this study for
community college system leaders and usefulness of the House Model in that
educational sector. To answer this question will not entail more data collection.
Rather, it is a reflection of possible implications against a framework of the
community college issues presented in the introduction and literature review.
Data Collection Instruments
After numerous revisions, the research team collaboratively developed and
finalized three instruments for data collection to provide relevant qualitative data and
allow for the analytical case study. They include the: 1) Superintendent/System
Leader Guide, 2) Key Player Interview Guide and 3) Reform Specific Interview
Guide. The instruments were specifically designed and used to address the research
questions for the purpose of identifying reform strategies utilized by urban
superintendents that improve student achievement in their respective districts.
Further, the instruments also identify what influence the district context and
preparation program had on the system leader’s use of key levers, and what impact
those key levers has had on student performance.
In order to gain a deeper and broader understanding of the House model and
the reform strategies or elements which make up the model, the research team met
with USLI staff in spring, 2008. Rubrics for each of the ten reform strategies were
developed to better structure and deepen the data analysis.
75
Through the utilization of a variety of instruments, the researchers were
better equipped to gather rich information related to the purpose of the study and to
triangulate the data (Gall, Borg, and Gall, 1996) collected to allow for a more in-
depth analysis. The research team correlated instruments of data collection, data
needs, and research questions by creating a collection/instrument chart (Table 1). An
“X” indicates that information from the instrument would address the corresponding
research question(s).
Table 1. Relationship of Data Collection Instruments to Research Questions
RQ 1:
How are the ten key
reform strategies
being used by
superintendents to
improve student
achievement in his or
her respective
district?
RQ1a:
How does the quality
and implementation of
ten reform strategies
correspond to the
strengths and
challenges of the
district when the
superintendent took
office?
RQ 1b:
What additional
reform
strategies (if
any) were used?
How do they
correspond to
the elements of
the House
model?
RQ 1c:
How does the
choice and
implementation of
the ten reform
strategies
correspond to the
previous
background/
experiences of the
superintendent?
Superintendent
Interview Guide
X X X X
Key Player
Interview Guide
X X X
Specific
Dimensions of
Reform
Interview Guide
X X
76
Data Collection Instruments
As Table 1 shows, the three instruments are grounded in the three conceptual
frameworks and were developed to better understand the relationships between gains
made in student achievement and the use of change strategies selected by the
superintendent.
Instrument 1: Superintendent/System Leader Guide (see Appendix A).
The Superintendent Interview Guide included a set of four open-ended
questions designed for a one-hour interview on day one and a one-hour follow up
interview on day two. On day one, questions and probing questions focused on the
strengths and challenges of the district and key strategies utilized in reform efforts to
improve student achievement. On day two, the interview questions focused on how
past experiences had prepared the superintendent for leadership and use of reform
strategies. Each question was designed to collect rich data that would address all
research questions and sub-questions.
Key Player Interview Guide (see Appendix B)
The Key Player Interview Guide was designed to include open-ended
questions in one sixty-minute interview of key informants that had expertise in the
superintendent’s use of reform strategies. The questions focused on developing a
better understanding of the district prior to arrival of the superintendent and the
specific process the superintendent used to impact student achievement.
77
Reform Specific Interview Guide (see Appendix C)
The Lever Specific Interview Guide were based on the review of literature
and, and provide the conceptual framework for the extent of the implementation. The
rubrics were used as a probe in the interviews. The rubric measures the quality of
relevant actions utilizing a three point Likert scale ranging from high (3) medium (2)
to low (1). The main use of the rubrics was in the data analysis.
Data Collection
Approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of
Southern California was required and obtained prior to data collection. Dr. Marsh
submitted one IRB proposal for all ten doctoral members of the research team,
representing ten individual case studies. After meeting compliance guidelines
required by the IRB, the researchers received an Approval Notice for Research
Involving Human Subjects, an Information Sheet for Non-Medical Research, and a
Telephone Contact Protocol. After receiving IRB approval, each member chose two
research sites. The first site included a superintendent who was an USLI graduate.
Due to the strong relationship the principal investigators (Dr. Marsh and Dr.
Castruita) had with The Urban School Leadership USLI’s interest in the outcomes of
this research, USLI staff assisted the principal investigators and the research team at
various times during this research project, including initial identification of potential
research sites.
Once the researcher team received IRB approval, each of the ten doctoral
students selected a different USLI research site located across the United States. It
78
was agreed that the research would be conducted in pairs to maximize use of the
two-day research site schedule. Each doctoral student researcher was joined by the
one principal investigator from Phase I. Upon selection, a principal investigator
made the initial contact with the USLI superintendent by telephone for a ten-minute
introduction and to provide to a brief overview of the purpose of the study. The
superintendent was asked to identify key informants or key players for each key
reform strategy, who could speak about the superintendent’s and/or the district’s use
of the ten key reform strategies to impact student achievement. Participation in the
study was completely voluntary and each participant was assured of confidentiality
and informed of their right to refuse to be interviewed. Further, they were informed
about their right to refuse to answer any individual question, if they were so inclined.
The interviews were located on a campus or at the district office of the
respective districts. The USLI district agreed to participate in this study. Each person
interviewed was briefed about the purpose of the study and informed about the
importance of their role in aiding the research team to create a set of useful ideas,
finding, implications that enhances the preparation and early work of urban
superintendents. For both sites selected for this research, interviews were conducted
during a two-day period. Table 2 describes the data collection activities
79
Table 2. Data Collection Activities
Morning of
Day One
Afternoon of
Day One
Morning of
Day Two
Afternoon of
Day Two
Superintendent
Interview
X X
Key Player
Interview
X
Strategy specific
Interview
X X
The interview with the USLI superintendent lasted approximately one hour
on day one. After the interview with the superintendent, the two-member site
research team fanned off to interview different key players initially identified by the
superintendent. Each interview lasted one hour and was conducted at the
participant’s office. At the end of day one, the site researcher team convened again to
share information and review field notes while information was fresh. Multiple data
sources allowed for a rich collection such as recorded interviews, extensive field
notes, document analysis, observations and district performance data. The interviews
were located on a campus or at the district office of the respective districts. In the
morning of day two, researchers conducted several one-hour interviews with key
players and collected documents mentioned by key players in interviews, if they
were available. In the afternoon of day two, the researchers met again with the
superintendent for a follow up one-hour interview that focused on past experiential
leadership and preparation for the position. The interview time was also used to
80
clarify data collected and to provide for any missing links in information that may
have been raised during interviews with the key players.
All interviews were digitally recorded in order to be transcribed at a later
date. Interviews were transcribed verbatim by a third party outside of the district and
were specifically codified to protect confidentiality. In compliance with guidelines
required by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Southern
California, any information obtained by the researcher for this study will be kept
confidential. The participants will not have their answers or responses published
while connected to this study. Therefore, participant and schools are assigned
pseudonyms to ensure their anonymity. The information is factual. Documents and
other artifact were obtained from the district leader or USLI.
Analysis of Data
The main purpose of the study was to learn more about strategies used by
urban superintendents that improve student achievement and what influences the
decision to use those strategies. Further, to use this data to reflect on implications for
community college systems leaders. Two research questions with three related sub-
questions were developed to address the purpose of the study. The questions called
for three conceptual frameworks, which enabled the creation of all interview guides
as well as the data collection process and procedures.
Qualitative data included the researchers transcripts from the interviews and
field notes. Early analysis of data began on the same day of interviews with the use
of the Lever Specific Interview Guide. The lever rubric requires a justification for
81
category selection which aided the researcher in determining the use of the ten key
change levers used by the systems leaders, the level of the implementation, and the
quality of the implementation of the key levers. The strategy specific rubrics were
used to garner more information during the interviews when appropriate. The
strategy specific rubrics measured the quality of relevant actions utilizing a five point
Likert scale ranging from high (5) medium (3) to low (1).
The analysis required the data be highly organized in this single case study
and comparative analysis of the ten USLI superintendents. Due to the mixed methods
methodology employed in this study and the rich data collected, the researchers were
able to cross check data and test for consistency. Charts allowed the researchers to
synthesize the data, draw conclusions, and discover themes. A matrix was developed
to categorize patterns and commonalities. In September, 2008 a ten page summary
of findings was presented to the Urban School Leadership Foundation to aid in their
efforts to better prepare urban superintendents.
Data analysis was extended into the fall of 2008 for reflection on the
implications of the overall research project to community college systems leaders.
Qualitative data included the researchers transcripts from the interviews and field
notes. This analytic case study led to important findings about the strategies used by
USLI superintendents to improve student achievement. Additionally, the research
design and analysis allowed for inquiry into what influences the decision to use those
specific strategies.
82
Overall, the research design allowed for important findings that contributes to
the knowledge base about the preparation of urban education system leaders at the
K-12 to the community college level.
Validity and Reliability
Due to the design of this study, the researcher was able to triangulate the data
of recorded interviews, field notes, document analysis, observations, and district
performance data to better ensure validity and reliability (Cresswell, 2003). Due to
the case study methodology employed in this research, external validity could not be
controlled for. The finding in this case study of effective practices that have proven
successful in one context, may not or may not be generalizable to other contexts,
however, the study and research provides useful information to those interested in
best-practices of successful school reform strategies.
Summary
The research and design methodology applied in this study included specific
information with regard to design, sample, instrumentation, data collection, and data
analysis. The procedures and instruments used in the study were collaboratively
developed by the members of the doctoral cohort and were approved by the
Institutional Review Board of the University of Southern California. The permission
to use district documents and personnel was voluntarily granted by the district
superintendent and no actions were taken without their express consent. All
processes for collection of data were transparent to the superintendent and disclosed
83
prior to the site visit. Results and findings from the data analysis will be presented in
Chapter Four.
84
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to learn more about how reform strategies and
systemic changes are used by new superintendents to increase student achievement
in large urban school context and settings. The focus of this evaluation was to
discover the strategies that an Urban School Leadership Academy graduate
implements to improve student achievement that results in positive outcomes in their
role as a superintendent of a major urban public school system. The study builds
upon the exploratory Phase I study of Urban Superintendents who participated in the
Urban School Leadership Academy. These evaluation results will be used to develop
strategies and suggestions that fundamentally enhance the preparation of urban
superintendents, support their early work as superintendents and offer reflections as
to the usefulness of the House Model design of educational reform at the community
college level.
This study explored the strengths and challenges within one school district
prior to the arrival of the superintendent, the professional background of the
incoming superintendent, as well as the strategies implemented by that system leader
to improve student achievement. Additionally, the specific strategies implemented
were measured to determine the quality of the reform effort, as well as the level of
implementation both prior to and after the arrival of the superintendent.
The data was collected and examined using a case study methodology. One
research question and three sub-questions were developed to examine how the
superintendent assessed the strengths and challenges in their district and how they
85
arrived at the reform strategies chosen to impact student achievement. The data for
this study was primarily qualitative, collected by two researchers from the University
of Southern California. The data was collected from transcripts of interviews and
field notes with the superintendent, two key informants, and ten small groups
identified by the superintendent as knowledgeable with regards to the different
reform strategies that had been chosen for implementation.
The findings of the study were organized around the following overarching
research question:
How are the 10 key reform strategies being used by USLA superintendents to
improve student achievement in his or her respective district?
Three guiding sub-questions further focused the study into the following
areas:
a. how does the quality and implementation of 10 key reform strategies
correspond to the strengths and challenges of the district when the
superintendent took office?
b. what additional reform strategies (if any) were used?
c. how do the choice and implementation of the 10 key reform strategies
correspond to the previous background/experiences of the
superintendent?
Additionally, supporting documents and quantitative reports were collected
from the district and the state of Colorado web sites and The Urban School
Leadership Foundation. This data was utilized to identify trends and commonalities
86
in responses from participants that were then categorized by the conceptual
framework developed by The Urban School Leadership Academy called The House
Model, as described in Chapter Three. The model was developed by the Urban
School Leadership Academy staff and provides a visual representation of the reform
model that is used by The Urban School Leadership Academy in its training sessions
and curriculum. The House Model includes strategic reform areas for
superintendents to focus on in years one and two of their tenure. The elements of
reform are clustered in four rooms with the goal of improving student achievement,
closing the achievement gaps, and improving college readiness for students. Data
was collected in July, 2008 using five data collection instruments as described in
Chapter Three including: (1) Superintendent Interview Guide (Appendix A); (2) Key
Player Interview Guide (Appendix B); (3) Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview
Guide (Appendix C); (4) Quality Rubric (Appendix D); and, (5) Implementation
Rubric (Appendix E).
Data was interpreted and analyzed using the process of triangulation where
multiple sources of information were available to support findings. This
methodology supported the reliability and validity of the findings. Further
interpretation and analysis of data was conducted during collaborative work sessions
with the eleven other members of the USC research team who were utilizing the
same tools and processes to study nine additional districts. The findings from the
research, as well as a detailed analysis and discussion of the data are presented in this
chapter and organized according to the research questions.
87
Findings
The District Background Characteristics and Description
Rocky Mountain Public Schools (RMPS) is a diverse mid-size urban school
district serving approximately 32,643 students, and the demographic distribution of
the student population is as follows: 51.6% Latino, 20.8% African-American, 22.5%
White, 4.1% Asian, and 0.4% are Native American. English Language Learner
(ELL) students comprise 37% of total enrollment while 59% are eligible to receive
free and reduced lunch. These students speak 84 languages, and 89% of them are
Spanish speakers.
Table 3. District Demographics
District Size White Black Hispanic Other FRSL
36,643% 22.5% 20.8% 51.6% 0.5% 59.0%
Comments: The rapid growth has brought about changes in student demographics in the last decade
from a 80% White student enrollment, to a nearly 80% minority student population. Rocky Mountain
now55% more ELL (English Language Learners) and 25% more FRSL (Free Reduced Student
Lunch) students over that same 6-year time period.
The community of Bronco City remained small (approximately 4,500) until
after World War II. Postwar suburban development transformed the town into what
became the fastest growing city in the United States during the late 1970s and early
1980s. Bronco City in which the RMPS district is located, was founded over a
century ago. It has a long history of support for and engagement with the RMPS
district. In recent decades, the population has grown to almost 300,000. The rapid
88
growth has brought about changes in student demographics in the last decade from
what was a largely Caucasian student enrollment, to what is now a nearly 80%
minority student population. This shift brought about many teaching and learning
challenges leading to disparities in education between the white and the ethnic
student populations.
There are 51 schools in the district: 31 elementary schools, seven middle
schools, four comprehensive high schools, one alternative high school and five
charter schools. The district also has one of only five vocational/technical colleges
in the state. RMPS has over 2000 licensed teachers. Nearly 98% percent of the
classes are taught by “highly qualified” teachers (HQT), as defined by the No Child
Left Behind Act. The teacher demographics include 88.8% White, 5.4% Hispanic,
4.6% African-American, 1.6% Asian, 0.1% Hawaiian, Native or Other and 0.5%
Native American. Some other information of note, is that the annual budget for
2006-2007 was 246 million. The graduation rate was 61.8% (four year cohort) and
the drop-out rate was 9.9%.
Interviews with the participants in this study revealed much frustration with
the prior district administration. However, it should be noted, that as to the residents
and the community in which the district is embedded are largely supportive of public
education. In 2002, Bronco City residents passed a $225 million dollar bond with
another of equal size approved in November, 2008. However, the public image of the
district was in need of repair due to the decline in community relations. With the
large demographic shifts in student population and the decline in student
89
achievement, prior district leadership created an insular environment focused solely
on instruction to meet learning challenges. This was to the exclusion of many
parents, community members, elected officials, and businesses, which created a
mutual environment of mistrust.
Background and Experience of Superintendent
Mr. Johnson began his career as superintendent of Rocky Mountain Public
School District in July 2006. The non-traditional educator is a retired Two-Star
Major General from the U.S. Navy who had a distinguished 30-year military career;
he had held many positions during his long career in the navy. For a period of time,
he commanded the largest fighter aircraft-training base in the world, Owen Navy
Base. As commander of Owen Navy Base, which was also a school for “top gun”
fighter pilots, Johnson gained extensive experience in systems leadership,
organizational management, HR systems, and strategic planning.
Mr. Johnson also served as the Executive Director of the independent inquiry
of the tragic Space Shuttle Columbia. Additionally, he served as Director of Strategic
Planning for the United States Navy. He led more than 25,000 individuals in military
service. He attended Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government in 1993
and in 1994 he was a White House Fellow. After he retired, he served as Vice-
President of Defense and Security for a private business-software company in
Washington, D.C. Bill Johnson made the transition from military leader to
educational leader when he graduated from The Urban School Leadership (USLS)
Superintendent’s Academy in 2004. In interviews, Mr. Johnson stated that the ten-
90
month USLS academy and his extensive leadership experience working with multi-
cultural and multi-lingual groups from all over the world, was sufficient training to
prepare him to lead a district as culturally and socio-economically diverse as the
RMPS district.
That is not to say that he was unaware of considerable challenges he faced in
raising school achievement and closing considerable achievement gaps. He
acknowledged that it was going to be hard. However, Mr. Johnson was notably
confident that his high performance record in the military and business sectors gave
him transferable skills needed to effectively run a large public school system,
particularly his strategic planning experience.
The District at arrival of the superintendent
Table 4 shows that Superintendent Johnson arrived to find a district that had
several strengths. The RMPS had a long and proud history of success and
achievement. The new school board that hired Superintendent Johnson was reform
oriented and focused on raising student achievement and they were also concerned
with rectifying the perception the community had of the school district. They set
high expectations for the launch of a much improved external relations campaign led
by the new superintendent, that they hoped would restore district relationships with
families, local businesses, elected officials, and community members.
91
Table 4. Perceived Strengths at the Time of the Superintendent’s Arrival
Strengths of the Rocky Mountain Public School District in 2006
1. Reform oriented new board committed to improved student achievement
2. Prior district leadership tradition of instructional focus-teaching/learning cycle
3. High percentage of highly qualified teachers - 98.2% (NCLB)
4. Strong fiscal management with timely and adequate funding. Stable facilities
and new bond for school construction and improvements
5. Long history of public support and engagement in high quality education
Major Strengths
For several years prior to Mr. Johnson’s arrival, RMPS had a strong tradition
focused on the teaching-learning cycle, curriculum, assessment and professional
development. The prior superintendents had instructional backgrounds and
consequently had led the district in developing curriculum standards long before the
state developed their own standards. When test scores and achievement began to
show a decline, the prior district administration singularly focused on raising
achievement by designing a new, tiered model of leadership that they referred to as
their instructional leadership teams. This approach required the principals of each
school in the district to become instructional leaders to all teachers in their schools
with the help of a few other faculty leaders.
These instructional teams were assigned an Academic Director from the
district office who together determined needs for student success and instruction was
planned accordingly. High standards in achievement were set in part due to the
92
district’s percentage of highly qualified teachers (98.2%). Professional development
was encouraged and teachers were expected to learn best practices, resulting in many
of the country’s best reading programs being used in the district. Another important
strength Mr. Johnson found upon his arrival at RMPS was the strong history of
prudent fiscal and budget management.
Table 5. Perceived Challenges of the District at the Time of the Superintendent’s
Arrival
Key challenges faced by the Rocky Mountain Public School District in 2006
1. Governing Boards not focused policy & district performance
2. 20% below state average in standards-based test-Literacy at the bottom 10%;
Math performance is at the bottom 18% of state average
3. No common literacy program; Weak use of assessments; High drop out rate
and low graduation rates
4. Low public opinion due to insular nature of previous district leadership
5. Demographic shifts past 6-10 yrs. district not prepared for: ELL & FRL
93
The success the district experienced in enrollment growth during the decade
prior to Mr. Johnson’s arrival, also presented significant challenges due to large and
significant shifts in the student demographics. The district went from having a
majority (80%) white student population with a 20% minority population, to an
almost complete reversal in what is today a 22.6% white student population with a
78.4% minority student population. The district did not adequately prepare for such a
dramatic demographic shift, and one that was particularly problematic due to the
consequently large increase in English Language Learners (ELL) and students who
were eligible for the Free and Reduced Lunch Programs amounting to 37% and 59%
of the entire student population, respectively. Students in the district speak 84
different languages with 89% being Spanish speakers. The teacher demographics,
while largely reflective of the student population a decade ago, did not shift
significantly over the years. The highly qualified teacher corps is approximately
88.8% white.
However, despite the well-intentioned teaching and student affirmative
outlook, which had been the historical legacy of RMPS, district wide, student test
scores began to drop as student demographics began to change. Mr. Johnson arrived
to find that students were scoring 20% below the state average in the standards-based
state test (CSAP). Literacy was at the bottom 10% in the state, and math was at the
bottom 18% in the state. There was no common literacy program in the district,
therefore, it was difficult for the district to support the multiple reading programs and
difficult to assess effectiveness across groups. What was additionally lacking was
94
district-wide coherence of curriculum. The curriculum used by individual teachers
in the district was not aligned, nor based upon content standards frameworks.
Further, there was not a uniformed approach to assessment of student learning or the
interpretation of assessment data results. Overall, there was a disconnect between
instruction, assessments, and interpretation of assessment data. There was little
alignment and therefore they were not working in unison.
The high mobility of students was seen as one of the greatest challenges in
the district. Forty percent of students change schools, with a high percentage
changing multiple times. Further exacerbating these learning challenges facing the
district, was the approach taken by the previous administration that had created an
insular environment in an effort to singularly focus on raising achievement and
declining test scores. The strategy used over several years had resulted in an
environment that made some families and community members not feel welcome in
schools and by the district.
The communications plan was poor both internally and externally and there
was little or no media contact. The district did not use the communications
department to develop or improve family and community relations which caused the
school board to regularly feel it had to micro-manage district operations. Past and
current board members felt that the local press, elected officials, real estate
developers and families and communities needed to be engaged in order for the
district to reverse the low pubic opinion in which the community held the district.
95
Launching Strategies used by the Superintendent
Bill Johnson used the first 90 days of his administration to listen to concerns
from community members, staff, parents and students. The strategic plan he
developed soon after had two overarching goals: to dramatically improve student
achievement while changing the insular culture of the district. He recognized and
openly communicated to constituents that improving student achievement could not
happen without the partnership and cooperation of parents, staff and community
members. He was comfortable in his role improving the district’s image, and seeking
change.
Upon arrival, the superintendent used a 90-Day Entry Plan called VISTA- an
acronym for Visionary Instruction Shaping Transformation for All. Over the first 90
days in office, the superintendent reported that the plan was revised so that feedback
from stakeholders on the listening tour was incorporated into VISTA, the subsequent
name for the district’s strategic plan that would eventually be adopted following the
90-day tour and Entry Plan. There were five goals in Superintendent Johnson’s entry
plan. The goals were:
1. Increase student achievement
2. Ensure effective district governance through positive board/
superintendent relations
3. Improve public trust
4. Increase organizational effectiveness and efficiency
5. Establish a supportive, positive district climate and culture
96
Table 6. Superintendent’s Entry Plan
Strategies:
Rocky Mountain Public Schools Specific Action Steps:
90-day Listening Tour Action Plan included “Ask Anything You Want” town halls
Met all teachers, reestablished relations with City Council,
parents, faith-based groups, businesses
Developed strategic plan -VISTA
2010 to focus on student achievement
Contains 92 actions and tasks for improving student
achievement, Unanimously approved by the Board
Internal audits of key district areas including literacy,
mathematics, special education
Focuses on people, achievement, community, environment
Community Collaboration Johnson challenged staff, students, parents and external
partners to collaborate for student success
Communication with the board is structured
Family and Community engagement valued
Organizational Changes Restructured district leadership-added a deputy
superintendent and expanded cabinet to better address
strategic strategies
Best practices - Key Urban School Leadership consultants
used for Board and staff leadership development
Internal and external communication improvement-revised
logo to reflect new goals
Curriculum, Assessment &
Accountability
Restructured instructional leadership to meet student needs
Managed curriculum-Master Curriculum Plan
New single literacy program, Standards-based grading
Interim assessments, pacing guides, 5
th
block instruction
Early childhood education
Integrated Instructional System Centralized admissions
Leadership teams -Learning communities for principals and
teachers
Communication Internal and external communication improvement-revised
logo to reflect new goals- Transparent Data
Spanish language media approach to outreach
Environmental Initiatives Climate surveys
Bond improvements
Pilot Magnet Programs
Autonomous schools for greater accountability
97
Superintendent Contract as Authority
Bill Johnson spoke of the structures put into place upon his hiring that would
empower the superintendent to achieve the new vision and strategic goals for
improved student achievement. For example, the board gave Mr. Johnson the
freedom to organize his new team. He did not speak much about his contract in
interviews but it became clear from other interviews that he was awarded certain
provisions to empower him to hire and reorganize a team that would lead to
improved student performance.
Prior to his arrival to the district, Mr. Johnson’s learned from the board that
restoring community relations along with raising student performance were the
board’s priority, thus Johnson’s strategic priorities upon entry was to address these
challenges. One launching strategy used by Mr. Johnson was to work closely with
his communications team before and after his arrival to the district. He instructed his
Director of Communications and her team to create a comprehensive marketing and
public awareness campaign for the new superintendent that would be ready to be
promoted upon his arrival to the school district. This primarily involved devising a
new district logo and marketing materials with his stated entry goals, and to arrange
town hall style meetings and focus groups with all major stakeholders.
Stakeholders included elected officials, leaders of the business community,
faith-based organizations, non-profit organizations, small business owners, residents,
in addition to students, teachers and parents in Bronco City. The public relations
campaign was also very much about bringing exposure to the superintendent. Being
98
a non-traditional superintendent had its advantages in this regard. While the
challenges to raise achievement in the district were formidable, he came from a
world where excuses for underperformance were not accepted. Community leaders
related well to Mr. Johnson and shared his values in this regard.
Another new approach to external relations was that in addition to English,
the Spanish language media in print, radio and television were invited and
encouraged to attend and report on all events. Mr. Johnson was comfortable in the
spotlight. This, among the other launching strategies implemented by the new
superintendent, were dramatic shifts from the priorities of the prior district
administrations.
90 Day Plan / Plan of Entry
In July 2006, Bill Johnson began a “90-day Listening Tour” in which he
delivered his strategic goals for RMPS to members of the Rocky Mountain
community. The expected outcomes of the listening tour intended to: 1) Maximize
public relations opportunities for Mr. Johnson, 2) Develop transparent two-way
communication with key stakeholders to increase support for RMPS, 3) Promote a
positive image of RMPS among internal and external audiences, 4) Collect feedback
that would develop into a future comprehensive strategic plan document.
The entry plan Mr. Johnson developed contained themes that would
eventually become part of the strategic plan. The communications team assisted with
the buy-in of the strategic plan and with the full integration of the document to the
make it known to all internal and external stakeholders. The entry plan and eventual
99
strategic plan had four inter-woven components that Mr. Johnson devised to engage
all stakeholders. The components included: People, Achievement, Community and
Environment- PACE, each of these components had 2-4 goals and numerous
objectives tied to it. The strategic plan was designed to achieve the new RMPS
vision: Graduate every student with the choice to attend college without remediation.
Role of Tim Quinn/Consultants
Along with hiring, reorganizing, and retraining his new leadership team,
Superintendent Johnson retained several key consultants associated with The Urban
School Leadership Institute (USLI). Upon his arrival into the school district, these
well-known leaders in urban school reform worked with Johnson’s new leadership
team and coached the new superintendent in several strategic ways to address the
many challenges the district faced in closing achievement gaps, raising student
achievement, and improving college readiness for all students in the district.
Tim Quinn and consultants were identified as ‘the people from Urban School
Leadership’; they included: Ray Cortines, Karl Cohn, and Thomas Payzant.
According to Johnson, the board, and others interviewed, the consultants served as
resources, strategic partners, and advisors to Johnson and his leadership team. They
helped Johnson and team identify other model urban districts such as Garden Grove,
Boston, and Norfolk, which they later visited to learn best practices. The consultants
facilitated key departmental audits and organizational planning to achieve desired
performance goals set by the new superintendent in his new strategic plan.
100
Change in Governance: McAdams Workshop
Another important launching strategy by the board and the new
superintendent was how the board would communicate and engage with the district.
Newly elected members had changed the dynamics of the board, which was said to
have been low performing and dysfunctional in prior years. These newly elected
board members ran on a platform of reform. The new board was looking for
fundamental change so with Johnson, they were open to hiring a non-traditional
superintendent. The board reported that in the past, members had a strong history of
micro managing. Primarily, the superintendent and his eventual deputy-
superintendent were the only staff the board was to communicate with if they had a
concern. Interviews revealed that the prior board, to a large extent interceded on
behalf of teachers with the administration.
In the “spirit of change” they hired USLS consultant Don McAdams. They
agreed to attend the Urban School Leadership Governance Training (led by
McAdams) to better understand their role as board members. McAdams encouraged
the board to see their function was to oversee, not manage day-to-day district
operations and problems. The subsequent work required the board to create the
vision and goals of the new strategic plan.
One board member described changes in their role with a sports analogy:
“The superintendent is responsible for mutually agreed upon achievement results.
The board operates from the ‘press box’ while the superintendent operates from ‘the
field’. If the board comes out onto the field, they can’t hold the superintendent
101
responsible for results.” Other board members didn’t see their roles in the same light.
These board members grew progressively critical of the superintendent, as pressures
put upon teachers increased.
Reorganization of the Central Office
The board empowered Superintendent Johnson with the freedom to hire and
reorganize his leadership team. Johnson established a deputy superintendent position
and elevated a veteran educator to serve as his second in command. He elevated
other key positions to form a new, larger and more culturally diverse senior cabinet
team. Johnson also made two staff changes recommended by the USLS consultants
to senior level. They were the Chief Communication Officer and Chief
Accountability and Research Officer, both of whom now report directly to the
superintendent. A position was created to address families and communities,
however, this position had not been funded until the 2008-2009 academic year.
Audits
Several organizational audits were conducted by the team of consultants upon
Johnson’s arrival to the district. The audits were conducted in the areas of academic
assessment included literacy, mathematics, and special education. Insights gained led
academic leaders to seek big district-wide changes in curricular, instructional, and
professional development approaches.
District reform efforts put responsibility on principals and teacher-coaches to
become instructional leaders. Instructional leaders and classroom teachers were
expected to better align curriculum, raise academic standards, and produce better test
102
results. Interviews revealed that progressively, teachers were conflicted about the
demands of these roles. The board and teacher unions progressively raised concerns
that the superintendent was pushing too hard.
Other key departmental audits included HR, Communications, Office of
Accountability and Research, Budget and Finance, Curriculum, and the Board of
Education. District leadership was restructured as a result of audits. All cabinet level
leaders also have their own departmental operations plan that is linked to the
strategic plan, and reviewed every six months.
Key Reform Strategies: The House Model
The first research question asked, “How are the ten key change levers being
used by Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI) superintendents in their respective
districts”? The “key change levers” refers to reform strategies. The House Model is
conceptual framework developed by the USLI staff through a review of relevant
current literature and research based best practices. The model provides a visual
representation of the reform strategies used by the Urban School Leadership Institute
(USLI) in its ten-month training sessions and curriculum. Figure 1 depicts the House
Model. Overall, the model represents a map of various strategic elements that
today’s educational leaders must address in their roles as systems leaders.
The House model has four parts referred to as “rooms” which include:
Foundational Elements, Instructional Alignment, Operational Excellence, and
Stakeholder Connection & Satisfaction. These rooms are designed for the new
systems leader to address the strategic element or organizational issue, in sequential
103
order. Ten House Elements were chosen from the House Model by the USLI staff for
special attention in this study. These House Elements are: 1) Strategic Planning,
2)Assessment, 3) Curriculum, 4) Professional Development, 5) HR System and
Human Capital Management, 6) Finance and Budget, 7) Communications, 8)
Governance and Board Relations, 9) Labor Relations and Contract Negotiation, 10)
Family and Community Engagement.
This case study examined the quality and extent of the implementation for
each of the House Elements studied and their relationship to the current district
reform strategy before and after the superintendent arrived. Further, actions taken by
the superintendent and the superintendent’s team were also examined to learn in
greater detail about the reform strategy and the approach(es) taken in implementing
each of the House Elements. The House Element-specific interviews were
conducted as 10 small group interviews with key staff members. Each interview
focused on one of the 10 selected elements in the House Model. Each of the House
Element-specific Interview Guides had the same set of 5 probing interview questions
that pertained to the specific House Element being studied. Prior to data collection, a
distinct rubric was developed that focused on the quality of design of that House
Element (See Appendix D). Each small group interview and district documents
analyzed, allowed for the ratings and scores that are presented as findings, using
rubrics developed for data analysis.
104
The conceptual framework and rubrics developed to identify the extent of
each implementation had four categories including: 1) challenges and concerns, 2)
fully implemented in practice 3) common culture, and 4) sustainable use.
Table 7. Rubric Ratings of House Model Reform Strategies
House Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Implementation
Level
Strategic Planning 1 4 3
Assessment 2 3 5
Curriculum 2 3 5
Professional Development 3 4 3
HR System and Human Capital Management 1 2 3
Finance and Budget 3 3 3
Communication 1 4 5
Governance and Board Relations 1 3 5
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations 1 2 3
Family and Community Engagement 1 3 3
Strategic Plan
The most common strategic planning models include the vision, mission, and
values of the organization. The key to vision creation is the involvement of all
stakeholders (Reeves, 2002; Senge, 1994). From vision and mission, a plan moves to
an analysis of needs, to developing strategies to meet those needs, and lastly,
creating action plans for those strategies. The lack of involvement of all
stakeholders, particularly teachers and administrators, in creating the guiding
105
document, the Student Achievement Initiative, was part of the reason for the initial
push back.
Table 8. Rubric Scoring of Strategic Plan
House Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation Strategies / Action Steps
Strategic Plan 1 4 From the Rocky Mountain
Achievement initiative
which focused proficient
data, growth and high
expectations to a bold
theory of action, and
strategic plan-Vista 2010
which contains 92 actions
for improving achievement
• 90-day listening tour to learn
different views about RMPS
• Challenged students, staff and
community to partner
• Established action items to
monitor objectives and
accountability
• The plan focuses on people,
achievement, community and
environment
In the 1980’s, the district began to see shifts in their student demographics
which was an almost entirely (85%) a white student and teacher population. The first
wave of second language learners to enter the district, were immigrants from
Vietnam and Cambodia. Later, in the early 1990’s, there was a large increase in
African-Americans. In the mid 1990’s, the district’s Hispanic student population
grew sharply and their English language learner (ELL) student population boomed.
In all interviews, across the ten elements researched, a reoccurring theme emerged
regarding the increase in immigrant populations and the consequent decline of
student performance scores. A 50% growth in the Hispanic population over a seven
to eight year period during the 90’s (with 30 percent of those being ELL), and the
106
corresponding drop in student achievement scores, put the former superintendent in a
necessarily defensive position. With high stakes accountability as prescribed by the
NCLB mandates on the horizon, he immediately began his tenure (six years prior to
the arrival of Mr. Johnson), with a focus on improving instruction in the district.
With no strategic plan, Jay Ramonette, Chief Academic Officer recalls how the
guiding document of that administration had come about:
These are things we did as part of the Student Achievement Initiative…When
Eric and Susan came into their leadership position, we were in such an
urgent, urgent state in RMPS of real decline in our student achievement, and
the real transformation of our district. As you know, we had to do some
things right away, so there was some urgency and...there wasn’t a lot of time
to process and debate everything; it was like we’ve got to go, we’ve got to
go! So that creates a lot of push back. I mean, we were pushing pretty hard.
Organizationally, from the professional development standpoint, to get things
like teacher-leaders in place-we didn’t have teacher leaders in schools. It was
a big resource shift. At the secondary level, I mean it was like what? Teacher-
leader?
The district leadership prior to the arrival of Johnson had a difficult time with
teachers, department chairs, and principals. There was a large attrition rate of new
teachers. Given these existing problems, the strategic plan implemented by
incoming superintendent Johnson implied a significant cultural shift for all
stakeholders. The superintendent was aware that problems such as labor relations,
governance, professional development, family and community engagement, and
human resources, existed in the past. However, increasing demands put upon
teachers and certain board members’ defense of them, brought the issues into the
forefront.
107
Table 9. Addressing Change in Strategic Plan
Strengths Challenges
The district’s vision is well articulated in the strategic
plan. It expresses the ethical code, overriding
convictions, and the moral convictions of the district.
The mission statement is a clear and concise
expression of the district’s identity, purpose and
means. However, the objectives only moderately
commit to achieve specific measurable and
observable results. The district is lacking clear
indicators in the strategic plan for achieving stated
vision and goals. While a “theory of action” does
exist and it is linked with the district’s beliefs, it is
only loosely aligned with the district context and
capacity.
No strategic plan, rather an initiative that guided the
district decisions. The vision was not developed with
stakeholder input and therefore did not represent the
personal values of those vested in the organization. The
mission and vision were not clear and easily understood
The document did not make for a district identity. Few
objectives are aligned that are measurable, demonstrated
and observable. Superintendent did not have a “theory of
action.” District has few indicators aligned with district
priorities; accountability and responsibility for achieving
results are not defined.
Strategies
〈 Entry Plan (Goals and Project Plan) used on 90 day listening tour-July 2006
〈 Based on collaborative “input” from the community, BOE unanimously approved strategic plan-VISTA
2010
〈 Bold student achievement vision understood by many stakeholders (although, lack of measurable action
steps to achieve)
〈 Communications plan for “buy in” of the strategic plan internally and externally very successful
〈 Audit of departments including instruction, communications, system operations to be shared with Board
〈 All chief officers are responsible for producing operational plans that align to strategic priorities with
targets dates for action items
〈 Regular reporting in senior staff and BOE on operational plans and an accountability system
〈 Developed a Theory of Action or “transformational goals” called PACE People, Achievement,
Community & Environment
The superintendent’s strong background in strategic planning in the military
helped him develop a plan that was comprehensive, pervasive yet easy for all
stakeholders to understand and eventually accept. In an online survey sent to all
RMPS staff and faculty in 2008 regarding Johnson’s strategic plan, over 50%
completed the survey. Of those respondents, 80% believed that the strategic plan was
“somewhat clear to highly clear” in providing a direction for improving student
achievement. However, the survey also revealed that only 50% viewed the new
108
leadership vision of improving education and student achievement was on the right
track.
Strategic plan objectives were “somewhat” clear, thus indicating less than
certainty about the objectives and the metrics for achieving the stated goals of the
plan. The objectives in the strategic plan only moderately commit to achieve specific
measurable and observable results. It is indeed surprising that given the
superintendent’s strong background in strategic planning, he would produce a plan
that lacks clear indicators for achieving the stated vision and goals. The RMPS
vision was to ‘Graduate every student with the choice to attend college without
remediation.’
Despite “wins” that Bill Johnson has achieved, board communications had
become increasingly more difficult one year into his tenure. Interviews revealed that
several board members felt tension mounting with Mr. Johnson due to their
insistence that the teachers need more support for the high expectations of teachers
surrounding student achievement goals. Part of the disagreement of these board
members with Johnson has stemmed from their perception that Johnson lacks
knowledge of young school children, given his non-traditional, military background.
The Board of Education unanimously approved the strategic plan, which
includes the RMPS vision to graduate every student with the choice to attend college
without remediation by the year 2010.
109
Table 10. Strategic Plan Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components Previous Quality Current Quality Level of Implementation
Vision 1 5
Mission 1 5
Objectives (goals) 1 5
Strategies 1 3
Action Plan 1 3
Theory of Action 1 5
Data Dashboard 3 5
3
RMPS scored 3.0 for quality of current reform strategy and a 3.0 for
implementation level. Although the score reflects a high quality design and indicates
that the strategic plan had reached a moderate level of implementation, the objectives
in the strategic plan only moderately commit to achieve specific measurable and
observable results. The district is lacking clear indicators in the strategic plan for
achieving stated vision and goals.
Assessment
The process of using summative and formative student assessments to
support instruction under the former superintendent was not integrally aligned. The
assessment process was mainly compliance oriented. There was no clear district
wide assessment schedule. While assessment occurred regularly and periodic data
was collected, no real analysis was conducted. Assessments were not commonly
benchmarked nor linked to state standards. While instructional improvement was
110
expected in the past, teachers (especially new ones) did not feel supported in their
learning or development to district’s high expectations for student achievement.
Table 11. Rubric Scoring of Assessment
House Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation Strategies / Action Steps
Assessment 2 4 From weak use of assessment
to support instruction to
summative and formative
assessments district wide.
Interim assessments every nine
weeks linked to state standards
〈 Position of Chief Accountability
Officer elevated to senior staff
level
〈 Data collected and analyzed using
“data teams” at each site
〈 Data driven decisions linked back
to instruction
〈 Interim assessment every 9 weeks
〈 Standards based grading
〈 Data Walls for all classes-
transparency of data for greater
accountability
Table 12. Addressing Change in Assessment
Strengths Challenges
〈 Division of Instruction and Chief Accountability &
Research Officer now senior now cabinet level.
Summative and formative assessments
implemented district wide.
〈 Interim assessments every nine weeks
benchmarked and linked to CO state standards.
Data collected and analyzed using “data teams” at
each site.
〈 Data driven decisions linked back to
instruction. Professional development on data
analysis
Assessment process is compliance oriented. Weak
use of assessment to support instruction. No clear
district wide assessment schedule. Periodic data
collected in the past but no real analysis was
conducted. Assessments were not commonly
benchmarked nor linked to state standards. While
instructional improvement expected in the past,
teachers (especially new ones) did not feel
supported in their learning or development to
district expectations.
Strategies
〈 Interim Assessments-Quarterly
〈 Promoted the Chief Accountability Officer-Cabinet level
〈 Data Teams at each site to analyze student assessment data
〈 Collaborative coaching
〈 Data walls-Posted student assessment results
〈 Communication between grade level instructors
111
A number of new strategies have been implemented since Mr. Johnson’s
arrival. A Division of Instruction and Chief Accountability & Research Officer was
created and is now an independent senior cabinet level member who reports directly
to the superintendent. Under the current administration, summative and formative
assessments are implemented district-wide. A new instructional model was adopted
that is now linked and connected to state standards. The district has adopted the use
of pacing guides and a common reading program, which did not exist before, making
assessment data analysis more useful. Teachers now conduct unit, or concept
formative assessments in the classroom. Throughout the quarter, approximately
every nine weeks, and interim assessments are given to students at the school
(building) level. All interim assessments are the same throughout the district.
With the use of their information systems, instructional leaders at the
building level are able to disaggregate their assessment data, which is important for
meeting NCLB benchmarks. After the interim data is collected and disaggregated,
the building receives a data notebook so they can analyze the data at a building level
and the classroom level. Data Teams at each site analyze student assessment data
that is linked back to standards based instruction. Collaborative coaching and Data
Walls, display student assessment results. This kind of transparency of results allows
for daily, weekly and grade-level analysis, reinforced with school site professional
development activities. There is now a more collaborative approach to improving
achievement due to open communication between grade level instructors.
112
Jay Ramonette, Chief Academic Officer reveals that process of improving
achievement through assessments is ongoing:
There are clearly some key components to it. I think some bigger strategies,
more umbrella type strategies of real cultural values that we are trying to
develop around the transparency of data. We talk about and display our
results of our work, very publicly in some places. We have Data Walls in our
buildings where people can come in and see how we are doing at this
elementary school, and even to the point where Cecilia’s class is on the Data
Wall. It shows where her kids are, and there is a way to show how they are
growing.
The interim (9-week) assessments center on literacy and math at certain grade levels,
but they are bringing in other subjects at the secondary level. This model is in its
infancy as they have only had one full year of interim assessments in grades 3-10.
Table 13. Assessment Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous
Quality
Current
Quality
Level of
Implementation
Summative Assessments 2 3
Formative Assessments 2 3
Data Management, Information, and Reporting
System
1 3
Analysis, Interpretation, and Utilization of
Assessment Data
1 3
Professional Development 1 3
Fiscal Support and Resources 2 3
5
A score of 3.0 was given for quality of current reform strategy and a 5.0 for
implementation level. The score reflects a high implementation level. The district
went from years of weak use of assessments to support instruction to summative and
113
formative assessments district wide every nine weeks. The assessment activities are
fully implemented and in practice. There are now data driven decisions linked back
to instruction, and data reflection is the norm.
Curriculum
Table 14. Rubric Scoring of Curriculum
House Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation Strategies / Action Steps
Curriculum 1 3 From no consistency or
common literacy programs
effecting adversely effecting
highly mobile to managed
instruction; alignment to
content standards
〈 Common reading program
implemented throughout the
district
〈 Curriculum aligned to content
standards
〈 Pacing Guides
〈 ELL instruction and curriculum
with new grant funding
RMPS had a strong instructional focus under the prior superintendent but the
curriculum district wide was not based upon content standards and frameworks. The
strong instructional focus in prior years showed increases in growth data, but many
students were still not showing proficiency increases. Cecilia Carcea, Director of
Student Achievement, Curriculum & Professional Learning concurs:
We were making growth but we weren’t getting enough kids to proficiency.
And, that’s the big challenge with NCLB. You know that growth is not good
enough for NCLB. For example, we were having growth with our second
language learners, but we weren’t and haven’t been getting them to
proficiency...and in some cases, they are outperforming.
There was little alignment of curriculum to assessments of student learning. For
example, the district held high expectations of teachers to improve student
114
achievement results, however, they did not provide pacing plans or use another
approach to assist teachers in delivering course content to improve instruction,
besides sporadic professional development. High mobility of many students (40%)
challenged teachers and students with no common reading program in place. Further,
there was no district level professional support or resources to assist teachers in
providing culturally relevant material to support instruction for a very ethnically
diverse student population.
Table 15. Addressing Change in Curriculum
Strengths Challenges
Implemented curriculum aligned to content standards
and frameworks aligned to required assessments of
student learning. Pacing plans to assist all teachers,
at certain grade levels. Common reading program.
Improved but little access to content and learning
standards under-performing students. Professional
learning for teachers and administrators has slightly
improved
Prior focus on instruction but curriculum district wide
was based upon content standards and frameworks.
Poor alignment identified as poor assessments results
of student learning. No pacing plans to assisted
teachers. High mobility of many students (40%)
challenged teachers and students. No common reading
program in place. No district support teachers in
relevant material to support instruction.
Strategies
〈 Restructured instructional leadership team
〈 Implemented a common reading program
〈 Integrated “managed” instructional system
〈 Conducted audits of key academic areas in literacy & math
〈 Pacing guides
〈 Fifth block of instruction
The new superintendent made several decisions to improve curriculum. First,
he restructured the instructional leadership around student needs. Another important
strategy was the integration of a “managed” instructional system. Audits of key
academic areas in literacy and math were conducted upon Johnson’s arrival,
115
revealing the need for an integrated instructional approach. The district has
implemented a curriculum that is now aligned to content standards. The district has
developed frameworks aligned to required assessments of student learning, and they
now have pacing plans to assist teachers (although they are not yet available at all
grade levels). A common reading program is now in place and utilized in grades one
through three. However, the district does not optimize all students’ opportunities to
access content and learning standards, especially ELLs, under-performing students,
and those with disabilities. Professional learning for teachers and administrators has
improved but teachers still feel more support is needed to achieve desired
educational outcomes.
Table 16. Curriculum Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous
Quality
Current
Quality
Level of
Implementation
Alignment to Learning Standards and Assessments 3 3
Equal Access to Learning Standards 1 3
Fidelity in Implementation 1 3
Sufficiency of and Appropriateness of Materials 1 3
Clear and Regular Procedures to Review and
Uprofessional developmentate the Curriculum
1 5
3
RMPS scored 4.0 for quality of current reform strategy and a 3.0 for
implementation level. This score reflects a moderate implementation level. The
district went from no common literacy program to a common reading program
116
implemented throughout the district. Effective ELL instruction and curriculum were
just getting implemented with new funding in the form of a substantial grant.
Professional Development
Table 17. Rubric Scoring of Professional Development
House Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation Strategies / Action Steps
Professional
Development
3 4 From professional
development somewhat
disconnected and sporadic
to professional learning
that is imbedded in
strategic plan
〈 All professional development is
structured to include teachers and
principals-grade level
〈 professional development
focuses on capacity building
〈 Introduced training for teacher
leaders as coaches
〈 New professional development
for principals learn strategies
needed to be instructional leaders
〈 New orientation for new
teachers to minimize attrition
Professional development prior to Johnson’s arrival was not aligned with the
district’s long-term plan. Under the past superintendent, the emphasis had shifted
away from curriculum and focused tightly on instruction. As a result, over time,
professional development surrounding curriculum development wore so thin that one
coordinator was responsible for all K-12 content. The professional development plan
did not include processes and goals of professional development. The plan included
a coaching model but it was not fully developed and participation was sporadic.
Professional development was disconnected to classroom practices and evaluation
measures were not implemented district wide. There was a lack of clarity and
117
specifics as to what will be measured and what to use as standards for success.
Additionally, few records had been kept to guide future decisions.
Table 18. Addressing Change in Professional Development
Strengths Challenges
〈 Professional development largely on standards-
based content knowledge.
〈 All professional development centered on
improving students learning
〈 Improving teacher effectiveness and high-
standards for teachers.
〈 Professional development Plan includes the
“coaching model” and all teachers receive
coaching.
〈 Organizational structure and resources supports
the implementation of on-site professional
development.
〈 Professional development not aligned with district
long-term plan.
〈 The professional development plan did not include
a needs assessment process and goals of
professional development.
〈 Plan included a coaching model but not fully
developed and participation sporadic.
〈 Professional development was disconnected to
classroom practices.
〈 Evaluation measures not implemented district
wide.
〈 Lack of clarity and specifics as to what will be
measured to use as standard for success.
〈 Few records kept to guide future professional
development decisions.
Strategies
〈 Principal Leadership Training
〈 Conducted audits of key academic areas including literacy and math. Based on the findings,
professional development linked to teaching practices and curriculum.
〈 Professional development aligned to strategic plan-student achievement and more accountability
〈 Data (assessment) Team work
〈 Collaborative coaching
〈 Professional literacy training
Professional development is now structured to include teachers and
principals, and grade level professional development focuses on capacity building.
Since many of the new strategies in the strategic plan are centered around
curriculum, the professional development department now reports to the division of
118
instruction. Thus, professional learning supports first and foremost a data-driven
focus, as explained by Jay Ramonette, Chief Academic Officer:
If we are asking buildings to do x, y, and z, then we are providing
professional learning opportunities that support x, y, and z. They can do other
things in their buildings, but in most cases, we are going to want them to be
related to x, y, and z. But, they can be doing some things differently in their
buildings based on individual data and what it tells the building. But the
district is always providing support around the initiative that we are asking
the buildings to do. The former practice of having the professional
development division outside of the division of instruction might have
offered some great things, but unrelated, maybe, to what the division of
instruction was expecting.
The district introduced important training for teacher leaders as coaches and
mandatory training is provided to principals to learn strategies needed to be
instructional. Also in its first year, a new two-day teacher orientation was developed
for the 250-300 new teachers that begin at RMPS every year. Professional
development activities focus on standards-based content knowledge. All professional
development centered on improving teacher effectiveness and maintaining high-
standards for teachers. The professional development plan now includes the
“coaching model” and all teachers receive on-going coaching. There was little or no
professional development surrounding diversity. Several staff interviewed reported
that diversity training is clearly lacking and would be welcome by principals and
teachers. Teachers and staff have no district sponsored professional development to
support the district strategic goals of closing achievement gaps among ethnic groups.
119
Table 19. Professional Development Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous
Quality
Current
Quality
Level of
Implementation
Designing Professional Development 3 4
Implementing Professional Development 3 3
Evaluating and Improving Professional
Development
1 3
Sharing Professional Development Learning 3 4
3
RMPS scored 4.0 for quality of current reform strategy and a 3.0 for
implementation level; the score reflects a moderate level of implementation. The
training for teacher leaders as coaches, training for new teachers, and professional
development for principals to learn new strategies are strong components, but are
only getting started.
HR System and Human Capital Management
Table 20. Rubric Scoring of HR System and Human Capital Management
House Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation Strategies / Action Steps
HR System and
Human Capital
Management
1 2 From hiring practices that
focus solely on HQT to an
approach to hire from
within and consciously
seek to recruit HQT staff
reflective of students’
ethnicity
〈 HR audit conducted with
support from Urban School
Leadership Foundation.
〈 Efforts streamlined to recruit
HQT
〈 Implemented strategies to
recruit HQT to match student
demographics
〈 Designed strategies to grow
instructional leadership from
withi
120
RMPS focused solely on hiring highly qualified teachers (HQT) in the past
and had only consciously begun to recruit HQT staff reflective of students’ ethnicity.
Ambiguous criteria were used when identifying school leaders during an
administrator hiring process. Under former superintendents, strong principals were
not encouraged to take on under-performing schools. While the district had a strong
record of recruiting HQT, there were no incentives for them to work in under-
performing schools. Hiring decisions have little connection to achievement for all
students. Limited monetary and non-monetary incentives were used to recruit and
retain HQT and strong administrators.
Table 21. Addressing Change in HR Systems and Human Capital Management
Strengths Challenges
〈 Elevated many directors to cabinet
positions level.
〈 Site-level support for new teachers.
〈 Coaching aligned to district goals.
〈 Aggressive advertising and recruitment
campaign
〈 Limited monetary and non-monetary
incentives in use to recruit and retain
HQT and strong administrators.
〈 Little criteria used when identifying school leaders during
administrator hiring process.
〈 Strong principals are not encouraged to take on under-
performing schools.
〈 While district has a strong record of recruiting HQT, no
incentives for them to work in under-performing schools.
〈 Hiring decisions have little connection to achievement for
all students.
〈 Limited monetary and non-monetary incentives in use to
recruit and retain HQT and strong administrators.
〈 Little diversity professional development for staff in place
to support district goals of closing achievement RMPS
among under-represented students.
Strategies
〈 Hired deputy superintendent from instructional ranks
〈 School leaders recruited internally for Principal Leadership program
〈 Commitment to hiring HQT (currently 98.7%) more representative of student ethnic populations
〈 Steps taken to hire staff that is more reflective of student population
〈 New teacher orientations
121
One of the strengths of the district regarding human resources (HR) was the
historical and strong record of hiring highly qualified teachers. However, the HR
audits revealed shortcomings in the district’s succession planning of qualified
administrators. This led the superintendent to design strategies to grow instructional
leadership from within. Upon his arrival, Superintendent Johnson created a Deputy-
Superintendent position that was filled by a veteran member who came from the
instructional ranks. School leaders are now recruited internally for the Principal
Leadership Program; the program aims to groom leaders from within the district.
There was a stated desire to hire HQT (currently at 98.7%) that more
reflected the student ethnic populations. Certain steps were taken to hire support staff
more reflective of the student population as well. However, the Director of human
resources admits that they are failing at these attempts and that they could do a better
job. Other new strategies include a new teacher orientation with professional
development to combat the large (approximately 250-300) attrition of new teachers
each year.
A score of 2.0 was given for quality of current reform strategy and a 3.0 for
implementation level. Strategies have been developed to recruit a more diverse
population of HQT to reflect the student population more, but these strategies have
not been fully implemented. However, strategies have been designed and were newly
implemented to grow instructional leadership from within.
122
Table 22. HR System and Human Capital Management Rating by Rubric
Component
Rubric Components
Previous
Quality
Current
Quality
Level of
Implementation
Recruitment, Selection and Placement of new
Administrators
1 3
Recruitment of Highly Qualified Teachers 1 1
Teacher Support and Development 1 3
3
Salaries, Wages and Benefits 1 3
Use of Incentives 1 1
Finance and Budget
Table 23. Rubric Scoring of Finance and Budget
House
Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation Strategies / Action Steps
Finance and
Budget
3 3 Maintained CFO and team
with history of sound
fiscal management of
district finances to CFO
included in student
achievement initiatives
〈 Fiscal decisions linked to
strategic priorities
〈 $26 million in savings to go to
bond program to improve
schools
〈 Secured 500K Rose Foundation
grant funding to address ELL
instruction
In the previous administration, no prior plans existed to link finance and
budget to the strategic plan or strategic priorities. The process of developing the
budget was not understood by teachers and staff. The teacher’s union representative
interviewed stated that it was resented. Consequently, there was some mistrust on
123
behalf of teachers as to budget shortfalls reported by the district office as were
subsequent actions that were reported to have been needed to close such budget gaps.
Table 24. Addressing Change in Finance and Budget
Strengths Challenges
〈 Budget process was established and routine
〈 Process followed State guidelines
〈 There were significant carryover funds available
to initiate new programs and staffing changes
〈 No prior plan to link finance and budget priorities.
〈 The budget not understood by stakeholders.
〈 Little input from district personnel or principals
〈 Participation in the budget process not solicited.
Strategies
〈 Incoming Budget planning around strategic priorities
〈 Retained CFO – Cabinet level
〈 Effective fiscal management of district budget
〈 Saved 26 million used to compel residents to pass an aggressive construction bond
〈 Operational procedures transparent
〈 Fiscal and instructional priorities aligned
Upon entry, superintendent Johnson maintained the CFO and team, due to
their history of sound fiscal management of district finances. New actions included
linking the office of budget and finance to student achievement initiatives. There
were significant carryover funds available to initiate new programs and staffing
changes and the district budget planning centers around strategic priorities identified
in the strategic plan. Even in the face of budget shortfalls, mainly due to a very large
drop in student enrollment, the district under the leadership of the CFO saved 26
million dollars. Given the prior tense community relations the school district had
with the community at large, these funds were leveraged in a very strategic way for
the district. Shortly after the superintendent’s arrival, he and the board made the
124
risky decision to ask the residents of Bronco City to pass a badly needed 220 million
dollar construction bond, five years after they approved a similar sized bond.
Subsequently, in November 2008, the 26 million dollars saved by the CFO was used
successfully to compel residents to vote in favor of the 220 million dollar bond for
the district.
Regarding organizational culture of the budget planning process,
Superintendent Johnson’s strategic plan did not include goals to expand participation
in budget process to include stakeholders. Findings revealed a desire to have a clear
process to solicit input from local district personnel, principals, and others in the
annual budget process. Such actions would improve buy-in by constituencies and
potentially reduce tensions and mistrust that currently exist surrounding the budget
process.
Table 25. Finance and Budget Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components Previous Quality Current Quality Level of Implementation
Strategic Budget Planning 3 3
Organizational Culture 3 3
Operational Procedures 3 3
3
A score of 3.0 was given for quality of current reform strategy and a 3.0 for
implementation level. Moderate quality and implementation scores were given due to
the only newly developed process to align student achievement to the budget
125
process. Further, the moderate scores were given for lack of stakeholder involvement
in the budget development and planning process.
Communications
Table 26. Rubric Scoring of Communications
House Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation Strategies / Action Steps
Communication 1 4 From little use of talent of
communications team and
poor internal and external
communications to an new
professional approach
public relations and media
campaign
〈 Elevated director to cabinet
level
〈 Developed the 90-day
listening tour
〈 All activities are linked to
promote and support the
strategic plan
〈 Sought community support
for VISTA 2010 (strategic
plan)
〈 Increased communication,
written and public, for mono-
lingual families
The communications director, Naomi Sandoval and her team served a very
important role in the entry plan. Superintendent Johnson made dramatic shifts in the
communication strategy (which was almost non-existent in the previous
administration) by making use of a very talented communications team. In the
previous administration, many stakeholders perceived communications very
negatively both internally and externally. As stated previously, there was little or no
media contact. The communications team was not used to improve family and
126
community relations on behalf of the former superintendent. As a result, many
families felt unwelcomed by the schools.
Table 27. Addressing Change in Communications
Communications Strengths Challenges
〈 Internal and external communication
improvement.
〈 Communications plan is aligned with strategic
plan.
〈 Team has close ties to community and outside
media
〈 Successfully position superintendent and
students
〈 Challenge staff, students, parents and external
partners to collaborate for student success.
〈 Communication with the board is structured.
〈 Little effort to improve communications on a
district level internally and externally.
〈 Little or no media contact.
〈 Team not used to improve family and community
relations on behalf of the former superintendent
〈 Many families felt unwelcome by schools
Strategies
〈 Developed 90-day Listening Tour
〈 Entry plan delivered on 90 day tour
〈 Promoted Chief Communications Officer
〈 Obtained “buy in” for strategic plan after 90 VISTA
〈 Open 2-way communication-build trust and confidence
〈 Internal and external communications improvement
〈 Media contact greatly improves-Spanish language also
〈 Developed new image for the district (logo, vision, mission)
The main action taken by Johnson was to elevate the Chief Communications
Officer, Naomi Sandoval, to an executive staff position directly reporting to the
superintendent. Since the district did not use the communications department to
develop or improve family and community relations it caused the school board to
regularly want to micro-manage and intercede on behalf of parents and others. The
board reported that there was an alarming problem with communication (or lack
127
thereof), and that local press, elected officials, real estate developers and families and
communities needed to become engaged in order for the district to reverse the low
pubic opinion the community had of the district. Previously, communication with
the board had not been strictly structured.
The office helped Mr. Johnson develop the 90-day Listening Tour and in
large part assisted with the superintendent’s Entry plan. The Chief Communications
Officer, Sandoval developed a plan to obtain “buy in” internally and externally for
the strategic plan. Sandoval opened 2-way communications and has built trust and
confidence internally among staff and faculty, and externally within the community
at large. For example, Sandoval reports:
As leaders, we always need to model the way, and that’s where the
superintendent really steps in. I mean, we have webinars, we have podcasts.
When it comes time for the kids to take the CSAP test, a podcast is sent out
by the superintendent and it is sent to all the schools and the principals view
this with their third, fourth, fifth graders and the middle and high schools do
too. They discuss and they all know that the superintendent is encouraging
them to do their best on the statewide test.
Media contact has greatly improved. There is now open and reciprocal
communication and reliance on the Spanish language radio and television networks.
There is much more proactive communication as opposed to the reactive approach of
the past. Another very important strategic action taken by the communications team
was a new image for the district (logo, vision, mission). The communications team
developed a professional image. Additionally, the communications team keeps close
ties to community and outside media to better and successfully position the
superintendent and students. The communications team, on behalf of the
128
superintendent and district, developed activities and processes to challenge staff,
students, parents, and external partners to collaborate for student success.
Table 28. Communications Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous
Quality
Current
Quality
Level of
Implementation
Communications Plan 1 3
Communications Office 1 5
Communication of District Vision to the
Community
1 5
Build Support for District Initiatives 1 3
Two-way Communications with Community 1 3
5
A score of 4.0 was given for quality of current reform strategy and a 5.0 for
implementation level. The scores for quality of the reform strategy and the
implementation level ranked high. The director was elevated to a cabinet position,
and the department strategic plan was linked to the campus plan. This is a highly
productive team that revisits their departmental strategic plan every 6 months.
129
Governance and Board Relations
Table 29. Rubric Scoring of Governance and Board Relations
House
Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation Strategies / Action Steps
Governance
and Board
Relations
1 3 From a board not focused on
policy making more focused
approach to performance
〈 Attended board training
〈 Unanimously approved
strategic plan
The paradigm shift here was from a board not focused on policy making, to
one that was much more focused in their approach to district performance. There had
been tension between Board and the community, consequently the latter had so sense
of the BOE vision, and their values and priorities lacked focus. Related to this lack
of productive communication between the board and the stakeholders, it would be
fair to say that the Board and district leadership did not generally involve the
community in any meaningful way, nor seek nor accept feedback from stakeholders.
In terms of output, the BOE did not generally share information with local
constituency groups.
On the internal level, the BOE had an organizational structure that did not
support or empower the superintendent and staff. In the critical area of student
achievement, there was once again little support or input in terms of curriculum
adoption to support student achievement and to strive for improvements in this area.
The BOE initially remained focused on policy making for district wide
achievement. The new board initially behaved in ways that showed an understanding
130
of their roles and responsibilities with the training received from Don McAdams.
The BOE now evaluates the superintendent quarterly. Additionally, the BOE has
input into, and approves the curriculum adoption process that supports student
achievement. To this end, the board approved and supported the strategic plan
because it called for dramatic improvements in accountability for student
achievements. However, over a short time inconsistencies have begun to appear
between stated values and actions on behalf of the board.
Table 30. Addressing Change in Governance and Board Relations
Strengths Challenges
〈 Appointed Board ready to support
〈 The BOE hired/supported the new non-traditional
superintendent upon entry.
〈 The board sometimes acts with improved
professional demeanor since receiving
consultations in the area of roles and
responsibilities.
〈 Superintendent newly evaluates the superintendent
quarterly.
〈 The organizational structure of the BOE supports
and empowers the superintendent and district’s
bold vision but goals, while measurable, not likely
achievable. The BOE has input and approves the
curriculum adoption that supports student
achievement.
〈 Tension between Board and the community
〈 The BOE vision, value and priorities lacked focus
〈 The goals were not reviewed regularly.
〈 The BOE had an organizational structure that did
not support or empower the superintendent and
staff.
〈 There was little support or input in the curriculum
adoption to support student achievement.
〈 The Board did not generally involve the
community in any meaningful way not accept
feedback from stakeholders.
〈 The BOE did not generally share information with
local constituency groups.
Strategies
〈 Board underwent training to learn roles and responsibilities
〈 Restructured communication with BOE
〈 Board supports and empowers superintendent to improve student achievement
〈 Unanimously approved strategic plan
〈 Improves accountability for student achievement
〈 Greatly improved communication and accountability with community
131
The reform-oriented board hired the non-traditional superintendent and
quickly supported Superintendent Johnson’s innovative philosophy that excuses for
underperformance would not be accepted. However, the board was also very
supportive of teachers and this obviously created tensions when the board felt that
the superintendent was pushing too hard. Increasingly, comments from the board and
teachers had begun to rise. Interviews revealed that with more frequency, the board
had begun to question the non-traditional superintendent’s decision-making as it
related to curricular design, student learning, and instructional supervision.
Table 31. Governance and Board Relations Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous
Quality
Current
Quality
Level of
Implementation
Setting the Direction for the Community’s
Schools
1 3
Establishing an Effective and Efficient Structure
for the District
3 3
Providing Support and Resources 1 3
Ensuring Accountability to the Public 1 3
Actions as Community Leaders 1 3
3
A score of 3.0 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
3.0 for implementation level. The level of implementation for the reform strategy is
due to the board focusing on policy making for district wide achievement results and
for initially adopting new roles and responsibilities. However, tensions are rising
132
over superintendent’s actions to raise achievement, especially as it relates to teachers
being pushed too hard.
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations
Table 32. Rubric Scoring of Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations
House Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation Strategies / Action Steps
Labor Relations
and Contract
Negotiations
1 2 From a more resistant and
mistrustful environment
mutually lacking credibility to
better negotiations.
〈 First failed contract negotiation-
impasse was successfully
facilitated by mediation
〈 Student improvement plan
revisited bimonthly
〈 Issues based building council
established
〈 New and open communication
with Superintendent successful
Due to much of the pushback from teachers to radically change their
instructional practices, a resistant and mistrustful environment was created that has
not been completely resolved. The political environment surrounding labor was
mutually lacking credibility. There was little meaningful training on traditional,
interest based and core value bargaining. Only a few stakeholders were kept
informed and involved in the negotiation process. The existing contract language
does not reference the impact on student achievement. Each team worked in isolation
to review existing contract language, and identify problem areas or the impact on
student achievement and district operations. Tension and struggles existed when
deciding professional development and staff assignments. Faculty perceived they
133
were not recognized, nor supported for their impact on student success in the district.
Further, employees resented the heavy district pressure put upon them to improve
student achievement results without perceived adequate support to accomplish
district goals for student achievement. Consequently, there has been a high teacher
attrition rate, with many HQT leaving RMPS to other neighboring school districts.
Table 33. Addressing Change in Labor Relations
Strengths Challenges
〈 Experienced negotiation teams in place.
〈 Both teams have moderate
relationships, credibility, political
savvy, and model ethical behavior.
〈 Some information is disseminated
regarding planning and professional
development.
〈 Bargaining goals are somewhat
developed in relation to importance of
district mission.
〈 There is little meaningful training on traditional, interest
based and core value bargaining.
〈 Only a few stakeholders are informed of the negotiation
process.
〈 Existing contract language does not reference the impact on
student achievement.
〈 Each team works in isolation to review existing contract
language, and identify problem areas or the impact on
student achievement and district operations.
〈 Struggles exist when deciding staff development and
assignments.
〈 Employees perceive they are not recognized for their impact
on student success of the district.
Strategies
〈 All support to teachers to improve trust and confidence in district
〈 Two way communication much improved- Open communication with organization leaders
〈 Used mediator to avoid impasse-approach to bargaining
〈 Site-level administrators on the district negotiating team
〈 Working on equity for all members of the organizations
〈 Bi-monthly meetings to discuss role in student achievement
〈 Superintendent meets with union leadership regularly
〈 Improved support to teachers to improve trust and confidence in district
134
With the arrival of the new administration, there was a slight improvement of
experienced negotiation teams in place. Both the teachers’ union and the
administration now have moderate relationships and there was a perceived
improvement over the past administration. Improved ethical behavior appear to exist
on behalf of the negotiations teams, but it is fair to say that there is still a lack of
political savvy on both parts. Bargaining goals are somewhat developed in relation to
importance of district vision, but not developed enough, as perceived by teacher
union leaders. Some information is disseminated from the district to the union
leadership regarding planning, and professional development.
However, as in the administration prior to the Superintendent Johnson’s
arrival, the values and expectations of labor is not completely aligned with the needs
and the existing realities of the district. Findings revealed that as in the past, most
teachers still complain of a lack of district support to accomplish student
achievement goals. Attrition has remained high as a result. Mistrust and concerns
over budget and accountability are mounting between district and labor according to
labor representatives interviewed. Despite these tensions, interviews also revealed
that Johnson has remained regularly open and in direct contact surrounding the
negotiation and bargaining process.
135
Table 34. Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components Previous Quality Current Quality
Level of
Implementation
Relationships, Communications and Trust 1 3
Negotiation Principles and Objectives 1 3
Strategies for Negotiation 1 1
Fair and Equitable Outcomes 1 1
3
A score of 3.0 was given for quality of current reform strategy and a 3.0 for
the implementation level. The quality and implementation of reform strategy is
moderate. While open communication and negotiations processes put in place are
seen as much improved, strategies implemented need time to take hold. Mistrust and
concerns while present, had diminished.
Family and Community Engagement
Prior to the Johnson administration, relations between the district and the
community had become strained. Communication between the district and the
stakeholders had deteriorated to the point of being non-existent; consequently, there
was mutual suspicion and mistrust. Parents did not feel they were part of the district
and many did not feel welcomed in their children’s schools. Cooperation between the
district and community was virtually non-existent.
136
Table 35. Rubric Scoring of Family and Community Relations
House Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation Strategies / Action Steps
Family and
Community
Engagement
1 3 From strained public
relations to an open two-
way communication that
has sought parents and
community as partners in
student achievement
〈 Greatly increased public
outreach and reestablished
severed, vital relationships
〈 Established RMPS mentor
program -600 participants. To
partner with Big Bro. Big Sis.
〈 Family & Com. leadership
positions established at district
level- not filled
Table 36. Addressing Change in Family and Community Relations
Strengths Challenges
〈 Upon entry, superintendent reorganized by
elevating a Director position to address family and
community issues, many strategies put into place
over past 2 years, by director.
〈 Increased public outreach with parents &
community
〈 Title I schools have a successful Family Liaison
〈 Much outreach to parents, faith-based, City Hall,
Medical Ctr.
〈 Climate was viewed as not welcoming to all
parents
〈 No district support, policies nor training in place
to involve parents or community involvement in
students’ academic success.
〈 Created a new district leader position, but did not
funded for two years
〈 Little financial resources allocated for this area,
yet part of new strategic plan Increased public
outreach with parents & community
Strategies
〈 Part of the strategic plan and reorganization-data driven
〈 Strategies focus on truancy, attendance, behavioral issues.
〈 Reorganization of Director to district leadership position
〈 Diversity training on site to address F&C engagement-TI
〈 Outreach effort to retain students: increase attendance and reduce truancy
〈 RMPS Mentoring program launched: 800 staff year 1.
〈 Partnerships with judicial district, City, mental heath ctr.
〈 Interventions: parents, sub. abuse counseling, restorative justice.
〈 Parent & Community Involvement Survey to K-5
〈 District communication plan: talks, materials translated
137
Significant aspects of the strategic plan focused on family and community
issues. The strategic priorities and corresponding reorganization in his area focused
on strategies that directly impacted truancy, attendance, and behavioral issues. To
enable these aims, partnerships were formed with the judicial district, the City, and
available mental heath services that provide appropriate interventions regarding
parenting issues, substance abuse counseling and restorative justice.
Strategies and activities that were also implemented to improve family and
community partnerships and to involve them more integrally in student achievement
include an improved district communication plan. This plan involved all schools
hosting focus groups with themes such as “coffee talks”. Further, all printed
communications between parents and students were translated into multiple
languages. Interpreters and language translators were more readily available at
school meetings and assemblies, although this did cause irritation to certain parents.
Sporadic diversity training by family liaisons improved at Title I schools. These
outreach strategies targeted family and community leaders in an aim to increase
attendance and reduce truancy. As noted earlier, family liaisons and diversity
training for staff was only available at Title I schools (a relatively small number of
schools in the district).
A promising mentoring program was introduced to pair staff members at all
levels, with students in the district. In the first year of its launch, 800 RMPS staff
members agreed to mentor a district student. Plans exist to expand and grow the
program to involve more staff and community members.
138
Table 37. Family and Community Engagement Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components Previous Quality Current Quality
Level of
Implementation
Parenting 1 3
Communication 1 3
Volunteerism 1 1
Learning at Home 1 1
Decision Making 1 3
Collaboration with the Community 2 3
3
A score of 3.0 was given for quality of current reform strategy and a 3.0 for
implementation level. The district leadership has stated their priority in putting a
high value on constructive relationships between the district, families and the
community. However, many concerns still remain, as reflected in the moderate
quality and implementation ratings. Fiscal allocations do not match such espoused
values.
In addition to the 10 key reform strategies described above, Superintendent
Johnson relied on additional reform strategies to drive change in the district and
deliver improved performance affecting student achievement.
Other House Model Elements
In an effort to drive academic achievement, Superintendent Johnson and his
senior leadership team implemented multiple reform strategies. Other House Model
strategies than those already described and highlighted for this study, and used by
Superintendent Johnson, are briefly described here. Additionally, they are evaluated,
using the Levels of Implementation Rubric (Appendix E) and given a score of 1
139
(low), 3 (medium) or 5 (high), representing the level of progress the superintendent
has made with regard to full implementation of each reform strategy. A few of these
other House Model reform strategies were used as Superintendent Johnson’s
launching strategies and described earlier in these findings. Brief and succinct
descriptions are given and are now evaluated using the Levels of Implementation
Rubric.
Plan of Entry
In July 2006, Bill Johnson began a “90-day Listening Tour” in which he
delivered to members of the Rocky Mountain community, his strategic goals for
RMPS. The expected outcomes of the listening tour included: 1) Maximize public
relations opportunities for Mr. Johnson; 2) Develop transparent two-way
communication with key stakeholders to increase support for RMPS; 3) Promote a
positive image of RMPS among internal and external audiences; 4) Collect feedback
that would develop into a future comprehensive strategic plan document. The efforts
of the superintendent to implement a plan of entry as a reform strategy geared
towards raising student achievement were rated a 5 (high).
Organizational Assessment and Audits
Several organizational audits were conducted upon Bill Johnson’s arrival to
the district. Academic assessment included literacy, mathematics, and special
education. These led to changes in curriculum, instructional approach, and
professional development. Other key departmental audits included HR,
Communications, Office of Accountability and Research, Curriculum and the Board
140
of Education. District leadership was restructured as a result of audits. All cabinet
level leaders have their own departmental operations plan that is linked to the
strategic plan. It is reviewed every six months. The efforts of the superintendent to
implement organizational assessment and audits as a reform strategy, were rated a 5
(high).
Leadership Team Effectiveness
The board empowered Superintendent Mr. Johnson with the freedom to hire
and reorganize his leadership team. He established a deputy superintendent position
and elevated a veteran RMPS district leader for the position. He elevated other key
positions to form a new, larger and more culturally diverse senior cabinet team. One
key lower leadership position to address families and communities was created but
had not been funded. The efforts of the superintendent to implement leadership team
effectiveness were rated a 5 (high).
Organizational Chart
Leadership has been reorganized to reflect strategic priorities. The
superintendent elevated other key positions to form a new, larger and more culturally
diverse senior cabinet team. Reporting lines are now easy to read and reflect the
larger, structural changes that were initiated. The efforts of the Superintendent to
implement systemic reform in the RMPS district to enhance leadership team
effectiveness were rated a 5 (high).
141
Standards
Curriculum is now aligned with state standards. Standards based grading was
being piloted and will be expanded throughout the district. A fifth block of
instruction was added at the primary level. However, RMPS ranks at the bottom 20%
in state comparisons, even with medium level assessments. The efforts of the
Superintendent to implement standards as a reform strategy, particularly as it applies
to implementing standards-based instruction, were rated a 3 (medium).
Instruction
Student achievement is the main focus of Superintendent Johnson’s strategic
plan, and consequently Managed instruction mediates many of the initiatives. While
the intended focus on instruction remains strong, it should be noted that the
instructional experience is still not equal for all students, especially among ethnic
student groups. The efforts of the Superintendent to implement instructional reform
as a strategy to drive student achievement gains was rated a 3 (medium).
Program Effectiveness
Many programs have been fully implemented to impact student achievement,
and many of these, center around instruction; as a result of these efforts, performance
gains are expected. Other new programs center around combating truancy and
student behavioral problems. A volunteer staff mentor program in the first year of
implementation showed early signs of success. The efforts of the superintendent to
implement program effectiveness evaluation as a reform strategy was rated a 3
(medium).
142
Focus on Lowest Performers
ELL students remain as the biggest challenge in the district. Some strategies
have been developed to address ELL learners, yet so far, these strategies have been
only moderately implemented. Graduation rate is currently at 58.4%, which shows a
slight decline from last year. The efforts of the Superintendent to refocus the work of
the District toward supporting the lowest performers, particularly as a reform
strategy to improve student achievement and close achievement gap at RMPS were
rated a 3 (medium).
Student Support Services
Family and community engagement control and operate many new programs.
The efforts of the Superintendent to implement student support services-related
reform strategies were rated a 3 (medium).
Resource Alignment
Seventy seven percent of the 260 million dollar budget directly supports
instruction. A needs-based formula funding model has been implemented to support
efforts to reallocate District resources to schools with the highest populations of
struggling students or large groups of student whose education requires access to
special services. Schools with low performing students or high ELL and/or special
education populations are provided additional resources beyond base allocations.
The efforts of the Superintendent to implement resource alignment as a reform
strategy were rated a 5 (high).
143
Facilities
While many old buildings exist, facilities are adequate and stable. A new
bond was approved by voters for new building construction and technology upgrades
to support instruction. The efforts of the superintendent to implement facilities-
related reform strategies to drive student achievement were rated a 3 (medium).
Performance Management Systems / Accountability Plan
With the promotion of the Chief Accountability Officer, accountability and
assessment is a clear priority in the district. Initially, a pay for performance clause
was sought by the superintendent but not accepted by BOE, and consequently had to
be abandoned. The efforts of the Superintendent to implement a performance
management system and accountability plan as reform strategies were rated a 3
(medium).
Business Services
Fiscal management in the district is strong, even with big budget cuts
looming. All spending is tied to the strategic plan, and there is a corresponding focus
on transparency. Under the Chief Financial Officer’s leadership, 26 million dollars
was saved. The efforts of the Superintendent to implement reform strategies related
to business services were rated a 5 (high).
Other Operational Services
There is a strong emphasis on operational efficiency linked to strategic plan
with improved technology at all levels in the district. A comprehensive centralized
admissions program was developed. Safety and security was made a priority upon
144
Superintendent Johnson’s arrival, likely due to his military background. The district
executive conference room will allow for operational efficiency in the event of a
natural or man-made disaster. Local police and fire chiefs are linked to safety and
security operations and report to senior staff regularly. The efforts of the
Superintendent to implement reform strategies related to other operational services
were rated a 5 (high).
Political Relationships
The superintendent has worked hard to repair many damaged political
relations, especially with city council members. Support for bond measures on the
November ballot is a strong indicator of success in this arena. Regular “Ask
Anything You Want” town hall meetings have been initiated and are yet another
manifestation of the efforts that have been put into community relations. The efforts
of the Superintendent to leverage political relationships as a component of his overall
reform strategy were rated a 5 (high).
Philanthropic and Institutional Partnerships
The district sought and a secured a $500,000 grant from a foundation to focus
on ELL instruction. The district has built a strategic partnership with the University
of Colorado to create educational linkages with a new medical center in the district.
Additionally, a small scholarship fund was set up for graduating students. The efforts
of the Superintendent to leverage philanthropic and institutional partnerships to
support District reform strategies tied to improving student academic achievement
were rated a 5 (high).
145
Constituent Service
Several health and Behavioral clinics set up on campus and others were
expanded. Translation services have been much improved. However, community
engagement programs and services are in their early stages with many planned
efforts not yet launched. The efforts of the superintendent to implement constituent
services as a reform strategy were rated a 3 (medium).
Sustainability
Funding is enrollment based. Large drop in enrollment has led to a 10 million
dollar deficit yet fiscal management remains strong. The district had remained stable
for many years. Bond funding has created opportunities for new school construction
that will support future enrollment growths. The efforts of the superintendent to
implement sustainability as a reform strategy were rated a 5 (high).
Discussion
The findings presented in this study were developed and presented by
reviewing the data collected in the context of the conceptual framework of the House
Model (Figure 1). The purpose of this section is to understand the findings of this
study and provide meaning to the reform strategies implemented by the
superintendent to improve student achievement.
A Systems Perspective of Leadership
Conceptualizing how organizations work best when viewing the whole
system is best articulated by Senge (1994). Schools leaders, who are systems
thinkers, address all interrelated parts of the system: school culture, instruction,
146
professional development, resource alignment, etc. Those who understand and lead
from a systems perspective look for ways in which they can have the most impact on
the whole school system. Such leaders look for ways in which they can implement
systems and structures to support the improvement effort so that the effort is self
sustaining and not dependent on one charismatic leader (Senge,1994). The reform
efforts undertaken by Superintendent Johnson in many ways has mirrored a systems
approach to reforming the organization of RMPS. The reform efforts happened in
several stages: launching strategies, completion of the strategic plan, and action
around the 10 House Elements.
System leaders and educational systems that are most successful at closing
achievement gaps, not only engage in activities and interventions but focus on the
larger continuous process of improvement (Elmore, 2002; Fullan et al, 2004).
Johnson worked quickly and diligently, as new school leaders must do, to define a
vision tied to goals for the district that he felt would lead to improved student
achievement and provided action steps to guide these goals and objectives. A plan
must be focused and connect the work across and within all departments Childress et
al., 2006; Fullan et al., 2004) to achieve lasting results. However, actions taken by
the superintendent to drive achievement were met with increasing resistance by the
board, as pressure on teachers mounted.
Close analysis of site interviews and district documents suggest that four
themes emerged from this study. A focus on: (a) strategic planning (b) continuation
of curriculum (c) professional development d) the changing demographics/ESL
147
population. Based on the literature reviewed, these themes are supported by action
research and best practices.
The Strategic Plan
Out of Superintendent Johnson’ awareness that RMPS ranks at the bottom
20% in state comparisons, even with medium level assessments, he made student
achievement the main focus of his strategic plan. The superintendent’s strong
background in strategic planning in the military helped him develop a plan that was
comprehensive, and on the surface, appeared easy for most stakeholders to
understand (Watkins, 2004). Johnson began his tenure with a 90-day collaborative
plan which included clear plan of entry, a listening and learning tour to establish
strategic priorities and goals, and activities and objectives that would eventually
become the district’s strategic plan. Research supports the fact that the first 100 days
on the job are critical for laying the foundation, building momentum and creating
coalitions to sustain the long-term success of the organization (Neff & Citrin, 2005;
Watkins, 2004). Mr. Johnson worked diligently to build his own credibility and that
of the district by meeting with major stakeholders internal and external to the district.
The ensuing strategic plan included many critical components such as vision,
mission goals and activities linked to goals. Due to it’s second year of existence, the
superintendent was aware that the annually evolving plan (in its second year) was
likely not clear on how the district would measure results from activities. Reeves
(2002) posited that strategic plans must create a standard for actions, assessments to
measure progress, and mechanisms for feedback between actions taken and the
148
results achieved. Superintendent Johnson had an extensive background in strategic
planning in the military. It is surprising that his educational strategic plan would lack
such critical components. Perhaps the controlled environment that exists in the
military did not require a guiding document to tie metrics to goals as is needed in
education, and might be interesting to explore this oversight in future research.
These findings reveal that a large part of the staff at RMPS could recite the
district vision if asked. There was significant buy-in for the strategic plan from many
constituent groups, but not all. The reasons for the hesitation in some, according to
an online survey conducted by the district, appeared to center around the RMPS
strategic vision: Graduate every student with the choice to attend college without
remediation. A lack of clarity about the vision was revealed in a public affairs audit.
Johnson admitted that there was increasingly more “push back” according to
Johnson.
The superintendent has worked hard to set a vision that all students can
achieve. Upon entering the district, the superintendent “hung his hat” on dramatic
student improvement to get every student at grade level by the year 2010. The
literature supports the critical importance of leadership in any school improvement
effort (Barth, 1990; Elmore, 2000; Sergiovanni, T.J., Kelleher, P., McCarthy, M. &
Wirt, F.M. 2004). However, site interviews and document analysis revealed that
some in the district, especially among the teachers, felt that the vision was an
unlikely target, and that it was doubtful that it could be attained, nor the
superintendent’s goal to get all students at grade level by the year 2010. The plan
149
implemented by the superintendent, specifically the vision, implied a significant
cultural shift for all stakeholders. Fullan, M. (2001) offers insights on leadership in a
culture that is quickly changing. Fullan highlights the importance of “core values”
and “principles” in the change process. Hoachlander et al. (2001) suggest that
articulating a vision and providing a clear direction for schools is the clear
responsibility of its leaders. Scheurich and Skrla (2003) point out that the most
important characteristics in leaders who create equitable schools is that they operate
from a strong ethical or moral core focused on equity and excellence. Johnson
admits that the vision was meant to set a high standard because of what struck him as
the very low expectation of students in the district upon his arrival.
It is fair to say that Superintendent Johnson has centered his leadership
priorities on articulating his strategic vision. However, it is troubling given Johnson’s
experience, that he did not clearly develop the strategic plan or articulate how he was
planning to measure progress towards those goals. It is more troubling that a board
who prided themselves on being innovative and change oriented would frown upon
actions taken by the superintendent, if they felt his reform efforts pushed teachers too
hard. To drive achievement to the levels envisioned in the strategic plan
(unanimously adopted by the board) will take time, hard effort, and resources.
Continuation of the Curriculum Focus
RMPS had a strong instructional focus under the prior superintendent. The
strong instructional focus in prior years showed increases in growth data, but many
students were still not showing proficiency increases to meet benchmarks. However,
150
despite the well-intentioned teaching and student affirmative outlook, that had been
the historical legacy of RMPS, student test scores began to drop district wide as
student demographics began to change. Mr. Johnson arrived to find that students
were scoring 20% below the state average in the standards-based state test (CSAP).
Literacy was at the bottom 10% in the state, and math was at the bottom 18% in the
state.
The strategies used by Johnson to improve curriculum were to build upon and
improve the prior curriculum, assessment, and instructional focus rather than wipe
out reform efforts in this area by the previous superintendent. High standards in
achievement were set in part due to the district’s percentage of highly qualified
teachers (98.2%). First, he restructured the instructional leadership around student
needs. Specifically, Johnson promoted a new Chief Accountability Officer from
within and other skilled personnel to implement a new assessment system and new
curriculum. The new leadership team saw to it that curriculum aligned more fully
with state and federal standards. They developed a district-wide accountability
system within the newly created Accountability Office. As student achievement was
the main focus of Superintendent Johnson’s strategic plan, consequently a managed
instructional approach was implemented and mediated many of the initiatives.
With the use of their technology and information systems, instructional
leaders at the building level are able to disaggregate their assessment data, which is
important for meeting NCLB benchmarks. After the interim data is collected and
disaggregated, the building receives a data notebook so they can analyze the data at a
151
building level and the classroom level. Sufficient research findings point to the use
of data and assessment to improve instruction (Bernhardt, 1998; Darling-Hammond,
1994; Halcomb, 1999; Schmoker, 1996). There is now a more collaborative
approach to improving achievement at RMPS due to open communication between
grade level instructors.
Changing Demographics and Changing the Culture: The ELL Population
As reported earlier in this study, sudden and significant shifts in the past
decade to what is now a 22.6% white student population and 78.4% minority student
population, an almost complete reversal of what the student demographics reflected a
decade ago, has proven challenging for RMPS in terms of teaching and learning.
Interviews reveal that this challenge has existed for more than a decade. Although
RMPS has retained a highly qualified teacher corps, 88.8% of the teachers are white
and are therefore not reflective of the 78% students of color. For Johnson, the focus
on curriculum and instruction remained strong. However, the instructional
experience is still not equal for all students, especially among ethnic student groups,
ELLs, under-performing students, and those with disabilities. Strengthening
professional development has been one way for educators to build their skill levels in
narrowing achievement gaps yet remains a challenge for RMPS, as it is does for
most large urban districts (Johnson, 2002; Olsen & Jamarillo, 1999; Symonds, 2003).
A review of the literature shows that using data to guide discussions around how race
and racism plays a part in achievement for of students of color is an important step in
improving equity in schools (Symonds, 2003). Districts play a key role in improving
152
schools (Waters and Marzano, 2006; Reeves 2000; Elmore, 2003) especially for
students on the wrong side of the achievement gap. Symonds (2003) describes the
characteristics of schools and districts that have been successful at closing gaps in
achievement. These schools use data regularly to understand students’ skills gaps,
teachers receive professional development on linking data to instructional strategies,
leaders set measurable goals for narrowing the gaps, and importantly, leaders provide
opportunities for discussing race and racism.
In schools with ELL populations, Johnson’s communications team developed
methods to communicate to non-English speaking parents. The district developed
programs to train parents on how to help their children succeed academically and to
keep them updated on district concerns, however, this is primarily occurring in the
few Title I schools in the district.
Resource alignment has remained a weakness in addressing equity issues
according to information gleaned from interviews. A senior level manager, Naomi
Sandoval, expressed genuine frustration and sensitivity over what the district
managers touted as successful measures taken to address diversifying the district’s
teachers and staff. Frustration stemmed from what she saw as a fundamental value
difference in hiring practices. Sandoval gave an example of being at an important
event where the HR department was presenting hiring data on teacher and
administrative figures. Sandoval’s personal analysis showed that while yes, there
was a bit of diversification in the management staff, those areas of dissatisfaction
were primarily among the custodial and nutritional staff. She expressed that in a
153
senior staff meeting, while she did not want to sound defensive, she reminded her
colleagues that there had been no fundamental changes in representation of senior
management in her five years with the district. She recalled heated discussions in the
senior cabinet meeting about hiring a more diverse teacher and administrative staff:
Oh we want hire a diverse staff as long as they are qualified. You never hear
someone in our district saying we want to hire a white staff as long as they
are qualified. There are some hidden “isms” and again, this may be too much
for me to say in my position, but it came from the fact that we hired a
diversity coordinator position. This was a mid-management position that was
supposed to do all sorts of things. So we looked at the position as a senior
management team and I was sitting there looking at it, 55 percent of the
position responsibilities had to do with discipline. And with specific lines
saying “This will be the liaison between diverse parents and law
enforcement”, and that was what really started the discussion for me,
personally, that was offensive. I am embarrassed to work in a district where
this is our diversity coordinator.
That the first diversity coordinator position created in a district would be
responsible largely for discipline was a cause of concern for Sandoval, is interesting
on many levels. Research from Gordon, Della Piana & Keleher (2000) supports her
concern. Their research of twelve districts across the country found that students of
color compared to white students, experience widespread and persistent institutional
racism, as evidenced by the disproportionate rates of suspension and expulsion;
higher drop out rates; and less access to advanced classes.
What resulted from the discussion in the aforementioned meeting was the
creation of a new Equity and Engagement position to work mainly with schools and
communities with high ELL populations. While it is difficult to ascertain what
impact one person could have in a district the size of RMPS, it is more interesting
154
that the district and board chose not to fund the new Equity and Engagement position
for the first academic year during (the year of this study) but was looking to do so in
the following year. Sandoval questioned what that said about the district, and the
priorities and value held in creating such a position.
In an action research study of three high performing, high poverty school
districts in California, Springboard Research (2006) found that schools that were
most successful in narrowing gaps in achievement were located in districts that did
not merely embrace mantra such as “all children can learn” but rather focused their
attention and resources on the groups of students who needed the most help. Their
research revealed that principals in districts who gained the best results referred to
their districts as taking a proactive role with their English Language Learners.
Proactive activities that were district supported and sponsored included: teacher
training for teachers with ELL students; the development of a needs assessments and
intake service systems that meets the needs of all ELL students; setting expectations
for principals to know which of their students were English learners; and assessment
data to track student progress.
One principal interviewed confirmed that there is little diversity training for
staff and that she often hears teachers making condescending remarks about student
of color such as:
Oh God bless our kids, you’ve got to love them. They have so many
problems at home, their parents are this…their parents are that. They are
lucky to make it in today. But why aren’t we talking as a district about what
expectations our white, middle-class female teachers are saying about our
students of color? I want to add that it is a huge problem in terms of the
155
[strategic] vision because how are you going to achieve the vision if going
into it there are some staff members that already have the belief that those
kids can only achieve to a certain level.
The student and teacher demographics that exist at RMPS may be important
to consider in the context of a lack of professional development regarding diversity
training for teachers, administrators and staff. It is important to note that while the
Human Resources department determines whether an individual new teacher meets
hiring qualifications at RMPS, it is the individual school principal who hires the
teacher. Without professional training for principals that lead to an examination of
their own institutional commitment and value of diversity, principals miss the
opportunity to truly ascertain if a potential new teacher, even one “highly qualified”
is truly committed to teaching all children to high standards.
There are some real opportunities to address issues of diversity, equity and
access with a new teacher cohort arriving to RMPS every year (250-300). Research
suggests that it is imperative to have these discussions in schools and leaders must
structure such environments to explore institutional racism in schools (Diamond,
Randolph & Spillane, 2003 and Gordon, Della Piana & Keleher, 2000).
The finding from this research suggests that systematic reform implemented
across dimensions are critical to reform, yet difficult to achieve. However, with
literacy rates at RMPS at the bottom 10% in the state and math at the bottom 18% in
the state, big educational gains will need no less than district-wide reform to make
them sustainable. Priority must be given to addressing the tension mounting
regarding actions needed to achieve gains versus teachers’ need to feel more
156
supported, thus not pushed too hard. The stakes are high. NCLB mandates higher
standards and greater accountability in secondary systems. The legislation calls for
states to increase high school graduation requirements, improve academic test score
performance, and raise high school graduation rates.
For RMPS more focus is needed in areas of school culture regarding English
language learners, aligning curriculum to state standards, diversity training and
professional development, and the alignment of capital and human resources to close
student achievement gaps, if the RMPS district is to meet NCLB mandates and make
significant impacts on student achievement.
Implications for Community College
In this case study we examined large-scale change strategies in districts
including: strategic planning, curriculum, professional development,
communications, family and community engagement, labor relations, governance
and board relations, finance and budget, assessments, and human resources, and
found them all to be critical components of student success at the K-12 level.
Implications from the current study can be drawn for system leaders of community
colleges. Research shows that districts play a key role in improving schools at the K-
12 level (Waters and Marzano, 2006; Reeves 2000; Elmore, 2003). However, at the
community college level, applying similar district-wide reform strategies
systematically, similar to those demonstrated in this case, could be problematic due
to particular constraints community college leaders face in implementing large-scale
change.
157
Over the past thirty years, community colleges have become educational
institutions with often-contradictory views of performance (Dougherty, 1994).
Community colleges have distinct features that make them unique among American
higher education and have become a model for the world (Cohen & Brawer, 1996).
Created to directly serve public need, they have become comprehensive institutions
serving academic, occupational training, and service functions, often responding to
educational needs ignored by other institutions (Baily & Averianova, 1999).
Community colleges have expanded their mission over the past 100 years, but have
remained committed to the philosophy of being open-access institutions, welcoming
students who would benefit from education thereby, attracting students from many
backgrounds.
Critics question how one institution can simultaneously provide
undergraduates with the academic rigor, while providing workforce and other
training not requiring degrees or certificates (Dougherty, 1994). Judgments about
the performance of community colleges have become increasingly significant in a
higher educational context where there are changing population demographics,
considerable growth in student numbers, and more competition for students, prestige,
and resources (Levin, 2007).
There are several complex reasons that are unique to community colleges that
constrain system leaders from implementing district-wide reform (such as designed
in the House Model). Conversely, these conditions would need to be altered if
sustained educational gains were to be made. A myriad of complex conditions exist
158
that are worthy of analysis and discussion, and offered here are no definitive
solutions. Rather, four conditions currently exist in community colleges, particularly
in California, that are important to consider when considering district-wide reform.
They lie within the historical design of community colleges and include: 1) the
unique governance structure and funding; 2) full-time and part-time faculty; 3) the
very diverse and evolving purposes of community colleges; and 4) misalignment
between secondary and post-secondary systems.
Although it is acknowledged that these topic areas certainly deserve more at
length discussion, to provide more than a brief overview goes beyond the limits of
this present study. The four conditions are not presented in any particular order
because they are so very interdependent.
Governance Structure
Community college systems are best understood as organizational structures
with both internal and external complexities. Birnbaum (1988) classifies post-
secondary institutions into a system in terms of bureaucratic, political, and
anarchical. Within this theory, the author defines these institutions as complex
organized anarchy that exhibits problematic goals, an unclear technology, and fluid
participation.
In 1960, the California Master Plan for education established the principal of
universal access to post-secondary education in California, where all students “cable
of benefiting from instruction” were to be admitted. The California Community
Colleges (CCC) system is the largest system of higher education in the world. In
159
2006-2007 it served 2.6 million students (California Community College
Chancellor’s Office, 2008). There are 109 community colleges in the system. The
governor appoints a sixteen-member board of governors, which oversee the 72-
locally governed districts, each with its own elected board of trustees, overlaid with a
state level governance structure. Local trustees negotiate union contracts with faculty
and staff. Local and state wide academic senates add another layer of governance
with respect to academic and curricular concerns.
While community college systems superintendents, chancellors, and
presidents operate with varying degrees of autonomy, they are nevertheless
accountable to external stakeholders, accrediting bodies, and the federal government.
The state mandates a shared-governance process, the collective (faculty and
administrators) involvement in the selection of administrators, curricular issues,
preparation of budgets and policies, and the development of student learning. The
process has been viewed as evolving into a consensus model with veto power
exercised by numerous parties. When change is proposed, stakeholders within the
system view the process from a “winners” and “losers” perspective, creating a strong
force that often inhibits change (Shulock, Moore, Offenstein, Kirlin, 2008).
Districts receive their funds from the state and are subject to a myriad of laws
and regulations that govern financial and academic operations. Shulock & Moore
(2007) suggest that in California, three major policy issues exist that impede
colleges: 1) resources provided to colleges are not enough to successfully fulfill their
mission, 2) distribution of resources encourages student enrollment but not success,
160
3) colleges are often times heavily restricted in use of their funding to meet student
needs. For example, the “50%” law guarantees minimum funding for instruction,
while student services are very often categorically funded programs. These situations
often create silos and barriers to coordinating academic and student services that best
meet student needs on local campuses. In California when colleges go “over cap”
there is a funding disincentive for enrolling more students than projected by the
Chancellor’s Office. The apportionment, or amount colleges get paid per full-time-
equivalent-student, is greatly reduced.
Many of these funding conditions do not exit in the K-12 system. These
conditions constrain leaders in community college, and deprive them of the authority
needed to manage resources to best manage their colleges and districts. In a state as
diverse as California, community college leaders experience vastly different
economic, labor market, and social conditions throughout the 109 colleges. This
requires that colleges adapt and change to meet their community’s needs (Baily &
Averianova, 1999). The current governance structure would need to implement
major policy reforms in terms of resource allocation and flexibility for districts to
develop innovative sustainable strategies for increasing student success. The
situation will only worsen if “tidal wave two” predicted by some researchers brings
to campuses even larger numbers of underprepared, first-generation students
(Hayward, Jones, McGuinness, and Timar, 2004).
161
Multiple and evolving missions of community colleges
Formal external and internal relationships within the community college
structure, both organizationally complex, prove the difficulties of meeting the
multiple missions of the community college (Locke and Guglielmo, 2006).
Community colleges have exceedingly vital and difficult missions to fulfill. The
open-access philosophy is built on low tuition, convenient location, flexible
scheduling, an open-door admissions policy, and programs and services designed to
support students who often have a variety of socio-economic and academic barriers
to postsecondary success (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). Over half of all undergraduates
in the United States are enrolled in a community college. In times of economic
downturn, more people turn to these open-access institutions for education and
training (Baily, 2002).
Their comprehensive missions and service functions have evolved over the
years to respond to the needs of our society and local communities (Baily &
Averianova, 1999). The main functions include academic preparation including
transfer, career technical education, remedial education, adult education, and
community development. While community colleges have expanded their mission
over the past 100 years, they have remained committed to the philosophy of being
open-access institutions, welcoming students who would benefit from education,
thereby attracting students from many backgrounds.
Community colleges are a crucial point of access to higher education for low-
income and minority students. Many of these students would not be in college if
162
community colleges were not available (Alfonso, 2004; Kane & Rouse, 1995). In
California, there is great concern about the high percentage of entering first-time
college students who place into basic skills sequence (70 percent in English; 90% in
math). The state’s 109 community colleges provide the only access to higher
education for two-thirds of first-time students in public institutions. In 2006-2007,
700,000 were enrolled in below-college-level courses. Of importance to note is that
only 29% of the students who enrolled in a basic skills course earned an associate’s
degree, vocational certificate, or transferred to a four-year institution by 2006-2007
(California Community College Chancellor’s Office, 2008).
The concern is that California’s skilled workforce will soon be too small to
serve the needs of the state. A 2002 Education Testing Service (ETS) study found
that nationally both high school and college rates leveled off in the mid-to-early
1970’s. After rising throughout history, the rate of bachelor degree attainment
stabilized 30 years ago at 21%-25%. Only in 1996 did the rate slightly begin to rise
again (Barton, 2002).
Research has shown that students who have stronger high school records,
who come from higher income families, whose parents also went to college, who do
not delay college entry after high school, who attend full time, and who do not
interrupt their college studies are more likely to graduate (Rosenbaum, 2001; Choy,
2002). The intensity and the quality of a student’s high school curriculum is one of
the best predictors that a student will matriculate to degree completion (Adelman,
1999). African-American, Latino, and Native American students continue to lag
163
behind their white and Asian counterparts in almost all measures of student
achievement (Education Trust, 1999).
While serving underprepared students has always been a mission of
community colleges, the growing size of this student population, coupled with the
urgent workforce needs of California, requires the ability and willingness to find
more effective ways to successfully support these students. Institutions, policy
makers, administrators, and faculty are underprepared for the task of serving their
underprepared students. Continuing to view the student as central to the problem will
only delay innovative and comprehensive solutions that lead to more equitable gains
for disadvantaged students. Society’s need to produce a more educated citizenry will
also be delayed.
Community College Faculty
Instruction is highly valued in the community college and remains as the core
mission, with the focus on student learning. Community college system leaders are
restrained in implementing a systemic change model such as the House Model
because most of the elements in the House model are within the faculty’s domain.
Curriculum, instruction, assessments, and professional development are all critical
components of the House model. Yet, at the community college level unlike in the
K-12 system, the ‘ten-plus-one’ policy in the California Department of Education
code clearly puts all decision-making surrounding these elements, in the hands of the
faculty.
164
The policy development of all academic and professional matters within the
California Community College system involve the following ‘ten-plus-one’ matters:
1) curriculum, including establishing prerequisites 2) degree and certificate
requirements 3) grading policies 4) educational program development 5) standards or
policies regarding student preparation and success 6) college governance structures,
as related to faculty roles 7) faculty roles and involvement in accreditation process 8)
policies for faculty professional development activities 9) processes for program
review10) processes for institutional planning and budget development 11) other
academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon (California Department
of Education Code, Section 5320).
The curricular functions of community colleges have not changed much over
the years. They remain: academic preparation, transfer, career-technical education,
remedial education, and community development, including adult education (Cohen
& Brawer, 1996). What has changed are the demographics and preparation of this
student population. Community colleges have been referred to as “teaching colleges”
mainly because they teach substantially more hours than faculty at four-year
institutions and are generally not expected to produce the scholarly research required
of faculty at research universities. Further, the faculty at community colleges is not
as likely to have had professional pedagogical training (Grubb, 1999).
Community colleges are challenged with addressing the basic skills students
need in order to be successful. Faculty must engage and stimulate students to
develop critical thinking skills. Faculty inquiry refers to a set of practices that
165
engages faculty to look critically at student learning for the purpose of improving
their teaching, courses or programs (Huber & Hutchings, 2005). Faculty inquiry
offers a promising faculty approach in addressing the academic needs of basic skills
students. Yet, reflecting on ones teaching and further, sharing that reflective work
with colleagues, requires more than the desire of the faculty to collaborate. The
institution must value a culture of inquiry and allocate resources, time, and money to
support it.
The situation is far more complex for staggering number of adjunct or part-
time faculty in the United States. Approximately 68% of all faculty teaching at
public two-year colleges hold part-time assignments (US Department of Education,
2008). In California, many part-time faculty are regularly contracted to teach basic
skills courses mainly because they are needed there due to tenured faculty preference
for teaching upper-level or more academically rigorous courses (Hagedorn et. al
2002).
While many part-time faculty are dedicated to teaching, they are restricted in
the hours they can work at one campus. This often requires them to teach at multiple
institutions, creating a situation that does not foster a commitment to a particular
institution, making collaboration with colleagues difficult. In order to make a living,
they must work at 3-4 institutions. They are often labeled ‘freeway flyers’ because of
their daily commute to multiple campuses. For a majority, their part-time status often
does not afford them a desk or office hours to interface with the very students who
166
need the most support and encouragement from them, which are first year and basic
skills students (Hagedorn et al. 2002).
K-12 and community college alignment
There have been visible efforts at the state and federal level to increase
academic standards and college attendance since A Nation at Risk raised national
concern about American pubic education in 1983. This is evident in the federal No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which mandated higher standards and greater
accountability in secondary systems. The legislation calls for states to increase high
school graduation requirements, improve academic test score performance, and raise
high school graduation rates (Barton, 2005).
In California, the K-12 system began its major reform efforts in 1995 with
the development of content standards, curriculum, frameworks, and assessment.
(Kirst & Venezia, 2004). Due to their open admission philosophy, there are no
entrance exams at community colleges. They must find a way to maintain standards
for college-level work, therefore placement tests, or assessment exams for English
and math are commonly administered at most community colleges. This is
particularly true for courses that transfer to four-year colleges and universities.
While California may strive to align K-12 standards and assessments with
higher education readiness, what actually exists is a lack of coherence and
collaboration among the two. This is evident in the high percentages of below-
college level placements for first-time college students who place into a basic skills
sequence (70 percent in English and 90% in math). This misalignment between the
167
two sectors regarding the standards for college level work creates significant
problems for students, particularly those who place into basic skills levels, often
leading to frustration and failure to persist to goal attainment (Rosenbaum, 2001).
High rates of remediation caused by lack of preparation create challenges for
community college leaders who are charged with closing gaps in achievement.
However, one statewide initiative appears to consider the conditions addressed that
make systemic change difficult on a statewide level or a local level.
The California Basic Skills Initiative
In response to this growing challenge to address basic skills students, the
Board of Governors, the governing body of the California Community College
(CCC) system adopted one of the most sweeping initiatives in the history of the CCC
system to address the needs of students: The California Basic Skills Initiative (CA
BSI). What makes the initiative unprecedented is that this major move towards
organizational change was made with the collaboration of Academic Senate for the
CCC, the state instructional officers, and state student services officers. The close
collaboration also involves the community colleges presidents, chief instructional
officers, chief student services officers; the academic senate, and the CCC
Chancellor’s Office (Illowsky, 2008).
The program is coordinated at the state level and assists the 109 college
campuses by providing information and literature reviews on organizational and
administrative practices, program components, professional development,
instructional practices, self assessment tools, and cost revenue-models that explain
168
how these programs can pay for themselves or even result in a net gain for colleges.
The CA BSI is grant funded according to basic skill and ESL population rates. It is a
key project developed to address student success and readiness and was adopted in
the CCC system strategic plan.
The strategic plan emphasizes the community colleges central role in meeting
the state’s social and economic need. To succeed, the system must significantly be
transformed in terms of how the colleges address and meet the needs of students with
basic skills and students with ESL needs. Constituencies on individual community
college campuses have reported renewed energy and commitment among faculty and
administrators to meeting the challenges of improving student learning and
achievement for these students. Of equal importance is that faculty, administrators,
and the Chancellor’s Office are working together respectfully as colleagues toward
the same goal (Illowsky, 2008).
While this initiative does not offer a definitive solution to the complex
problem. Done exceedingly well with continuous improvement (and funding) the CA
BSI has enormous potential. It approached a systematic solution that involved the
governance structure and faculty involvement in the solution. In California,
community college leaders are challenged to sharply focus on addressing this urgent
societal need. While it is important to promote collaboration among educational
sectors, leadership is needed to correct serious disconnects that create real barriers to
educational attainment.
169
Would the 10 reform strategies and others in the House Model suggested for
new K-12 superintendents serve community college system leaders in their efforts to
transform the community college system given their challenges? Community
colleges hold tremendous potential to address society’s most pressing economic and
social needs. While there is no “magic bullet”, systemic and transformational change
would require addressing the governance structure, providing resources to meet
community colleges multiple missions, and partnering with faculty in the
development towards solutions.
Hellmich (2007) who writes about ethical leadership in the community
colleges, suggests that as we attempt to find models for ethical relationships between
community college faculty and administrators, those who are most intimately
involved as both an institution and a transforming process, it appears reasonable to
look at transformational theories of leadership and ethics. The author suggests that
these theories provide consistency and coherency between analytically separate
entities (institution, administrators, faculty) that are dependent on one another as well
as on other entities (student, staff, government, other stakeholders). Given the
complexities of the community college system, particularly in California,
transformation is a key concept which all members of the institution should be bear
in mind when involved in the difficult process of change and reform.
This chapter serves as a review of the findings, analysis and the interpretation
of this data. The interpretation of findings involved the analysis of multiple data
relevant to the research in Chapter Two. The data was useful in identifying the level
170
and quality of the implementation of the reform strategies selected by the
Superintendent to improve student achievement supported by research and provided
insight to the researcher in discovering the connections between the quality and
implementation levels and student achievement. The findings in this study were
based on multiple data collection, which strengthen the validity of the study. The
summary, conclusions and implications of the study are presented in Chapter Five.
171
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Despite decades of state and district reform efforts, millions of school
children in the United States attend schools that fail to educate their students to meet
acceptable standards. Now more than ever, school system leaders must be prepared
to implement effective reform strategies to comply with elaborate federal mandates
that are both complex and prescriptive and aimed at raising student achievement.
Therefore, a better understanding of actions that drive reform in large urban districts
for improved student achievement is needed. Implementing rapid and effective
change that leads to sustained educational gains is difficult in a large urban district.
While no one reform strategy can be expected to succeed in all contexts, as each
district has its own history, research shows that superintendents impact student
achievement, and that impact could be positive, negative, or not at all. Understanding
what systematic strategies effective urban superintendents implement, that positively
results in student gains is of critical importance for those seeking to improve
opportunities for all students to receive a high-quality education.
Purpose of the Study
The main purpose of the study was to identify reform strategies utilized by
urban superintendents that improve student achievement in large urban districts. This
case study of one superintendent focused on ten specific reform strategies to
determine what specific actions were taken to initiate change targeted at improved
student achievement. This research is part of a two-phase study. Phase I, conducted
by Takata, et al., (2007) compared the reform strategies of two Urban School
172
Leadership Institute (USLI) graduates which generated theses to be explored in a
nationwide study. Using similar methodology, Phase II examined ten recent
graduates serving as superintendents of large urban districts using a case study
methodology. This is one such case study that was conducted using a conceptual
framework called The House Model, which contains ten elements that were
examined to determine what part (if any) they played in the overall district reform
plan. They included: 1) strategic plan; 2) professional development; 3) finance &
budget; 4) human resource systems; 5) labor negotiations; 6) assessment; 7)
curriculum; 8) family & community engagement; 9) governance/board relations; and
10) communications.
This in-depth case study explored the actions of one superintendent upon
entry into his district to examine how the superintendent assessed the strengths and
challenges to determine reform strategies and how his personal and professional
background might have influenced the superintendent’s decision to make district
wide changes to improve student achievement. Further, this study sought to
understand how the strategies chosen for reform would potentially improve student
achievement outcomes. Lastly, the study sought potential implications that could be
drawn from this type of educational reform that could inform community college
leaders seeking systematic reform for that sector.
To that end, the researchers sought to answer the following research question
and three sub-questions:
173
1. How are the 10 key reform strategies being used by large urban school
superintendents to improve student achievement in his or her respective
district?
a. How does the quality and implementation of 10 key reform strategies
correspond to the strengths and challenges of the district when the
superintendent took office?
b. What additional reform strategies (if any) were used? How do they
correspond to the elements of the House Model?
c. How does the choice and implementation of the 10 key reform
strategies correspond to the previous background/experiences of the
superintendent?
Methodology
This qualitative research design includes conceptual frameworks and case
study methodology. This in-depth analytic case study of an urban school
superintendent called for a qualitative methodology, as case studies are particularly
valuable when they are well constructed, they are holistic, and they are context
sensitive (Patton, 2002) as this study is. This research design called for a case study
because little is known about reform strategy levers or key strategies used by urban
school systems leaders that improve student achievement. This research study seeks
to explore the process of school reform in order to bring about necessary changes in
student achievement.
174
Interviews were selected as the key data gathering tool in that they would
provide the vehicle for describing individual perceptions regarding the selection and
implementation of 10 key reform strategies engaged by an Urban School Leadership
Institute (USLI) superintendent in efforts to positively impact student achievement in
one large urban school district. The USLI is an innovative superintendent preparation
program funded by the Urban School Leadership Foundation. The specific findings
that emerged through this in-depth, multi-perspective case study analysis produced
qualitative data that defined and delineated the effectiveness of each reform strategy
engaged by the one USLI superintendent in their respective district. The unit of
analysis in this study was one large urban school district, the district superintendent,
and other relevant key players.
Sample
One large school district superintendent was purposefully selected due to
meeting the criteria set for this study. Purposeful sampling allows one to learn a great
deal of in-depth information by selecting information-rich cases that are centrally
important to the purpose of the study. Purposefully selecting an urban school district
superintendent allowed for powerful insights through inquiries that revealed
strategies used to improve student achievement. Further, purposeful sampling
allowed for inquiries to better understand the influences that the district context
(Patton, 2002) and the preparation program had on the system leader’s use of key
levers.
175
Data Collection and Analysis
Data for the study was collected in June of 2008. The conceptual framework,
the House Model, was selected as a basis for the study. The House Model was
developed by USLI researchers by reviewing relevant current literature and research-
based best practices. The model provides a visual representation of the reform
strategies used by the USLI in its ten-month training sessions. Overall, the House
Model represents a map of various strategic elements that today’s educational leaders
must address in their roles as systems leaders as explained in detail in chapter 3 of
the methodology section.
Five instruments were developed for the qualitative data collection and
analysis and provided a foundation for this study:
1. Superintendent Interview Guide (Appendix A) the instrument guided the
one-hour interview process with the superintendent to explore overall
strategies implemented to improve student achievement.
2. Key Player Interview Guide (Appendix B) was the instrument used that
guided the one-hour interview process with two key players familiar with
the overall reform strategy and correlated to the research question.
3. Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Appendix C) was the
instrument that was used to collect data as to the quality and extent of the
each interview question related to the research question.
176
4. Quality Rubric (Appendix D) this instrument measured the quality of the
design for each of the 10 key reform strategies, utilizing a 5 point Likert
scale indicating high (5), moderate (3), or low (1) quality.
5. Implementation Rubric (Appendix E) measured how each reform strategy
was implemented utilizing a 5 point Likert scale indicating high (5),
moderate (3), or low (1) levels in terms of four criteria including; 1) the
external challenges to full implementation; 2) the extent that each
component of the reform strategy is fully implemented in practice; 3) the
level of shared understanding, values, and expectations; and, 4) the
sustainability of staff and fiscal resources.
In order to support validity, a variety of data collection tools and a diverse
group of study participants were engaged to support methodological and data
triangulation from multiple sources.
Summary of Findings
Several key findings resulted from the data collection processes relating to
the research questions produced. This section summarizes those findings and relates
each finding to the instrumentation and primary sources of data collected. This
section focuses on the ten House Model elements and summarizes what systemic
reform dimensions the superintendent utilized to improve student achievement.
177
Research Question 1: Use of 10 key reform strategies
Research question 1a asked, “How are the 10 key reform strategies being
used by large urban school superintendents to improve student achievement in his or
her respective district?”
Strategic Plan
Johnson began his tenure with a 90-day clear plan of entry outlining his goals
for the district that would lead to student gains in achievement. The board of
directors identified broad strategic priorities for Johnson to focus on. They included
people, achievement, community, and environment. These established the strategic
priorities, which would eventually become the four parts of the district’s strategic
plan anchoring all district goals, activities, and objectives to the bold vision of the
strategic plan: To graduate every student with the choice to attend college without
remediation. Johnson was held accountable to report at every board meeting,
progress made towards desired goals.
Assessment
Out of Superintendent Johnson’s awareness that RMPS ranks at the bottom
20% in state comparisons, even with medium level assessments, he made student
achievement the main focus of his strategic plan. He developed a district-wide
accountability system within newly created Division of Instruction and Chief of
Accountability & Research. The district created new data systems to track student
achievement and expanded the internal benchmarking process that fits with the state
standards-based assessment system. Summative and formative assessments were
178
implemented district wide. Interim assessments every nine weeks benchmarked and
linked to CO state standards. Data was collected and analyzed using “data teams” at
each site. Data driven decisions linked back to instruction. Professional development
now included collaborative coaching at each site to analyze student assessment data.
Curriculum
After Superintendent Johnson’s audits of key academic areas in literacy &
math, he hired a new Chief Academic Officer & other skilled personnel to develop
the implementation of new curriculum. His new leadership team implemented a
managed instructional strategy where curriculum was aligned to content standards
and frameworks were aligned to required assessments of student learning for state &
federal standards. A common reading program and pacing guides are now in place in
1
st
through 3
rd
grades. Some improvement has been shown, but interviews revealed
that teachers have little access to materials. The District’s provision of content and
learning standards for under-performing students is at a very developmental stage.
Professional learning for teachers and administrators had improved somewhat.
Professional Development
The organizational structure and resources now support on-site professional
development. All professional development is now centered on improving students’
learning by linking to the narrower approach of managed instruction. Training is also
provided to principals to understand their role as instructional leaders. Site based
professional development for teachers is provided in instruction, curricular issues,
and understanding assessment data. The PD plan included a coaching model, but this
179
aspect of the plan has not been fully developed and consequently, participation is
presently sporadic.
Human Resources and Human Capital Development
The district had a highly skilled staff even before the new superintendent
came into place. However, Johnson reorganized weak organizational structures to
maximize their effectiveness. Superintendent Johnson hired a deputy superintendent
from instructional ranks, and elevated many directors to cabinet position levels. The
superintendent continued the commitment to hiring HQT (currently 98.7%) and
developed more aggressive advertising to recruit HQT representative of existing
student ethnic populations. Johnson also created new teacher orientations to combat
problematic teacher attrition (250-300 annually).
Finance and Budget
The district had a strong history of fiscal management. Superintendent
Johnson retained the CFO at cabinet level position. Effective fiscal management of
district budget saved 26 million used to compel residents to pass an aggressive 250
thousand dollar construction bond. Finance and budget had good procedures in place
but use of resources were not strongly linked to the strategic plan and student
achievement; a strong culture of resource use was missing. There were significant
carryover funds available to initiate new programs and staffing changes.
Communications
The superintendent immediately promoted the director to Chief
Communications Officer (CCO) reporting directly to him. With the superintendent,
180
they developed the 90-day listening tour and strategies to deliver the
superintendent’s Entry plan. They obtained “buy in” for the strategic plan. They
opened a two-way communications system that helped build trust and confidence in
the superintendent and district leadership internally and externally. The team has
close ties to community and outside media, and contact with them has greatly
improved, especially with Spanish language media. Whenever possible, the
communication team successfully positions the superintendent to speak with press
about District achievements. The team developed a new image for the district (logo,
vision, mission).
Board Governance and Board Relations
The new reform-oriented board hired and supported the new non-traditional
superintendent upon entry. A new role was created for the school board upon the
superintendent’s arrival by means of externally (USLI) facilitated workshops. The
improved board and superintendent relationships allowed for increased transparency
to parents and community by involving these external stakeholders in district affairs.
They unanimously approved the superintendent’s strategic plan. Pay for performance
was considered, but did not remain in the district’s plan because of political pressure.
The board and superintendent monitor the progress of the strategic plan. The board
acts with improved professional demeanor since receiving training in the area of
roles and responsibilities and the organizational structure of the board supports and
empowers the superintendent. However, tension have risen due to the board’s
181
support of teachers and their opinion that the superintendent is pushing them too hard
without enough support.
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations
The superintendent established a positive relationship between district and
union leaders that went a long way in somewhat mending past strained relationships
with the prior administration. Open communication with organization leaders
allowed for the early use of a mediator to avoid an impasse. And as part of current
policy, the superintendent meets with union leadership regularly. Improved support
to teachers has improved trust and confidence in the district, but relationship at the
bi-monthly meetings are still often strained in relationship to teacher role in student
achievement.
Family and Community Engagement
The superintendent’ reorganization plan included elevating a Director
position to address family and community issues, and many strategies have been put
into place over the past two years, by the director. Upon the entry of the
superintendent, stronger public outreach with parents and community were an
important part of his and the board’s reform agenda, specifically with parents, faith-
based groups, city elected officials, and medical center groups. While a vital part of
the strategic plan, this previously neglected area of district concern needs much work
in terms of key staff and implementation of the reform agenda due to the lack of
dedicated resources.
182
Interviews with the superintendent, two key players, other district personnel
with strategy-specific knowledge, along with district artifacts, were the primary
sources of data collected for the analysis. The Superintendent, Key players, and
Strategy-Specific Interview Guides, as well as the various Strategy-Specific Quality
and Level of Implementation Rubrics supported the data collection process.
Research Question 1a: Strengths and Challenges of the District
Research question 1a asked, “How does the quality and implementation of
ten key reform strategies correspond to the strengths and challenges of the district
when the superintendent took office?”
When the superintendent took office, the challenges were numerous. There
was a vague district plan, but no mission, vision or goals for improvement, growth
and sustainability. Past focus on the teaching-learning cycle did not do enough to
improve achievement for all students, and close the achievement gaps among
students of color in the district. The Board was not focused on student achievement
results and tended to micro-manage. The tremendous shift in demographics from a
largely white, to a largely minority student population in the prior decade was not
something the district was prepared for nor have they substantially addressed this
shift in student population.
Upon Mr. Johnson’s arrival, numerous audits were conducted across
departments and many of the key change strategies were reflected in the strategic
priorities the superintendent addressed right away such as: assessment, strategic plan,
curriculum, communications, and governance and board relations. Yet, other reform
183
change levers such as family and community engagement, HR systems, and finance
& budget, did not get the level of attention in the strategic plan, organizational
structure, and resource alignment.
Research Question 1b: Other Reform Strategies
Research question 1b asked “What additional reform strategies (if any) were
used? How do they correspond to the elements of the House Model?”
Superintendent Johnson began his reform efforts by retaining the professional
services of some of the most respected change agents in education who specialize in
working with boards and superintendents of large urban districts. After an
organizational assessment and numerous audits were conducted, a multi-level
strategy was decided upon for lasting reform. Mr. Johnson arrived at the district with
an entry plan. The entry plan included a 90-day listening tour with a document listing
five goals to reform the district.
Another strategy that Johnson used was the learning of best practices from
some of the largest, most successful urban school districts across the nation. Other
important elements widely implemented included: political relationships,
philanthropic and institutional partnerships. The superintendent was able to leverage
these relationships largely due to his past political experience and comfort with the
political sphere and political engagement. One philanthropic partnership granted the
district $500,000.00 to create a teaching and learning center for English Language
Learners.
184
Research Question 1c: Relationship to the Previous Background/Experience
Research question 1c asked, “How does the choice and implementation of the
ten key reform strategies correspond to the previous background/experiences of the
superintendent?”
When interviewed about his experience and how prepared he felt across the
10 dimensions of reform, Johnson was highly confident that his prior experience,
achievements in the military, and in business, had well prepared him for his role as
superintendent. Johnson had a strong background in relation to all ten House Model
elements. In fact, in all but two areas, he rated himself high, with Labor Relations
and Contract Negotiations and Governance and Board Relations being self-rated the
lowest. These were the two areas that create the biggest challenges for Johnson. The
board continues to disagree with him about his knowledge of schools and children
and they regularly inform him that he needs to pay more attention to their position
and that teachers need more support.
Interviews with the superintendent, two key players, other district personnel
with strategy-specific knowledge, along with district artifacts, were the primary
sources of data collected for the analysis. The Superintendent, Key players, and
Strategy-Specific Interview Guides, as well as the various Strategy-Specific Quality
and Level of Implementation Rubrics supported the data collection process.
Conclusions
The findings of this study reveal that Superintendent Johnson initiated
significant reform by taking specific actions. Due to his professional training
185
received from previous work experience and training provided at the USLI, the
superintendent possessed the tools needed to implement significant reform to
improve student success. This study allowed for a set of findings to be gathered that
could support the work of new superintendents of large urban districts. The findings
reveal the following conclusions:
1. Superintendent Johnson had significant hurdles to overcome to make
large strides in student achievement. His vision: to graduate every student
with the choice to attend college without remediation was admittedly a
large and difficult one to achieve. However, Johnson believed that the bar
must be set that high to overcome low expectations of achievement in
order for large gains to be made and sustained. The reform efforts were
implemented in stages.
2. He developed an ambitious strategic plan that was unanimously adopted
by the board following a 90-day listening tour sharing his entry plan and
goals with internal and external stakeholders.
3. The board underwent governance training to better understand their role
and responsibilities. They empowered the superintendent to reorganize
his district leadership and held him accountable for student achievement.
4. An organizational assessments conducted though departmental audits
allowed for an objective evaluation of the strengths and challenges of
district health. Other key departmental audits included HR,
186
Communications, Office of Accountability and Research, Curriculum and
the Board of Education.
5. The superintendent was empowered to hire and reorganize his leadership
team, district leadership was restructured as a result of departmental
audits. Superintendent Johnson established a deputy superintendent
position and elevated a veteran RMPS district leader for the position. He
elevated other key positions to form a new, larger and more culturally
diverse senior cabinet team. One key lower leadership position to address
families and communities was created but had not been funded at the time
of the study. All cabinet level leaders have their own departmental
operations plan that is linked to the strategic plan. It is reviewed every six
months.
6. A number of key consultants provided by the USLI Alumni Services
coached Mr. Johnson in strategic ways. These veteran educational leaders
were retained by the district and served as powerful resource providers,
strategic partners, and advisors to Johnson and the board of education.
The consultants facilitated the key departmental audits and organizational
planning to achieve desired performance goals. Graduates from the USLI
shared with Mr. Johnson their entry goals used upon arrival into their
districts.
7. The audits led to changes in curriculum, instructional approach, and
professional development. A managed instructional approach was
187
implemented. Assessment and accountability changes were realigned to
state standards. A single literacy program, integrated instructional
systems, leadership teams, data teams and learning communities for
school principals were part of Johnson’s overall reform efforts.
8. Communication improved internally and externally. Print and radio media
relations were reestablished as well as those in Spanish media. A savvy
communications team maximized positive exposure for the
superintendent with public appearances. A new image, logo, and data
transparency were all part of communications reform efforts.
At the time of this study, the superintendent had two years of reform efforts
implemented across the ten different dimensions and other house elements. Yet, the
district expected increases in student performance on the state’s standardized test, the
CSAP in 2008. While unofficial at the time of data collection, early returns showed
the best growth in six years. This is certainly impressive when one considers that
RMPH now has 55% more ELL and 25% more FRL students.
Implications
The findings and conclusions from this study enable implications that can
provide guidance for those interested in reorganizing or improving schools for
increased student achievement. The implications listed below are presented as they
relate to specific areas of responsibility, including implications for school and district
administrators, local community stakeholders and school board members, and policy
makers and superintendent preparation programs.
188
School and District Administrators
1. Reforming districts to become high performing organizations requires the
focus and coordinated action of all in the organization. A good strategic
plan can connect departments’ actions towards the district vision by
providing goals, timelines, activities, and ongoing assessment. It is
important to assess not only for performance of action items, but
assessing for progress and performance towards the vision is critical.
2. Large-scale reform requires significant investments in systems,
technology, training, research, and evaluation. District administrators,
especially principals need training in standards, assessment, data
integrity, and the use of data to map progress leading to student
improvement.
3. Closing student achievement gaps and creating high performing districts
requires the right leadership. The superintendent must have freedom to
choose all senior staff and key positions to form a diverse senior cabinet
team that is organized to reflect strategic priorities.
Local Community Stakeholders and School Board Members
1. Districts need strong reform oriented board-superintendent teams. In such
teams boards govern and lead by setting policy based on vision, mission,
and goals determined by them. Boards empower superintendents to
manage and create the organizational culture needed to achieve
excellence (McAdams, 2006).
189
2. While boards have many important relationships, board-superintendent
relationships are the most important. A clear understanding of roles and
responsibilities is needed for positive working relationships. Governance
reform requires training for many boards to shift focus away from micro-
managing to holding the superintendent responsible for student outcomes
and goals.
3. Elected officials, business leaders, parent activists, and religious leaders,
are all powerful allies who have a stake in the success of school districts,
as are media and other partners. Community engagement is crucial to
reform efforts and requires open communication and continuous
collaboration to build trust needed to sustain the community engagement.
Board leadership and staff participation is needed to ensure community
support and alignment of goals such as transformational goals required to
close achievement gaps.
Policy Makers and Superintendent Preparation Programs
1. Secondary schools need better alignment and connection with post-
secondary institutions. High schools were not a central focus in the
reform efforts of this case study and this is reflective of what is happening
on a national level. Reform efforts must include the high dropout rates
and low preparation levels for first-year college students, as these are
critical to addressing national workforce needs.
190
2. Superintendent preparation programs should include research-based
reform approaches describing how to assess for district strengths and
weaknesses. Future leaders would benefit by learning about launching
strategies similar to USLI’s such as employment contract, entering goals,
a 90-day plan, reorganization of central office, board-superintendent roles
and responsibilities, conducting audits, and importance of family and
community engagement.
3. Establishing alumni professional networks for system leaders to benefit
from coaching/mentoring opportunities and learn “best practices” for
reforming large urban districts from professional networks, would go a
long way towards supporting new superintendents in their efforts to
achieve sustainable reform.
Community College Policy Makers and Preparation Programs
1. Better Alignment with K-12
2. Preparation programs specifically for community college leaders
3. Funding/Governance/Cap
Recommendations for Future Research
Recommendations for future research that materialized from the data
collection and analysis for the study are:
1. This case study was one part of a larger ten-district research project
conducted by the University of Southern California. This study was
limited to the actions in one large urban school district after the
191
superintendent had been in the position for two years. The length of time
Superintendent Johnson was in his position at the time of data collection
was not sufficient to draw valid and reliable conclusions about the impact
reform actions taken had on student achievement. It is recommended that
this study be continued for three to five years to allow time for: 1) full
implementation of reform efforts, 2) analysis of reform actions on student
achievement outcomes, 3) sustainability of reform efforts, and 4)
assessment of progress and performance towards the vision in the
strategic plan.
2. It is recommended that a quantitative analysis of student achievement
score data be conducted with other similar districts in this study utilizing
district reform data collected one year before the desired impact on
student achievement is measured.
3. A continued meta-analysis of the ten districts in this research project
could reveal important findings. It is recommended that a longitudinal
study continue for two more years to study: 1) how the ten reform
strategies in this study are being carried out, 2) how reform efforts are
sustained, 3) the effects of reform efforts to reach practices at the
classroom level, 4) what is the impact on student achievement when
compared with the other ten districts.
This study focused on ten key strategies of the House Model used by one
Urban School Leadership Institute graduate. It is recommend that research be
192
conducted using a comparative graduate from another superintendent preparation
program utilizing the Quality and Level of Implementation Rubrics and similar
methodology to uncover important themes in systematic educational reform.
193
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, L. (2007). Common formative assessments: The centerpiece of an
integrated standards-based assessment system. In D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of
the curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching and learning
(pp.79-101). Bloomington, ID: Solution Tree.
Anderson, S., (2003 August). The school district role in educational change: A
review of the literature [Electronic Version]. International Center for
Educational Change Working paper #2.
http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~icec/workpaper2.pdf .
Aronson, J. (2004). The threat of stereotype. Educational Leadership, November
2004, 62 (3), Closing achievement gaps, 14-19.
Barton, P. E. (2004). Why does the gap persist? Educational Leadership, November
2004.
Barton, P. E. (2007, December / 2008, January). The right way to measure growth.
Educational Leadership, 65(4), 70-73.
Bauch, P., & Goldring, E. (1995). Parent involvement and school responsiveness:
Facilitating the home-school connection in schools of choice. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17 (1), 1-21.
Bergeson, T. (2007). Nine characteristics of high performing schools: A research
based resource for schools and districts to assist with improving student
learning. Second Edition. Olympia, WA: Office of Superintendent of Public
Instruction.
Bjork, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2005). Learning theory and
research: A framework for changing superintendent preparation and
development. In L. Bjork & T. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary
superintendent: Preparation, practice and development (pp. 71-106).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bjork, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Young, M. D. (2005). National education reform
reports: Implications for professional preparation and development. In L.
Bjork & T. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation,
practice and development (pp. 45-69). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
194
Blankstein, A. M. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student
achievement in high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2003). Third Edition. Reframing organizations: Artistry,
choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brewer, D. J., Hentschke, G. C., Eide, E. R. Kuzin, A. and Nayfack, M. (2007). The
role of economics in policy research. Prepared for Handbook of Research in
Education Finance and Policy, March 8, 2007.
Broad Foundation (2008). The Broad Superintendents Academy qualitative project:
Phase II. Los Angeles, CA: J. Takata Welsh.
Broad Foundation & Thomas B. Fordham Institute (2003). Better leaders for
America's schools: A manifesto. Los Angeles: The Broad Foundation
California Department of Education. (2007). Achievement gap fact sheet. Retrieved
December 19, 2007, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/se/agfactsheet.asp
California Department of Education. (2007). Dropouts by Grade and Ethnicity, 2005-
06. Retrieved December 19, 2007 from http://www.cde.ca.gov
California School Boards Association (2007). School Board Leadership-The Role
and Function of California’s School Boards. West Sacramento CA:
California School Boards Association.
California Department of Education. (2007). School Accountability Report Card:
Data Element Definitions and Sources 2006-07. Retrieved December 19,
2007, from http://www.cde.ca.gov
Cambron-McCabe, N., Cunningham, L., Harvey, J., & Koff, R.H., (2005). The
superintendent’s fieldbrook: a guide for leaders of learning. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Carlsmith, L., & Railsback, J. (2001). The power of public relations in schools. By
request. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2007). Institutions enlisted
to reclaim education doctorate. Retrieved on April 6, 2008 from
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/news/sub.asp?key=51&subkey=2266
195
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2007). Carnegie project on
the education doctorate. Retrieved on April 3, 2008 from
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/dynamic/publications/elibrary_pdf_639.p
df.
Carr, J. F. & Harris, D. E. (2001) Succeeding with standards: Linking curriculum,
assessment, and action planning. ASCD.
Carver, J. (2006). Boards that make a difference: A new design for leadership I
nonprofit and public organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chappuis, S. & Chappuis, J. (2007, December / 2008, January). The best value in
formative assessment. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 14-18.
Chappuis, S., Stiggins, R. J., Arter, J., & Chappuis, J. (2005). Assessment for
learning: An action guide for school leaders. Portland, OR: Educational
Testing Service.
Childress , S., Elmore, R. F., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school
districts. Harvard Business Review. November, 2006, 1-14.
Childress, S., Elmore, R. F., Grossman, A., & King, C. (2007). Note on the PELP
coherence framework. Public Education Leadership Project, January 2007,
1-14.
Childress, S., Elmore, R.F., Grossman, A. S., & Johnson, S. M. (Eds.). (2007).
Managing school districts for high performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Chrispeels, J., Gonzales, M., & Edge, K. (2006). Uniting in reform: The power and
importance of bringing all stakeholders to the table. Paper presented at the
American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting in San
Francisco, CA.
Collins, J. (2001). Why some companies make the leap…and others don’t: Good to
great. New York: NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
Cook, William J. Jr. (2001). Strategic planning for America’s schools. (Revised
edition V). Montgomery, AL: The Cambridge Group.
Council of the Great City Schools (2006). Review of human resource operations in
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools. Washington, DC: Council of the Great
City Schools.
196
Cowan, K.T. (2003). The new title I: the changing landscape of accountability.
Tampa, FL: Thompson Publishing Group, Inc.
Creswell, J. W., (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Cuban, L. (1998). The superintendent contradiction. Education Week 18, 7,
(September 23, 1998) 56.
Datnow, A., Borman, G. D., Stringfield, S., Overman, L. T., & Castellano, M.
(2003). Comprehensive school reform in culturally and linguistically diverse
contexts: Implementation and outcomes from a four-year study. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 25(2), 143-170.
Davies, B. (2007). Developing sustainable leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, formerly Paul Chapman Educational Publishing.
Dembo, M. H., & Marsh, D. D. (2007). Developing a new Ed.D. program in the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. Los
Angeles, CA: USC.
DuFour, R. & Sparks, D. (1991). The principal as staff developer. Bloomington, IN:
National Educational Service.
Eaker, R., Dufour, R., & Burnetter, R. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools
to become professional learning communities. Bloomington, ID: National
Education Service.
Ed Cal Newspaper (2008). Dropout data with SSIDs still lacking accuracy.
Association of California School Administrators. Retrieved December 18,
2008 from
http://www.acsa.org/FunctionalMenuCategories/Media/EdCalNewspaper/200
8/July21/Dro...
Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard
Educational Review. 66(1), 1-26.
Elmore, R.F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. The Albert
Shanker Institute, Winter. Retrieved on December 18, 2007 from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/building.pdf.
197
Elmore, R.F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement
[Electronic Version]. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.
Retrieved December 18, 2007 from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/bridging.pdf.
Elmore, R.F. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 6-10.
Elmore, R.F. (2003). Knowing the right thing to do: School improvement and
performance-based accountability [Electronic Version].CPRE:NGA Center
for Best Practices. www.nga.org/cda/files/0803KNOWING.PDF.
Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and
performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Elmore, R. F. & Burney, D. (1999). Leadership and learning: Principal recruitment,
induction and instructional leadership in Community School District #2, New
York City. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and
Development Center.
Epstein, J. L. & Sanders, M. G. (2006). Prospects for change: preparing educators for
school, family, and community partnerships. The John Hopkins University,
Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships. Peabody Journal of
Education, Volume 81, Issue 2 April 2006, pages 81-120. Online publication
date: May 1, 2006.
Fair City Entry Plan: Listening and Learning Plan (2006).
Fiore, D. J. (2006). School community relations, 2
nd
Edition. Larchmont, NY: Eye on
Education.
Fullan, M. (2000). The return of large scale reform. Journal of Educational Change,
1, 1-23.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass:
A Wiley Imprint.
Fullan, M. (2003). The Moral Imperative of School Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change: What the best leaders do to help their
organizations survive and thrive. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
198
Fuller, H., Campbell, C., Celio, M. B., Harvey J., Immerwahr J., & Winder, A.
(2003). An impossible job? The view from the urban superintendent’s chair.
Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P. & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational Research: An
Introduction, 8
th
Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Gallagher, C. W. & Ratzlaff, S. (2007, December / 2008, January). The road less
traveled. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 48-53.
Glass, T. (2001). Superintendent leaders look at the superintendency, School Boards
and Reform. ECS Issue Paper. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the
States, 2001.
Glass, T., Bjork, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The study of the American school
superintendency 2000. A look at the superintendent of education in the new
millennium. American Association of School Administrators. Arlington, VA.
Retrieved July 1, 2005, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov.zeus.tarleton.edu:81/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/conten
t_storage_01/0000000b/80/10/d6/e.
Goldberg, B. & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-nect: Purpose, accountability, and
school leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership Lessons
from Comprehensive School Reforms (pp. 57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press
Goldrick-Rab, S., Mazzeo, C. (2005). What ‘No Child Left Behind’ Means for
College Access. Review of Research in Education, 4(29),107-130.
Gregory, G. H., & Kuzmich, L. (2004). Data driven differentiation in the standards-
based classroom. Thousand Oakes, CA: Corwin Press.
Grigg, W., Donahue, P., and Dion, G. (2007). The Nation's Report Card: 12th-Grade
Reading and Mathematics 2005 (NCES 2007-468). U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Grogan, M. & Andrews, R. (2002). Defining preparation and professional
development for the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2),
233-256. http://eaq.sagepub.com.libproxy.usc.edu/cgi/reprint/38/2/233.
199
Hannaway, J. & Rotherham, A. J. (2006). Collective bargaining in education:
negotiating change in today’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.
Harvey, J. (2003). The urban superintendent: Creating great schools while surviving
on the job. Orlando, FL: Council of the Great City Schools.
Henderson, A. T. & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A New Wave of Evidence: The Impact of
School, Family, and Community Connections on Student.
Hess, F. (2003). A license to lead? A new leadership agenda for America’s schools.
Hess, F.M. & West, M.R., (2006). A better bargain: overhauling teacher collective
bargaining for the 21
st
century. American Enterprise Institute and The
Brookings Institution.
Hewitt, P. (2007). Bargaining within the school culture. Leadership, 26-32.
Hodge, S. T., (2007). Editor’s review of tough choices or tough times: the report of
the new commission on the skills of the American workforce by the national
center on education and the economy. Harvard Educational Review, Winter
2007 Issue.
Hoachlander, G., Alt., M., Beltranena, R. (2001). Leading school improvement:
What research says. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
Houston, P. (2001). Superintendents for the 21
st
Century: It’s Not Just a Job, It’s a
Calling Phi Delta Kappan 82, 6 (February 2001): 428-43, EJ 621 320.
Howlett, P. (1993, May). The politics of school leaders, past and future. The
Education Digest, 58(9), 18-21. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from Research
Library Core database. (Document ID: 5139451).
Hoyle, J. R., Bjork, L. G., Collier, V., & Glass, T., (2005). The superintendent as
CEO: standards-based performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press-A
Sage Publication Company.
Huber, M.T. & Hutchings, P. (2005). The advancement of learning: Building the
teaching commons. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
200
Hughes, R. C., & Haney, R. (2002). Professional military education: A serious
enterprise for leaders. In M. Tucker & J. Codding (Eds.), The principal
challenge: Leading and managing schools in an era of accountability (pp.
123-142). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ingram, M., Wolfe, R. B., & Lieberman, J. M. (2007). The role of parents in high-
achieving schools serving low-income, at-risk populations. Education and
Urban Society. 39(4), 479-497.
Ingram, R. L. & Snider, B. (2008). An educator’s guide to contract negotiations.
Leadership, 30-34.
Jacob, B. A. (2007). The challenges of staffing urban schools with effective teachers.
The Future of Children, 17(1), 129-153.
Jentz. B., & Murphy, J.T. (2005). Starting confused: How leaders start when they
don't know where to start. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(10), 736-744.
Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A Meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on
minority children’s academic achievement. Education and Urban Society,
35(2) 202-218.
Johnson, S.M. (1996). Leading to change: The challenge of the new
superintendency. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (2002). Designing training and peer coaching: Our needs
for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Kane, T., & Rouse, C. (1995). Labor Market Returns to Two and Four-year College.
American Economic Review 85 (3), 600-614.
Kewal Ramani, A., Gilbertson, L., Fox, M., and Provasnik, S. (2007). Status and
trends in the education of racial and ethnic minorities (NCES 2007-039).
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC.
Lashway, L. (2002, September). The superintendent in an age of accountability.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 468515 Retrieved from
ERIC database:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/000
0019b/80/1a/61/fe.pdf.
201
Lee, J., Grigg, W., and Donahue, P. (2007). The nation’s report card: Reading 2007
(NCES 2007–496). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
Leithwood, K. (1995). Effective school district leadership: Transforming politics
Locke and Guglielmo, 2006
Lubienski, S. T., & Lubienski, C. (2006). School sector and academic achievement:
A multi-level analysis of NAEP mathematics data. American Educational
Research Journal, 43(4), 651-698.
Lunenburg, F. C. & Irby, B. J. (2002). Parent involvement: A key to student
achievement [Electronic Version]. Paper presented to the annual meeting of
the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration in
Burlington, Vermont. Retrieved December 12, 2007 from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/000
0019b/80/1a/62/f7.pdf.
MacIver, M. & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the
central office in improving instruction and student achievement. (Report No.
65). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed
At Risk, Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved February 8, 2008 from
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report65.pdf.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J. (2007). Designing a comprehensive approach to classroom
assessment. In D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment
to transform teaching and learning (pp.103-123). Bloomington, ID: Solution
Tree.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. 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 & Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for
Education and Learning.
202
Massell, D. (1998). State strategies for building capacity for education: Progress
and continuing challenges (Research Report Series RR-41). Philadelphia:
Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
McAdams, D. R. (2006). What school boards can do: Reform governance for urban
schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
McDermott, K. A. (2000). Barriers to large-scale success of models for urban school
reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 22(1), 83-89.
McCleeney, K. M., McCleeney, B. N., & Petersen, G. F. (2003). A culture of
evidence: What is it? Do we have one? Excerpt from Do you really know
your students’ needs and the reality of their matriculation experiences?
McLaughlin, M. W., Gilbert, S., Hightower, A. M., Husbands, J. L., Marsh, J. A.,
Young, V. M., & Talbert, J. E., (2002). Districts as change agents: Levers for
system-wide instructional improvement. Presentation at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 1-9). New Orleans:
Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2003, September). Reforming districts: How districts
support school reform [Electronic Version]. Center for the Study of Teaching
and Policy Research Report. www.ctpweb.org.
Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. (2003). Public management and educational
performance: The impact of managerial networking. Public Administrative
Review, 63(6), 689-699.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in
Education: Revised and Expanded from Case Study Research in Education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Miller, D. C., Sen, A., and Malley, L. B. (2007). Comparative Indicators of
Education in the United States and Other G-8 Countries: 2006 (NCES 2007-
006). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.
Mintzberg, H. (1993). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York, NY: Free
Press.
203
Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Murphy, J., & Vriesenga, M. (2006). Research on school leadership preparation in
the United States: An analysis. School Leadership and Management, 26(2),
183-195.
Murphy, J, Yff, J. & Shipman, N. (2000). Implementation of the interstate school
leaders licensure consortium standards. International Journal of Leadership in
Education, Volume 3, Issue 1 January 2000, pages 17-39.
National Center for Education Statistics (2005). Projections of education statistics
to 2014. Retrieved November 14, 2006 from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/sec_3a.asp
National School Boards Foundation (2001). Improving School Board Decision-
Making: The Data Connection. Alexandria VA: National School Boards
Foundation.
National School Public Relations Association (2002). Raising the bar for school PR:
New standards for the school public relations profession. Rockville, MD:
Author. Retrieved from:
http://www.nspra.org/files/docs/StandardsBooklet.pdf.
Neff, T. J., & Citrin, J. M. (2005). You’re in charge—now what?: The 8 point plan.
New York, NY: Crown Publishing Company.
Nestor-Baker, N. S., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Tacit knowledge of school
superintendents: Its nature, meaning, and content. Educational
Administration Quarterly. 37(1), 86-129.
http://eaq.sagepub.com.libproxy.usc.edu/cgi/reprint/37/1/86
Norton, S., Web, D., Dlugash, L., & Sybouts, W. (1996). The school
superintendency: new responsibilities, new leadership. Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
O’Day, J., Bitter, C., Kirst, M., Camoy, M., Woody, E., Buttles, M., Fuller, B., &
Ruenzel, D. (2004). Assessing California’s Accountability System:
Successes, Challenges, and Opportunities for Improvement. PACE Policy
Brief, 4(2). Retrieved August 21, 2006 from http://www-
gse.berkeley.edu/research/PACE/policy_brief.04-2.pdf.
204
Ogata, C. (2005). Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning:
a case study of district efforts in orchard field unified school district.
Dissertation submitted March, 2005. Los Angeles, CA: University of
Southern California Rossier School of Education.
Pace-Marshall, S. (2006). The power to transform. Leadership that brings learning
and schooling to life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Patton, M. Q. (2003). Qualitative research & evaluation methods, 3
rd
Edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Perie, M., Moran, R., and Lutkus, A.D. (2005). NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic
Progress: Three Decades of Student Performance in Reading and
Mathematics (NCES 2005–464). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington,
DC: Government Printing Office.
Peterson, G. & Short, P. (2001). The school board president's perception of the
district superintendent: Applying the lenses of social influence and social
style. Educational Administration Quarterly. 37(4), 533-570.
http://eaq.sagepub.com.libproxy.usc.edu/cgi/reprint/37/4/533.
Public Policy Institute of California. (2004). Wage Trends in California. Retrieved
December 17, 2007, from http://www.ppic.org.
Public Policy Institute of California, (2006). Poverty in California. Retrieved
December 19, 2007 from http://www.ppic.org.
Reeves, D. B. (2000). Accountability in Action. Denver, CO: Advanced Learning
Press.
Reeves, D. B. (2005). Accountability in Action: A blueprint for learning
organizations. The plan you need to help you exceed NCLB requirements.
Englewood, CO: Lead + Learn Press.
Reeves, D. B. (2007). Challenges and choices: The role of educational leaders in
effective assessment. In D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of
assessment to transform teaching and learning (pp.227-251). Bloomington,
ID: Solution Tree.
205
Ringeisen, H., Henderson, K., & Hoagwood, K. (2003). Context matters: Schools
and the research to practice gap in children's mental health. School
Psychology Review, 32(2), 153-168.
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools. Washington, DC: Economic Policy
Institute.
Scheurich, J., & Skrla, L. (2003). Leadership for equity and excellence: Creating
high-achievement classrooms, schools, and districts. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Schlueter, K. & Walker, J. (2008). Selection of school leaders: a critical component
for change. NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 92, No. 1, 5-18.
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement.
Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday Dell.
Senge, P. (1992). Mental models: Putting strategic ideas into practice. Planning
Review. 20(2), 4-13.
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., & Smith, B., (1994) The Fifth
Discipline Fieldbook. New York: Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T.J., Kelleher, P., McCarthy, M. & Wirt, F.M. (2004). Educational
governance and administration (5
th
ed.). Boston: Pearson Education
Shannon, G. S., & Bylsma, P. (2004). Characteristics of Improved School Districts:
Themes from Research. Olympia, WA: Office of Superintendent of Public
Instruction.
Shatkin, G., & Gershberg, A. (2007). Empowering parents and building
communities: The role of school-based councils in educational governance
and accountability. Urban Education, 42(6) 582-615.
Shulman, L. S., Golde, C. M., Conklin Bueschel, A., & Garabedian, K. J. (2006).
Reclaiming education’s doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational
Researcher, 35(3), 25-32.
Smolley, E. (1999). Effective school boards: Strategies for improving board
performance. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
206
Starkey, P., & Klein, A. (2000). Fostering parental support for children’s
mathematical development: An intervention with Head Start families. Early
Education and Development, 11, 659-680.
Stecher, B., Hamilton, L., & Gonzalez, G., (2003). Working Smarter to Leave No
Child behind: Practical Insights for School Leaders. Santa Monica CA: Rand
Corporation
Stiggins, R. (2004, September). New Assessment Beliefs for a New School Mission.
Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 22-27.
Swail, Watson S., Cabrera, Alberto F., and Lee, Chul (2004). Latino Youth and the
Pathway to College. Washington, DC: Educational Policy Institute, Inc.
Swanson, C. B., & Stevenson, D. L. (2002). Standards-based reform in practice:
Evidence on state policy and classroom instruction from the NAEO state
assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 24(1), 1-27.
Tague, N. R. (2004). Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle. Excerpted from The Quality
Toolbox, Second Edition, American Society for Quality Press, 2004, 390-392.
Takata, J. W., Marsh, D. D., & Castruita, R. (2007). the broad superintendents
academy qualitative project: Final report. Los Angeles, CA: The Broad
Academy.
The Broad Academy Website (2007). Accessed February 5, 2007 at
http://www.broadacademy.org.
Togneri, W. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve
instructional and achievement in all schools - A leadership brief [Electronic
Version]. Learning First Alliance. Retrieved December 8, 2008 from
http://www.learningfirst.org/lfa-web/rp?pa=pa=doc&docId=62.
Tucker, S. Benchmarking: A guide for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
The Broad Center (2007, November). Top military, business and education leaders
graduate from urban superintendents academy. The Broad Center for the
Management of School Systems.
Venezia, A., Kirst, K., and Antonio, A., (2003). Betraying the College Dream: How
Disconnected K-12 and Postsecondary Education Systems Undermine
Student Aspirations. Stanford University Bridge Project Final Report
207
Walker, G. E., Golde, C. M., Jones, L., Bueschul, A. C., & Hutchings, P. (2008). The
foundation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first
century. Stanford, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching.
Warner, L. (2002). Family Involvement: A Key Component of Student and School
Success. Voices for Illinois Children: Chicago, IL.
Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J. (2006). School District Leadership that Works: The
Effect of Superintendent Leadership on Student Achievement. Aurora, CO:
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30
years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student
achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and
Learning.
Waters, T., & Cameron, G. (2007). The balanced leadership framework: Connecting
vision with action. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and
Learning.
Watkins, M. (2004). The first 90 days: critical success strategies for new leaders at
all levels. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Webb, L. D. & Norton, M. S. (2009). Human resources administration: personnel
issues and needs in education, Fifth edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Wong, H. K. (2004). Induction programs that keep new teachers teaching and
improving. NASSP Bulletin, 88(684), 41-58.
Wyks, B.A. (2004). Challenges faced by new jersey superintendents and
implications for preparation and support. Dissertation submitted February,
2004. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
Zmuda, A., Kuklis, R., & Kline, E., (2004). Transforming schools: creating culture
of continuous improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
208
APPENDIX A: SUPERINTENDENT INTERVIEW GUIDE
Please log: Name, data/time of interview, contact information, documents to be
obtained after the interview, part of the interview guide that were not fully covered,
digital tape location.
Superintendent Interview Guide – DAY 1
Q# Question RQ:
1 Describe the overall status of the district when you assumed your
position as Superintendent?
 What were the major strengths of the district? (ask for 3 most
salient)
 What were the major challenges facing the district? (ask for 3
most salient)
 What was the overall academic profile of the district?
1a
1a
1a
1a
2 Considering the context of the district when you arrived, what
strategies did you use to improve the overall condition of the district?
 What specific strategies did you employ to improve student
achievement within your district?
 Which participants were significantly involved in these
strategies?
 How would you describe the level of implementation you have
achieved for each strategy used?
1a/b
1a/b
1a/b
1a/b
209
Superintendent Interview Guide – DAY 2
Q# Question RQ:
3
 Please describe key aspects of your previous
background/experience
(Probe: Rate top 3 experiences in terms of importance)
 How did your preparation and experience help you to select and
implement appropriate reform strategies designed to improve
student achievement?
(Probe: USLI experience, non-USLI experience, K-12 background,
degree programs, work experience, etc.)
1c
1a/b/c
4  Please rate your previous professional experience with the
following reform strategies [On a scale from 1 = limited to 3 =
extensive].
(Reform Strategies: Strategic Plan, Assessment, Curriculum,
Professional Development, HR System and Human Capital
Management, Finance and Budget, Communications, Governance and
Board Relations, Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations, and
Family and Community Engagement)
(Probe: Identify her/his rationale for each rating)
1c
210
APPENDIX B: KEY PLAYER INTERVIEW GUIDE
Please log: Name, title, data/time of interview, contact information, documents to be
obtained after the interview, part of the interview guide that were not fully covered,
digital tape location.
Key Player Interview Guide
Q# Question RQ:
1 Describe the overall status of the district when the Superintendent
arrived (or when the key player arrived if after the Superintendent)?
 What were the major strengths of the district? (ask for 3 most
salient)
 What were the major challenges facing the district? (ask for 3
most salient)
 What was the overall academic profile of the district?
1a
1a
1a
1a
2 Considering the context of the district, what strategies did the
Superintendent use to improve the overall condition of the district?
 What specific strategies did the Superintendent employ to
improve student achievement within the district?
 What was your involvement in these strategies?
 How would you describe the level of implementation achieved
for each of the reform strategies used?
(Note: Request documents mentioned).
1b
1b
1b
1b
211
APPENDIX C: SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS OF REFORM INTERVIEW GUIDE
Please log: Names, titles, data/time of interview, contact information, documents to
be obtained after the interview, parts of the interview guide that were not fully
covered, and digital tape location.
Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide
Q# Question
1 In this whole discussion, we want to focus directly on (the specific dimension)
 What is your district currently doing with regard (name the
dimension)? What has been the superintendent’s specific strategies
regarding this dimension?
 Is your current strategy at all linked to improving student
achievement—please explain?
 What has been your success in getting your current reform in this
dimension actually implemented and what challenges do you now face
in this regard?
 How does your current effort for this dimension differ from what you
were doing prior to when the current superintendent came to this
district?
 For your prior approach, to what extent was that approach fully
implemented?
212
Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Probes)
Questions
Strategic Plan:
 What is your district currently doing with regard to (name the dimension)?
What has been the superintendent’s specific strategies regarding this
dimension?
 Is your current strategy at all linked to improving student achievement—please
explain?
 What has been your success in getting your current reform in this dimension
actually implemented and what challenges do you now face in this regard?
Assessment:
 What strategies or does your district have in place in regards to summative and
formative assessment to improve student performance?
 What assessment practices are carried out both at the district-level and school-
site level to improve student achievement?
 How does your district ensure that assessment policies and practices are carried
out throughout the district?
Curriculum:
 What steps does the district take to ensure that the curriculum provides all
students with opportunities to access content and learning standards, (e.g.,
under-performing students, students with disabilities, and English Language
Learners)?
 What steps does the district take to ensure fidelity of implementation of the
curriculum across all schools and classrooms?
 What steps does the district take to review and update the curriculum and
adopted materials for alignment to learning standards and student learning
needs?
Professional Development:
 Describe how the district’s professional development plan includes emphasis
on improving student achievement, building teacher effectiveness, maintaining
high standards, and promoting continuous learning to enhance intellectual and
leadership capacity?
 How are resources specifically designated and available to support the district's
professional development plan?
 To what extent does the district's organizational structure and policies ensure
the implementation, evaluation, and monitoring of the professional
development plan?
213
Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Probes), Continued
Questions
HR System and Human Capital Management:
 What structures are in place to support the recruitment, selection, and
placement of new teachers and administrators?
 What district policies and practices are in place to ensure teachers and
administrators build collective capacity to understand and respond to student
achievement data?
 How are incentives used to attract and retain highly qualified teachers and
strong administrators for hard to staff schools?
Finance and Budget:
 Prior to the superintendent’s tenure, did the districts mission, vision, and value
statements align resources to the districts instructional goals and priorities?
 Describe the process used to create an organizational culture which includes all
stakeholders in the development of district-wide budget and spending
priorities?
 What effective controls are in place to ensure the district’s resources are
managed properly, including financial reports for fiscal management and
decision-making?
Communications:
 What structures are in place to support communication of the district's vision to
the key stakeholder groups: (e.g., students, staff, and community members)?
 What district policies and practices are in place to ensure district personnel
build collective capacity to "tell the story" concerning policies, activities, and
events employed to improve student achievement?
 How is the communication plan used to inform the community of district
interests and activities?
Governance and Board Relations:
 Describe how the districts’ vision, mission, value, and priorities are focused on
the achievement and needs of all students providing a coherent "road map" to
success?
 What procedures are in place and guide how the governance team
(superintendent/board members) works together to establish systems and
processes to monitor student achievement while communicating the
information to the larger community?
 What district-wide policies, culture and practices are currently utilized which
reflect a commitment to implementing systemic reform, innovative leadership,
and high expectations to improve student learning and achievement?
214
Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Probes), Continued
Questions
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations:
 What processes are in place to build trust, foster relationships and ensure open
communication between the District and labor union negotiating teams?
 What are the procedures for establishing principles and objectives for the
negotiating process?
 What strategies are employed by the negotiating teams to ensure accountability
and fair and equitable outcomes for the District’s employees?
Family and Community Engagement:
 How does the district support capacity building and encourage parents and
community members to participate in governance and advisory roles?
 Please describe the district’s process for gathering information about
parent/community needs related to supporting their children’s education and
how the district responds to this information?
 What kind of training or support is provided to administrators, teachers, and
other school staff in working with parents as equal partners in student academic
achievement?
215
APPENDIX D: QUALITY RUBRIC
Quality Rubric - Strategic Plan
Definition: The strategic plan defines the district’s vision, mission, and goals. It
also assigns the performance indicators and work plans to each of the districts goals
and serves as the guiding document for the district decisions and priorities.
Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Vision _ The district’s vision is well
articulated in the strategic
plan. It expresses the ethical
code, overriding convictions,
and the moral convictions of
the district
_ The vision represents the
personal values of those
vested in the organization and
is easily understood
_ The district’s vision is
somewhat articulated in the
strategic plan. To some extent
it expresses the ethical code,
overriding convictions, and
the moral convictions of the
district
_ Vision somewhat represents
the personal values of those
vested in the organization and
is moderately understood
_ The district’s vision is not
articulated in the strategic
plan. It does not express the
ethical code, overriding
convictions, and moral
convictions of the district
_ Vision does not represent the
personal values of those
vested in the organization
and is not easily understood
Mission _ The mission statement is a
clear and concise expression
of the district’s identity,
purpose, and means
_ The mission statement is a
bold declaration of what the
district will be and is known
and understood by most in the
district
_ The mission statement is
somewhat an expression of
the district’s identity, purpose
and means
_ The mission statement
somewhat states what the
organization will be and is
known and understood by
some in the organization
_ The mission statement is a
not clear and lacks concise
expression of the district’s
identity, purpose and means
_ The mission statement, to a
limited extent, is declaration
of what the organization will
be. It understood by few
people in the organization
Objectives
(Goals)
_ Objectives clearly commit to
achieve specific, measurable
results
_ Objectives are very closely
aligned with the mission
statement and they are district
objectives that are measurable
and observable
_ Objectives moderately
commit to achieve specific,
measurable results
_ Some objectives are aligned
with the mission statement;
they are district objectives
moderately measurable and
observable
_ Limited commitment to
achieve specific, measurable
results
_ Few objectives are aligned
with the mission statement
and few are district
objectives that are
measurable, demonstrated,
and observable
Strategies _ Full commitment to deploy
any and all of the districts
resources-people, facilities,
equipment and funding- to
execute the strategies to meet
objectives is clearly
articulated
_ The strategies strongly
indicate the districts priorities
and standards
_ Some commitment to deploy
districts resources-people,
facilities, equipment and
funding- to execute the
strategies to meet objectives
_ The strategies indicate
moderate commitment to the
districts priorities and
standards
_ Limited commitment to
deploy districts resources-
people, facilities, equipment
and funding- to execute the
strategies to meet objectives
_ Few strategies indicates the
districts priorities and
standards
216
Quality Rubric - Strategic Plan (continued)
Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Action Plan _ Specific reference to the
strategy it supports
_ States the objective of the
action plan itself
_ Has a detailed description of
each step required to complete
the plan.
_ Indicates assignments and
responsibilities
_ Includes a timeline for plan
_ Some reference to the
strategy it supports
_ States some of the
objectives of the action plan
_ Has some description of
steps required to complete
the plan.
_ Indicates some assignments
and responsibilities
_ Includes some timeline for
plan
_ Limited reference to the
strategy it supports
_ Objective of the action plan
not clearly stated
_ Has a little description
steps required to complete
the plan
_ Indicates few assignments
and responsibilities
_ Timeline for plan very
limited
Theory of
Action
_ Superintendent has a written
“theory of action” that clearly
articulates structure; specifies
what is tightly managed and
what decisions should be left to
school leaders
_ It is aligned with district
context, capacity, & system
leader’s beliefs
_ Superintendent has a
“theory of action” that
loosely articulates what is
managed by district and
what decisions should be
left to school leaders
_ It is loosely aligned with
district context, capacity, &
system’s beliefs
_ Superintendent does not
have a “theory of action.”
What is managed by
district and decisions
school leaders
_ It is aligned with district
context, capacity, & sups.
belief system
Data
Dashboard
_ District has clearly identified
several key indicators that give
district’s pulse
_ Indicators are aligned with
district’s strategic plan;
accountability plan assigns
responsibility for achieving
district goals to specific
people/depts.
_ District has some indicators
that give district’s pulse
_ Indicators somewhat
aligned with strategic plan;
accountability plan assigns
some responsibility for
district goals to specific
people/depts.
_ District has few indicators
that give district’s pulse
_ Indicators not aligned with
district’s strategic plan;
accountability and
responsibility for achieving
district goals not clearly
defined
217
Quality Rubric – Assessment
Definition: Assessment activities enable districts to know whether students are
learning what they are supposed to learn (i.e., the standards). Common, regularly-
scheduled district-wide assessments should connect directly with standards,
curriculum, pacing guides, and professional development.
Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Summative Assessments  Full district-wide
implementation of state
standardized assessments.
 Full compliance to state and
federal (NCLB) requirements.
 Moderate
implementation of
state standardized
assessments.
 Compliance to state
and federal (NCLB)
requirements.
 Low district-wide
implementation of
state standardized
assessments
 Low or no
compliance to state
and federal (NCLB)
requirements.
Formative Assessments  District-wide use of standards-
based common benchmark
and curriculum-embedded
assessments.
 Common rubrics to review
student work.
 Assessment schedule and
pacing guides developed and
utilized.
 Moderate district-
wide use of common
benchmark
assessments.
 Some common
rubrics to review
student work.
 Assessment schedule
and pacing guides
developed.
 Low or no district-
wide use of formative
assessments.
 Low or no use of
common rubrics to
review student work.
 No or unclear
assessment schedule
and/or pacing guides.
Data Management,
Information, and
Reporting
System/Technology
 District-wide (Internet-based)
infrastructure system for
assessment data collection,
management, and reporting.
 Data collection every 6-8
weeks.
 Easy system for entry/retrieval
of assessment data and
results/reports.
 User friendly data reports.
 District/school staff
technology trained, supported
and proficient.
 Moderate
infrastructure for
assessment data
collection,
management, and/or
reporting.
 Periodic data
collection.
 System for
entry/retrieval of
assessment data and
reports.
 District/school staff
technology trained.
 Low or no
infrastructure for
assessment data
collection,
management, or
reporting.
 Low or no periodic
data collection.
 Limited or no
district/school staff
technology trained,
supported or
proficient.
218
Quality Rubric – Assessment (continued)
Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Analysis,
Interpretation,
and Utilization of
Assessment Data
 District-wide analysis,
interpretation, and utilization
of assessment data to improve
instructional practices,
decision-making, and support
for learning.
 Meaningful feedback to
identify areas of focus and
needs for student mastery of
standards.
 District-wide schedule for data
analysis to plan and improve
curriculum, instruction, and
student achievement.
 Moderate district-wide
analysis, interpretation
and/or utilization of
assessment data.
 Moderate feedback to
identify areas of focus
and student needs.
 Intermittent schedule for
data analysis.
 Low or no district-wide
analysis, interpretation or
utilization of assessment
data.
 Limited or no schedule for
data analysis.
Professional
Development
(PD)
 District-wide plan to ensure all
district/school staff have
knowledge and receive
support in:
 District-wide assessments
(summative and formative)
 Effective utilization of data
management/reporting system
 Analysis/interpretation of
assessment data, student
achievement and meeting of
standards
 Collaborative data teams to
analyze/interpret data and
design next steps improve
instruction and student
performance aligned to
proficiency of standards.
 Moderate district-wide
plan for district/school
staff to receive training
and support in:
 District-wide
assessments
 Utilization of data
management/ reporting
system
 Analysis/interpretation
of student assessment
data and student
achievement
 Limited or no district-
wide plan for
district/school staffs to
receive PD and support on
district-wide assessments.
 Limited or no PD for the
utilization of data
management/reporting
system.
 Limited or no PD for the
analysis/interpretation of
student assessment data.
Fiscal Support
and Resources
 District-wide fiscal policies
and resources support
systematic assessment plan
and implementation aligned to
state and federal
accountability measures for
student performance.
 Fiscal resource
allocation and policies
support district-wide
assessment plan.
 Limited or no district-
wide fiscal policies and
resources in support of
systematic assessment plan
and/or implementation.
219
Quality Rubric – Curriculum
Definition: Curriculum refers to the materials used to teach. Classroom materials
(e.g., textbooks, worksheets, pacing guides, etc.) should address the scope and
sequence of the district’s learning standards.
Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Alignment to
Learning
Standards &
Assessments
_ The district has adopted and
implemented a curriculum that
is based upon content
standards and frameworks,
and is aligned to required
assessments of student
learning
_ The district curriculum
contains all of the essential
knowledge and skills students
need master the state and
district learning standards
_ The district provides pacing
plans in all content areas that
assist teachers in delivering
the required content during the
academic year, aligned to
periodic assessments of
student learning
_ The district has an
adopted curriculum that is
based upon content
standards and
frameworks, and is
partially aligned to
required assessments of
student learning
_ The district curriculum
contains some of the
essential knowledge and
skills students need master
state and district learning
standards
_ The district provides
pacing plans in some
content areas that assist
teachers in delivering the
required content during
the academic year
_ The district does not have
has an adopted curriculum
that is based upon content
standards and frameworks,
or aligned to required
assessments of student
learning
_ The district curriculum
contains little of the
essential knowledge and
skills students need master
state and district learning
standards
_ The district does not
provide pacing plans that
assist teachers in
delivering the required
content during the
academic year
Equal Access to
Learning
Standards
_ The district curriculum
optimizes all students’
opportunities to access content
and learning standards,
including under-performing
students, students with
disabilities, and ELs
_ The district curriculum
provides many students
with opportunities to
access content and
learning standards
_ The district curriculum
provides few students with
opportunities to access
content and learning
standards
Fidelity in
Implementation
_ The district communicates the
required curriculum clearly
and systematically with all
stakeholders, especially site
administrators, teachers,
students, and parents
_ The district provides adequate
funding for schools to support
professional development and
full implementation of the
curriculum
_ The district demonstrates a
systemic commitment to long-
term implementation of the
curriculum
_ The district communicates
the required curriculum
with site administrators,
and teachers
_ The district provides some
funding for schools to
support professional
development and
implementation of the
curriculum
_ The district demonstrates
some commitment to
long-term implementation
of the curriculum
_ The district does not fully
communicate the required
curriculum to site
administrators, teachers,
or other stakeholders
_ The district provides little
or inadequate funding for
schools to support
professional development
and implementation of the
curriculum
_ The district demonstrates
little or no commitment to
long-term implementation
of the curriculum
220
Quality Rubric – Curriculum (continued)
Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Sufficiency of and
Appropriateness of
Materials
_ The district provides sufficient
instructional textbooks and
curricular materials (including
intervention materials) for all
students.
_ The district provides all schools
with abundant supplemental
materials to support and
enhance implementation of the
curriculum in all subject areas.
_ The district provides curricular
materials are appropriate for and
culturally relevant to all students
_ The district provides
instructional textbooks
and curricular materials
for all students.
_ The district provides
schools with some
supplemental materials
to support
implementation of the
curriculum in some
subject areas.
_ The district provides
curricular materials are
appropriate for and
culturally relevant to
many students
_ The district does not
provide sufficient
instructional textbooks
and curricular materials
for all students.
_ The district provides
schools with few or no
supplemental materials
to support
implementation of the
curriculum.
_ The district provides
curricular materials are
appropriate for and
culturally relevant to
some students
Clear and regular
procedures to review
and update the
curriculum
_ There is a system in place that
provides for regular review of
the adopted materials for core
subjects by district and site
administrators and teachers to
verify alignment and universal
access
_ There is a system in place that
provides for district and site
administrators and teachers to
adapt materials to ensure
alignment and access
_ There is a system in place that
provides for District and site
administrators and teachers to
use assessment results to
determine what materials are
needed to supplement the
adopted curriculum to ensure
that all key standards are
mastered.
_ Key staff members
periodically review the
adopted materials for
core subjects to verify
alignment
_ Key staff members
periodically adapt
materials to ensure
alignment and access
_ Key staff members
periodically use
assessment results to
determine what
materials are needed to
ensure that all key
standards are mastered.
_ Some district staff
members may
occasionally review the
adopted materials for
core subjects to verify
alignment
_ Some district staff
members may
occasionally adapt
materials to ensure
alignment and access
_ Some district staff
members may
occasionally use
assessment results to
determine what materials
are needed to ensure that
key standards are
mastered.
221
Quality Rubric – Professional Development
Definition: Professional development is any program or course intended to improve teachers’ or principals’
effectiveness. It may center on content (e.g., teaching about force in physics instructional techniques (e.g.,
Cornell note-taking), leadership (e.g., workshop for principals and assist principals), or habits (e.g., collaboration
among teachers in the same grade-level/subject matter). In many districts, professional development topics are
arbitrarily chosen. Successful districts have an integrated professional development strategy that centers on
enabling teachers to detect when students aren’t meeting a certain standards and to adjust their instruction
accordingly, or enables principals and teachers to improve their knowledge and skills in areas of district focus.
Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Designing
Professional
Development
 LEA includes budgeted,
coherent PD activities that
reflect the best available
research-based strategies
for improved student
achievement and focus on
standards-based content
knowledge.
 PD supports the district’s
long-term plan and
identified goals.
 Plan includes needs
assessment process and
goals of PD include the
following: improving all
students’ learning,
improving teacher
effectiveness, setting high
standards for teachers,
promoting continuous staff
learning, and enhancing
staff intellectual and
leadership capacity.
 Resources are designated
and available to support
PD plan and specific
personnel stay abreast of
and incorporate best
practices into teaching,
learning, and leadership.
 LEA includes PD activities
but they do not reflect the
best available research-
based strategies and may
focus on standards-based
content knowledge.
 PD minimally supports the
district’s long-term plan.
 Plan may include a needs
assessment process may
include two or less of the
following: improving all
students’ learning,
improving teacher
effectiveness, setting high
standards for teachers,
promoting continuous staff
learning, and enhancing
staff intellectual and
leadership capacity.
 Resources are available to
support PD plan and few
personnel stay abreast of
best practices.
 The LEA has little or no
connection to PD activities
which do not necessarily
focus on standards-based
content knowledge.
 PD plan is not in alignment
with district’s long-term
plan.
 The plan does not include a
needs assessment process
and goals of PD include one
or none of the following:
improving all students’
learning, improving teacher
effectiveness, setting high
standards for teachers,
promoting continuous staff
learning, and enhancing
staff intellectual and
leadership capacity.
 Minimal resources are
available to support PD
plan; little or no effort has
been made to stay abreast
of best practices in
teaching, learning, and
leadership.
Implementing
Professional
Development
 LEA’s organizational
structures and policies
support the implementation
of PD activities on the
individual, collegial, and
organizational levels.
 PD is integral to the district
culture and promotes
inquiry.
 PD plan includes “coaching
model” and all staff
receives coaching support.
 LEA ensures that resources
remain available to
organize and implement
PD.
 Most LEA’s organizational
structures and policies
support the implementation
of PD.
 PD is inconsistent across
the district and may promote
inquiry and improvement.
 Plan includes the “coaching
model” and participation is
sporadic.
 Some resources available to
support PD.
_ Minimal number of the
organizational structures
and policies support the
implementation of PD.
_ PD is disconnected to
classroom practices and
does not support and
promote teacher
effectiveness in the
classroom.
_ Plan does not include
“coaching model.”
_ Minimal resources are
available to support PD.
222
Quality Rubric – Professional Development (continued)
Component High () Medium (2) Low (1)
Evaluating and
Improving
Professional
Development
 LEA uses PD design goals
to determine evaluation
measures and standards for
success. Personnel for
collecting, analyzing, and
reporting data and for
facilitating the “PD next
steps” decisions are
clarified.
 Evaluation findings are used
to make improvements in
PD plan and criteria
include: 1) improved
teaching, improved student
learning, 3) narrowing of
student achievement gaps.
 LEA has a process for
monitoring and
documenting the alignment
of the school improvement
plan(s), professional
development activities, and
teacher and student
outcomes.
 LEA has a plan to determine
PD evaluation measures but
lacks clarity and specifics as to
what measures will be used as
standards for success. Minimal
personnel are selected for
collecting, analyzing, and
reporting data and developing
next steps (lacks depth).
 Evaluation findings exist but
are not used to make
improvements in PD plan.
 Lack of alignment in the school
improvement plan(s), PD
activities, and teacher and
student outcomes.
_ Little or no connection
between PD design goals
and evaluation process.
Personnel have not been
identified to collect and
analyze data.
_ Little or no connection
between evaluation
findings of make
improvements in PD
plan.
_ The process for
monitoring and
documentation of the
school improvement
plan(s) exists but lacks
alignment between PD
activities, and teacher
and student outcomes.
Sharing
Professional
Development
Learning
 LEA has a plan to document
professional development
learning (challenges and
successes) changes in order
to sustain excellence when
major changes in personnel
occur.
 Records are kept to guide
future PD decisions.
 Implementation materials
are organized and available
to serve as models of
effective practice. This
strategy is essential for
keeping staff,
administrators, parents,
students, and community
moving in the same
direction.
_ LEA has moderate
documentation of PD learning
(challenges and successes).
_ Records are kept.
_ Some implementation
materials are organized and
available to others to serve as
models of effective practices.
Therefore, most of the staff,
administrators, parents,
students, and community all
moving in the same direction.
_ LEA lacks
documentation of PD
challenges and
successes.
 Few or no records are
kept to guide future PD
decisions.
 Little or lack of
evidence to support that
implementation
materials are organized
and available to others to
serve as models of
effective practices.
223
Quality Rubric – HR System and Human Capital Management
Definition: Research indicates that teacher quality is perhaps the primary influence
on student achievement, yet many districts do a poor job of attracting, selecting, and
managing talent, whether at the teacher, principal, or central office level. Improving
the recruiting and hiring processes for teachers and principals, developing attractive
compensation packages, and processing applications and payments quickly—which a
good HR system should be able to do—can greatly improve the quality of instruction
in schools and classrooms across the district. Districts then need to develop clever
support and retention strategies to keep talent in the district. Most importantly,
districts can proactively improve their capacity for providing a quality education by
examining and refining their selection process.
Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Recruitment,
selection and
placement of new
administrators
_ Achievement data,
demographics, staffing, and
culture of the district are used
to define qualities of new
administrators
_ District program in place to
recruit outstanding teachers
as administrators
_ Achievement data,
demographics, staffing, and
culture of each school are
used to develop a customized
set of required principal skills
at all sites
_ Strongest principal leaders
are placed at the most
underperforming schools
_ Some criteria are used
when identifying potential
school leaders during the
administrator hiring
process
_ Informal referral process is
in place to encourage in-
house recruitment
_ Placement of principals is
determined by district
personnel
_ Strong principals are
encouraged to take on
underperforming schools
_ Hiring decisions have
little to no connection to
student achievement
_ In-house recruitment
program is nonexistent or
inconsequential
_ Placement is driven by
availability or other
criteria
_ Performance of school is
not considered in
placement
Recruitment of
highly qualified
teachers
_ Quarterly report to
community regarding the
percentage of classes with
HQTs
_ Compensation incentives are
used to recruit HQTs
_ District and employee
organizations work
collaboratively to recruit
HQTs from high-performing
schools to teach in
underperforming schools
within the district
_ Annual HQT reporting is
completed as required by
law
_ Incentives limited to few
curricular areas or special
circumstances
_ Strong effort made by
district, without union
support, to encourage
HQTs from high-
performing schools to teach
in underperforming schools
_ No reporting policy in
place or inconsistent
reporting to community
_ No incentive policy in
place to support
recruitment of HQTs
_ No or inconsistent efforts
to recruit HQTs from
high performing schools
to teach in
underperforming schools
in the district
224
Quality Rubric – HR System and Human Capital Management (continued)
Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Teacher
support and
development
_ All teachers have access to
ongoing PD that is targeted at
district achievement goals and
delivery of standards-aligned
curriculum, instruction, and
assessment
_ District has established a new
teacher support system the
promotes high-quality support
and resources
_ PD activities are strongly tied to
board-adopted district goals and
objectives
_ District collects data to measure
the effectiveness of PD as it
related to improved student
achievement
_ Some teachers have access
to ongoing PD that is
targeted at district goals
and delivery of a
standards-aligned
curriculum and instruction
program
_ District provides some
site-level support for new
teachers through formal
and informal processes
_ PD activities are generally
supportive of district goals
and objectives
_ Teachers are encouraged
to measure the
effectiveness of PD as
related to student
achievement
_ There exists little evidence
that PD activities are tied to
district achievement goals or
specific curriculum
objectives
_ New teachers receive the
majority of support through
university teacher
preparation programs
_ No evidence of ties between
PD and district goals and
objectives
_ No effort is made by the
district to measure the
effectiveness of PD or
impact on student
achievement
Salaries,
wages, and
benefits
_ District and employee
organizations work
collaboratively to ensure
salaries, wages, and benefits are
sufficiently competitive to attract
and retain HQTs with an
emphasis on math, language arts,
reading, and teaching ELs
_ District conducts quarterly
analyses of recruitment and
retention data
_ The district has negotiated
competitive salaries,
wages, and benefits as
compared to surrounding
school districts
_ District conducts annual
analyses of recruitment
and retention data
_ No evidence suggests a
collaborative effort on the
part of the district and
employee organizations to
attract and retain HQTs in
math, language arts,
reading, and teaching ELs
_ No evidence suggests
analysis plans exist in the
district
Use of
incentives
_ Compensation incentives are
used to recruit HQTs and
administrators to work in hard-
to-staff schools
_ Incentives include: extra
compensation, opportunities for
collaboration, reduced class size,
and recognition programs
_ Compensation incentives
are used to recruit HQTs
in certain content areas at
hard to staff and/or
underperforming schools
_ Limited monetary and
non-monetary incentives
in use by the district to
attract and retain HQTs
and strong administrators
_ Compensation incentives
are not used to attract HQTs
/ administrators to hard to
staff and/or
underperforming schools
_ Incentives are not in place
or in use to attract and retain
HQTs and/or strong
administrators
225
Quality Rubric - Finance & Budget Rubric
Definition: While student achievement is the ultimate bottom line, more
superintendents are fired for poor financial management than for poor student
achievement results. In addition to ensuring that their budget is balanced and
sustainable, superintendents should closely align their budget with instructional
priorities. Some districts have adopted innovative budgeting approaches such as
“zero-based budgeting” and weighted student funding to bring their budgets into
closer alignment with their priorities.
Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Strategic
Budget
Planning
_ Strategic plan is linked to the
superintendent’s goals and
priorities, incorporates measurable
objectives and outcomes, and is
used as the basis of budget
planning.
_ The budget is closely aligned to the
district’s mission, goals, and
operational activities and identifies
who is accountable
organizationally for specified
outcomes.
_ School budget is explicitly tied to
the district’s instructional goals and
priorities.
_ Changes in district priorities are
reflected in the budget in a timely
fashion.
_ Fiscal team understands the
district’s past fiscal issues,
problems, challenges, and
accomplishments in order to gain
perspective on how to guide the
district in the future.
_ District goals and priorities,
outlined in the strategic plan, are
found in budget priorities, but the
links between the strategic plan and
the budget process are not evident.
_ There is some evidence of the
district’s instructional goals and
priorities in the budget.
_ Changes in district priorities are
reflected in the budget, but not in
time to make meaningful decisions.
_ The budget is somewhat aligned to
the district’s mission, goals, and
operational activities but
organizational accountability is not
clear.
_ The district’s past fiscal issues,
problems, challenges, and
accomplishments are not
considered in planning process.
_ Strategic plan is
not referenced in
budget planning.
_ Changes in
district priorities
are not reflected
in the budget.
_ The budget is not
understood by
stakeholders.
_ Fiscal team has
no historical
perspective of
past fiscal issues.
226
Quality Rubric - Finance & Budget Rubric (continued)
Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Organizational
Culture
_ Expands participation in budget
process to include stakeholders
and secure buy-in by
constituencies.
_ Presents audit findings &
corrective action plans to
Board.
_ Establish a clear process to
solicit input from Local District
personnel, principals, and others
on the annual budget process
and to pilot-test ideas before
they are rolled out to the field.
_ Participation in budget
process limited to upper and
middle management.
_ Board is made aware of audit
findings.
_ Processes for input from
Local District personnel, such
as principals, is not clearly
established.
_ Little participation in
budget process outside of
fiscal.
_ Audit findings are not
sun-shined.
_ Input from Local District
personnel, principals,
and others on the annual
budget process is not
solicited.
Operational
Procedures
_ Establishes effective controls to
ensure that the district’s
resources are managed
properly, including monthly
financial reports for fiscal
management & decision-
making.
_ Uses the district’s annual
external audit to improve
district operations, including—
the timely review and follow-up
of findings, development of
corrective action plans, and
implementation of corrective
actions.
_ Establish uniform
comprehensive financial
procedural manuals for school
sites, Local Districts, and
central offices and conduct
appropriate training for users.
_ Controls to ensure that the
district’s resources are
managed properly, including
periodic financial reports for
fiscal management &
decision-making, are
restricted to few district
personnel.
_ District’s annual external
audit is discussed only when
produced and not revisited in
planning process.
_ Financial policies are not
readily available to school
sites, Local Districts, and
central offices.
_ Financial reports for
fiscal management &
decision-making are only
produced, or made
available to decision-
makers, in times of
crisis.
_ District’s annual external
audit is not used to
inform decisions or
future policy.
_ No formal financial
procedural manuals
are available.
227
Quality Rubric – Communications
Definition: Effective school districts need to showcase the great stories in their
district and to counteract misinformation or negative news. Developing a public
relations or communications office staffed with experts on dealing with the media
can enable the district to communicate its vision to the public or proactively build
support for an important initiative.
Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Communications
Plan
_ Communications plan is
aligned with district’s
strategic plan
_ Communications plan
actively supports district
mission and vision
_ Communications plan
tailored to reflect diversity
of district schools
_ Communications plan
designed to seek
community input
_ Communications plan is up
to date
_ Communications plan is
understood by district
office and school staff
_ Communications plan
addresses needs of all
stakeholders
_ Communications plan is
out of date or missing
_ Schools are unaware of
district communications
plan
_ Schools contact district
office when
communications issues
arise
Communications
Office
_ Communications office is
integral part of district
decision making
_ Communications office
maintains close liaison
with community
_ Communications office
routinely consults with
district schools to ensure
reporting of “great stories”
_ Communications office is
adequately staffed
_ Communications office
consulted for input in
decision making
_ Communications office
contacts schools and
community stakeholders
with news of events and
decisions
_ Communications office is
not functioning
_ Communications office is
inadequately staffed
_ Communications office
not routinely informed of
decisions affecting
community stakeholders
Communication of
district vision to the
community
_ District meets with
community leaders to
discuss district vision
_ Multiple interactive means
are used to disseminate
district vision
_ District employees take a
proactive approach to
telling honest district
message
_ District communicates
vision via periodic releases
in local newspapers
_ District notifies community
organizations of district
vision
_ School leaders are required
to maintain coherence of
district vision with school
goals
_ District vision is not
communicated to the
community
_ Mission and vision are
displayed on district home
page
_ School bulletins and
newsletters relay district
vision to homes
228
Quality Rubric – Communications (continued)
Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Build support for
district initiatives
_ Family and community
members are engaged as
decision makers in
communicating district
initiatives
_ District initiatives are
communicated and understood
by community
_ District notifies
community organizations
of initiatives
_ Key community leaders
are informed of district
initiatives
_ School leaders are
encouraged to
communicate information
regarding district
initiatives with key
personnel
_ Community is unaware
of district initiatives
_ Schools are given
information concerning
district initiatives to
send home in
newsletters
Two way
communications
with community
_ District and community feel
involved and engaged in their
public schools
_ Focus groups and town hall
meetings inform community
of district interests and
activities
_ Staff members are involved in
community groups and
organizations
_ Information concerning
proposed legislation that
affects schools and
communities are tracked and
disseminated by district
_ District publishes calendar
and transportation
schedules in local
newspapers
_ Community organizations
are routinely notified of
district events
_ Key community leaders
are routinely notified of
district events
_ School leaders are
encouraged to
communicate school
activities via newsletters
and letters home
_ Community events and
activities are disseminated
through schools
_ Community is unaware
of district events
_ District communicates
to community primarily
through schools
_ Community does not
communicate activities
with district
_ Parents receive letters
and newsletters from
their school announcing
special district events
229
Quality Rubric – Governance/Board Relations
Definition: Most districts are governed by boards elected from the local population;
others answer to appointed boards. In either case, school boards are responsible for
setting the policy direction for the district; superintendents can take a supporting role
in developing policy but are mainly charged with executing it. Winning the support
of board members, especially elected ones, is a time-consuming but critical task for
most superintendents.
Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Setting the
Direction for the
Community’s
Schools
_ The District’s vision, mission,
value, and priorities are
focused on achievement and
the needs of all students are
clearly known in the school
community.
_ The vision, mission, values,
and priorities are described in
the LEA plan and visible at
all district sites and described
as measurable goals.
_ The District’s goals are
measurable and achievable
being evaluated annually to
improve instruction and close
the gap between high and low
achieving students.
_ The District’s vision,
mission, value and priorities
may lack clear focus and not
necessarily focused on
student achievement and the
needs of all students are not
well known at all district
sites.
_ The District’s goals are
measurable and possibly
achievable but not evaluated
annually nor may be part of
the LEA plan.
_ The instruction is not
necessarily closing the gap
between high and low
achieving students.
_ The District’s vision,
mission, value, and
priorities lack focus or
are non-existent.
_ There is very little to no
information available at
any district site or in the
LEA plan.
_ The goals are not
measurable or non-
existent and are not
reviewed.
Establishing an
Effective and
Efficient
Structure for the
District
_ The Board has established an
organizational structure that
fully supports the district’s
vision while empowering the
superintendent and staff.
_ The Board approves policies
and sets the direction for
adopting the curriculum.
_ The Board establishes
budgeting priorities on-time
and consistent with the vision
and goals.
_ The Board has established an
organizational structure that
partially supports the
District’s vision and may not
fully empower the
superintendent.
_ Board policies are not
adopted or approved in a
timely manner and there is
little input in the curriculum
adoption.
_ The budget may not fully
reflect the priorities and is
not consistent with the vision
and goals.
_ The board has
established an
organizational structure
that may not support the
district vision and may
not empower the
superintendent and staff.
_ Board policies are not
adopted or approved and
there is little to no input
in the curriculum
adoption.
_ The budget does not
reflect the priorities and
is not consistent with the
vision and goals.
230
Quality Rubric – Governance/Board Relations (continued)
Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Providing
Support and
Resources
_ The Board supports the
superintendent and staff and
acts in a professional
demeanor modeling the
District’s belief and vision.
_ The budget allocation aligns
resources based on
instructional priorities and
student needs and there is
concentrated evidence of
providing additional support
to reform efforts that directly
impact student achievement.
_ The Board may support the
superintendent and staff
and sometimes acts with
professional demeanor
modeling the District’s
beliefs and vision.
_ The budget partially aligns
resources to instructional
priorities and student needs
and there is some evidence
of additional support to
reform efforts that directly
impact student
achievement.
_ The Board rarely supports
the superintendent and staff
and seldom models the
District’s belief and vision.
_ The budget allocation does
not align resources based on
instructional priorities or
student need and there is no
evidence of providing
additional support to reform
efforts that directly impact
student achievement.
Ensuring
Accountability
to the Public
_ The Board establishes
systems and processes to
monitor student achievement
and communicates the
information to the school
community.
_ The Board evaluates the
superintendent and sets the
policy for the evaluation of
all personnel.
_ The Board monitors program
effectiveness through
assessments and requires
changes to protect scarce
resources and monitors
effectiveness through self-
evaluation.
_ The Board may have
established systems to
monitor student
achievement while
communication lacks
consistency to the
community.
_ The Board evaluates the
superintendent but may not
set policy for the evaluation
of all personnel.
_ The Board may monitor
program effectiveness
through assessments and
seldom requires changes to
protect resources and there
may be evidence of
monitoring through self-
assessment.
_ The Board has not
established systems to
monitor student achievement
and rarely communicates any
information to the
community.
_ The Board marginally
evaluates the superintendent
and does not set policy for
personnel evaluations.
_ The Board rarely monitors
program effectiveness to
protect resources and there is
no evidence of its’
effectiveness through self-
evaluation.
Actions as
Community
Leaders
_ The Board has involved the
community in appropriate,
meaningful ways to allow for
feedback from stakeholders.
_ There is clear
communication to
community members
regarding district policies,
district educational
programs, and the financial
condition of the district and
progress of local goals or
bond information.
_ The Board allows the
superintendent to share, as
appropriate, information with
local constituency groups.
_ The Board infrequently
involves the community in
meaningful ways allowing
for feedback from
stakeholders.
_ There may be clear
communication to the
community regarding
policies, programs and the
financial condition of the
district but it is not
consistent.
_ The Board sometimes
allows the superintendent to
share, as appropriate,
information with local
constituency groups.
_ The Board has generally not
involved the community in
any meaningful way and
does not readily accept
feedback from the
community.
_ There is no clear
communication to the
community and generally,
district information can be
obtained only at district sites.
_ There is generally no sharing
of information with local
constituency groups.
231
Quality Rubric – Labor Relations/Negotiations
Definition: In addition to teachers unions, superintendents often need to build
relationships and negotiate with several other unions to which various district staff
belong. Success in working with unions requires an upfront investment in building
relationships and understanding the priorities of union leaders. The content of
contracts also requires close attention. Contract language can restrict or expand the
superintendent’s options for replacing and reassigning staff. This is particularly
crucial with teacher contracts, as teacher quality is one of the most significant
influences on student achievement.
Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Relationships,
Communications
and Trust
_ Both teams have solid trusting
relationships, credibility,
political savvy, and model
ethical behavior by establishing
core values
_ All bargaining members are
provided with a continuous
meaningful training on
traditional, interest-based and
core values bargaining
_ All key stakeholders informed
of planning, updates,
modifications to proposals and
strategies, and tentative and
final agreements
_ Both teams have moderate
relationships, credibility,
political savvy, and model
ethical behavior by
establishing core values
_ All bargaining members
are provided with some
training on interest-based
and traditional bargaining
_ Some information is
disseminated regarding
planning, updates,
modifications to proposals
and strategies, and
tentative and final
agreements to some
stakeholders
_ Teams have limited
skeptical relationships,
lacking credibility,
political savvy, and
ethical behavior need
for core values
_ There is a need for
meaningful training on
traditional, interest-
based and core values
bargaining
_ Only a few stakeholders
are informed of
negotiation process and
limited information is
distributed about
tentative and final
agreements
Negotiation
Principles
and Objectives
_ Both teams have secure,
established roles and
responsibilities
_ All teams use strategic plans,
mission statements, major
goals and core values to
develop objectives
_ Teams work together
collaboratively to review
existing contract language, to
identify problem areas,
articulate community concerns,
and discuss the impact of
current language on student
achievement and district
operations
_ Only one team has secure,
established roles and
responsibilities
_ The district and other
teams have limited access
to strategic plans, mission
statements, major goals
and core values to develop
objectives
_ Each team works in
isolation to review existing
contract language, and
identify problem areas,
that impact of current
language on student
achievement and district
operations
_ Both teams have secure,
established roles and
responsibilities
_ All teams use strategic
plans, mission
statements, major goals
and core values to
develop objectives
_ Existing contract
language is not
considered or discussed
in reference to the
impact of current
language on student
achievement and district
operations
232
Quality Rubric – Labor Relations/Negotiations (continued)
Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Strategies for
Negotiations
_ Bargaining goals and
objectives are developed in
relation to the importance of
the district mission and
bargaining success, district
verifies the proposal against
district philosophy, core
values, financial resources,
community support and impact
of student achievement
_ District and union work
together to determine an
overarching approach to
negotiations with
considerations for distributive
or integrative bargaining or a
combination of the two
_ There is a solid plan for
impasse: meditation, fact
finding and post fact finding
negotiations
_ Bargaining goals and
objectives are somewhat
developed in relation to
the importance of the
district mission and
possible bargaining
success
_ District determines an
overarching approach to
negotiations with
considerations for
distributive or integrative
bargaining or a
combination of the two
_ Impasse results in
breakdown in
communication, the
district does not have a
plan for this process
_ Bargaining goals and
objectives are developed in
relation to the importance of
each parties individual
interest; the district
philosophy, core values,
financial resources,
community support and
impact of student
achievement are not the main
consideration
_ Each group determines an
overarching approach that
benefits self-interest in
negotiations
_ There is a solid plan for
impasse: meditation, fact
finding and post fact finding
negotiations
Fair and
Equitable
Outcomes
_ Equitable distribution of rights
in evaluations, assignments,
health plan, calendars, staff
development, schedules,
retirement etc.
_ A high value placed on all
employees and fully recognizes
their impact on the successes of
district students
_ Within the context of core
values and fiscal ability,
settlement provides a fair and
equitable compensation
package
_ In many cases,
management rights
override the distribution
of rights in evaluations,
assignments, health plan,
calendars, staff
development, schedules,
retirement etc.
_ Some value placed on
employees and there are
small attempts to
recognize their impact on
the success of district
_ At times, different groups
consider core values and
fiscal impacts when
negotiating settlements
and compensation
packages
_ Power struggles exist when
deciding the rights in
evaluations, assignments,
health plan, calendars, staff
development, schedules,
retirement etc.
_ Employees perceive that they
are not recognized for their
impact on the successes of
district
_ Regardless of core values and
fiscal impact, groups demand
unreasonable, unaffordable
compensation packages
233
Quality Rubric – Family and Community Engagement
Definition: All residents of a school district’s jurisdiction can be considered its
stakeholders, so ensuring everyone’s satisfaction can be difficult. Districts should
offer several ways for the community and families to interact with the district, from
coordinating volunteer opportunities for parents to partnering with local
organizations in support of student success. It is also important to gather feedback
from the public on the district’s performance. Several districts take surveys of
parents of children and of the community in general to determine how they view the
district and what their priorities for improvement are. These surveys should be
closely linked to the district’s performance management system and data dashboard.
Increasing stakeholder satisfaction can lead to greater support for bond measures for
the district, significantly increasing its financial resources.
Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Parenting
_ The district provides
coordinated trainings, at all
levels, based on parent
needs and local context.
_ The district has a system or
process in place for
appropriate and quality
referrals.
_ The district ensures and
supports schools in
educating all staff in
working with parents as
equal partners, coordinates
parent programs, and builds
ties between parents/
community and the schools.
_ Schools organize trainings for
parents on a scheduled basis.
_ Schools provide appropriate
referrals.
_ The district or school offers
staff trainings in how to work
with the parents/community.
_ Schools plan trainings upon
request by parents.
_ Schools provide referrals.
_ Schools receive little
support from the district in
planning trainings for staff
with a focus on working
with parents/community.
Communication
_ Information is provided in a
language and format that
ensures participation for
those parents who lack
literacy skills or whose
native language is not
English.
_ A district-wide expectation
of consistent and effective
two-way communication
between the home and
school exists.
_ Schools provide key
information concerning the
school program and its
activities, as feasible, in a
language that ensures
participation for those parents
whose native language is not
English.
_ Schools encourage consistent
and effective two-way
communication between the
home and school.
_ Schools are inconsistent in
providing translated
notifications. Few
resources or options are
available for schools that
need translation assistance.
_ Schools do not regularly
emphasize the importance
of communication between
the home and school.
234
Quality Rubric – Family and Community Engagement (continued)
Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Volunteerism
_ The district and school
parent involvement policy
informs parents about
opportunities for volunteers
and the rights for parents to
be involved in school and
classroom activities/events.
_ The district delineates
specific measures that are
taken to increase parental
involvement and addresses
various barriers.
_ The district and school parent
involvement policy informs
parents about opportunities
for volunteers and the rights
for parents to be involved in
school and classroom
activities/events.
_ The district and schools
address major barriers, such
as language, transportation,
and need for childcare.
_ The district and school parent
involvement policy informs
parents about opportunities
for volunteers and the rights
for parents to be involved in
school and classroom
activities/events.
_ The district and schools do
little to address barriers to
parent/community
participation.
Learning at
Home
_ The district supports schools
in providing techniques and
strategies that parents may
use to improve their
children’s academic success
and help their children in
learning at home.
_ Schools provide techniques
and strategies that parents
may use to improve their
children’s academic success
and help their children in
learning at home.
_ Schools rely on teachers to
work with individual families
on a as needed basis.
Decision
Making
_ Parents are encouraged and
actively recruited to
participate in undertaking
governance and advisory
roles..
_ The district organizes
opportunities for parents/
community to be involved
in the joint development of
the LEA plan, parent
involvement policies, parent
needs assessments, and
school-parent compacts.
_ Parents are encouraged to
participate in governance and
advisory roles.
_ Parents/community are
involved in some
components of the
development of LEA plan,
parent involvement policies,
parent needs assessments,
and school-parent compacts.
_ Schools do not have active
parent committees, and are
provided little support for
taking corrective measures.
_ Parents/community are not
consulted in the development
of the LEA plan, parent
involvement policies, parent
needs assessments, or school-
parent compacts.
Collaboration
with the
Community
_ Community organizations
and/or institutions are
highly involved in district
and/or school activities,
working in collaboration
with the district.
_ Community organizations
and/or institutions are
minimally involved in district
and/or school activities.
_ Community organizations
and/or institutions are not
involved in district and/or
school activities.
235
APPENDIX E: IMPLEMENTATION RUBRIC (ALL LEVERS)
Dimension High
3
Medium
2
Low
1
Challenges &
Concerns
The external challenges to full
implementation and the
concerns/ thoughts of key
players
_ No serious obstacle or
challenge.
_ Staff focused on improving
full use of lever and its
impact on student
performance
_ Common commitment to
approach
_ Some obstacles
and/or challenges to
implementation.
_ Staff focused on
thought and actions
needed to improving
lever
_ Majority of staff
showing commitment
to approach
_ Serious external
obstacles to
implementation
_ Staff focused on
whether approach to
lever is best design
or is feasible
_ Possible strong
disagreement about
best direction
Fully Implemented in
Practice
The extent that each component
of the change lever is fully
implemented in practice.
_ Full implementation of all
components of the lever
across the district
_ Best practices have been
established and are
communicated in
coordinated manner
_ Practice is reflected in
policy and procedures
_ Uneven and/or
inconsistent
implementation of the
lever across the
district
_ Best practices are
being collected-with
plans for
communicating these
across the district
_ Possibly some good
ideas about
implementation of
the change lever
_ Little actual
implementation of
the lever beyond
minimal
bureaucratic
requirements
Common Culture: Data,
Reflection, & Continuous
Improvement
Shared understanding, values,
and desired expectations,
including active use of data,
reflection and continuous
improvement of the change
lever itself.
_ Extensive use of data and
reflection about the change
lever—its design,
implementation and
effectiveness in supporting
student achievement.
_ Common and clear
expectations across district
_ Extensive work on
continuous improvement
_ Use of data and
reflection guides
decisions about the
change lever
_ Expectations
communicated across
the district
_ Moderately effective
continuous
improvement efforts
_ Little common
understanding of the
change lever
_ No/little data
collection regarding
lever
_ No/little reflection
about how to
improve
implementation of
change lever
Sustainable Use:
Resources, Staff,
Regularization
Ad hoc vs. stability of staff and
fiscal resources and a fit with
the ongoing organization.
_ Strong possibility of
sustainability
_ Strong and ongoing staff
and fiscal resource
commitment
_ Shared expertise and
capacity building
_ Inclusion in regular way
the district operates
_ Moderate possibility
of sustainability
_ Moderate staff and
fiscal resource
commitment
_ District support and
expertise
_ Very tenuous
approach to
implementation of
change lever
_ Little chance of
sustainability in
terms of staffing,
resources, or
regularized patterns

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In the last decade, the role of the school superintendent has changed. Historically the superintendency has primarily been managerial and administrative in scope with such duties as budget oversight, operations and discipline. Today’s high stake accountability and unprecedented social and political environments in which urban school system leaders operate, requires knowledge and ability to address the pressing challenges of low-performing schools and gaps in student achievement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

How successful urban superintendents in California improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

Systems and structures at a high performing high poverty school: A case study using RTI to promote student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The effective implementation of reform strategies, instructional conditions, and best practices to improve student achievement in math: a case study of practices at Land High School

PDF

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

PDF

Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Ramos, Patricia Galarza (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/11/2009

Defense Date 05/27/2009

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

Tag educational leadership preparation programs,OAI-PMH Harvest,reform strategies in community college,reform strategies in K-12,student achievement,superintendent preparation programs,Urban Education

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Marsh, David D. (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy M. (committee member), Perez, Monte (committee member)

Creator Email ramos_patricia@smc.edu,tricia.ramos@verizon.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2337

Unique identifier UC1486146

Identifier etd-Ramos-3143 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-573549 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2337 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Ramos-3143.pdf

Dmrecord 573549

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Ramos, Patricia Galarza

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