Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The critical aspects of oversight that suburban superintendents, as instructional leaders, must employ to improve instruction
(USC Thesis Other)
The critical aspects of oversight that suburban superintendents, as instructional leaders, must employ to improve instruction
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
1
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT THAT SUBURBAN SUPERINTENDENTS,
AS INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERS, MUST EMPLOY TO IMPROVE INSTRUCTION
by
Margaret J. Palisoc
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2013
Copyright 2013 Margaret J. Palisoc
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
2
Dedication
To my husband, Randy, for encouraging me to become a teacher, for mentoring me when
I became a teacher, and for your incredible courage and vision to start Synergy Academies in
South Los Angeles.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
3
Acknowledgments
First, I would like to acknowledge and thank my dissertation committee, who also served
as my mentors and who taught me invaluable career and life lessons throughout my doctoral
program: Dr. Rudy Castruita (Chair), Dr. Pedro Garcia, and Dr. David Marsh. Second, I want to
thank my parents, Dr. Thomas W. Lin and Angela Hou Lin, who were trailblazers by
overcoming many hardships to be the first in their families to immigrate to the United States,
which allowed me to become the first American-born in my family’s lineage. I am also grateful
for the love and support I have from my brother’s family, Bill, Claire, Sally, and Bradley; from
my husband’s family, Rudy, Mercy, Chris, Marilou, Macen, and Landen; and from my dear
friends who were there for me through my ups and downs over the past several years, Viviana
Escobar, Chris Ferris, Shawni Hartman Murphy, Dr. Maryalice Jordan-Marsh, Yvette King-
Berg, Dr. Myranda Marsh, and Stephanie Peel. Special thanks also go out to the USC Rossier
School of Education faculty and staff, my USC classmates during both my undergraduate and
graduate school years (Fight On Trojans!), members of the USC Second Decade Society,
members of Phi Delta Kappa International and the PDK-USC Chapter, my friends at Evergreen
Baptist Church of Los Angeles, my colleagues in the charter school movement, and all the
educators who are devoted to empowering their students by providing them with a quality
education, including the 33 superintendents who completed this study’s survey and the four
superintendents who took time out of their busy schedules to share their insights with me.
Finally, I want to recognize the hard work and dedication of the Synergy Academies’ staff,
students, families, and board members who inspire me every day to “be my best and do my best”
because “this day will not come again.”
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
4
Table of Contents
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................6
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................7
Chapter One: Introduction ..............................................................................................................8
Background ..........................................................................................................................8
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................13
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................13
Research Questions ............................................................................................................14
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................14
Assumptions .......................................................................................................................15
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................15
Definitions of Related Terms .............................................................................................16
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................20
State of the American Education System ...........................................................................21
The Achievement Gap .......................................................................................................22
District-Wide Reform Efforts ............................................................................................24
School Reform Efforts .......................................................................................................27
Resource Management .......................................................................................................29
The Effectiveness of Superintendents ................................................................................31
Principals as Instructional Leaders ....................................................................................36
Instructional Leadership vs. Transformational Leadership ...............................................38
Two More Tools to Improve Schools, Districts, and Instruction ......................................39
Summary ............................................................................................................................41
Chapter Three: Research Methodology ........................................................................................42
Restatement of the Purpose of the Study ...........................................................................42
Restatement of the Research Questions .............................................................................42
Research Design: A Mixed Methods Approach ...............................................................43
Sample and Population ......................................................................................................44
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................45
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................46
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................48
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................49
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................50
Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................50
Summary ............................................................................................................................51
Chapter Four: Findings .................................................................................................................52
Participants and Methodology ...........................................................................................52
Research Findings ..............................................................................................................54
Research Question One: How do superintendents define a district-wide plan for
improving instruction in language arts and math? .................................................54
Research Question Two: How do superintendents mobilize human, social, and
physical capital to build a coalition of instructional leaders? ................................62
Research Question Three: How do superintendents build the capacity of site-level
instructional leaders to implement the chosen instructional programs district-
wide? ......................................................................................................................67
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
5
Research Question Four: How do superintendents evaluate the effectiveness of
their instructional programs? .................................................................................75
Summary and Discussion of Findings ...............................................................................79
Chapter Five: Conclusions ............................................................................................................81
Background and Overview of the Study ............................................................................81
Limitations .........................................................................................................................82
Implications ........................................................................................................................82
Summary ............................................................................................................................85
Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................86
References ......................................................................................................................................88
Appendices .....................................................................................................................................96
Appendix A: Survey Questions ...................................................................................................96
Appendix B: Interview Questions ...............................................................................................101
Appendix C: Document Collection .............................................................................................102
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
6
List of Tables
Table 1: Characteristics of the Four Main Suburban Districts Included in This Study ................45
Table 2: Characteristics of the Superintendent Survey Respondents ...........................................53
Table 3: Superintendents’ Responses to Survey Questions Related to Research Question #1 ....55
Table 4: Creation and Communication of the District’s Instructional Vision and Instructional
Programs ........................................................................................................................................60
Table 5: Superintendents’ Responses to Survey Questions Related to Research Question #2 ....63
Table 6: Who Districts Meet With and Learn From .....................................................................65
Table 7: Stakeholders Who Remove Barriers to Improving Instruction ......................................67
Table 8: Superintendents’ Leadership Style .................................................................................69
Table 9: Implementation of the District’s Instructional Vision and Instructional Programs ........71
Table 10: Superintendents’ Responses to Survey Questions Related to Research Question #3 ..72
Table 11: Areas of Appropriate Training ......................................................................................74
Table 12: Superintendents’ Responses to Survey Questions Related to Research Question #4 ..76
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
7
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to better understand superintendents’ roles as instructional leaders,
especially suburban district superintendents, by analyzing the critical aspects of oversight that
suburban superintendents employed to improve instruction in their school districts. More
specifically, this study set out to determine: 1) how superintendents define a district-wide plan
for improving instruction in language arts and math, 2) how superintendents mobilize human,
social, and physical capital to build a coalition of instructional leaders, 3) how superintendents
build the capacity of site-level instructional leaders to implement the chosen instructional
programs district-wide, and 4) how superintendents evaluate the effectiveness of their
instructional programs. This study implemented a mixed-methods approach in which 33
Southern California suburban district superintendents completed a survey, four of these surveyed
superintendents also participated in a structured interview, and additionally, the four interviewed
superintendents provided relevant district documents that were analyzed as part of a document
review. Through the process of triangulation, the study’s findings indicate that suburban
superintendents whose districts increased student achievement in language arts and math over a
three-year period implemented a collaborative, hands-on, and empowering leadership style that
involved multiple stakeholders with the creation, communication, and implementation of the
districts’ instructional vision and programs. These superintendents also made it a priority to
provide their staff with the resources and professional development needed to implement their
districts’ instructional initiatives, and their districts regularly analyzed data to evaluate the
effectiveness of their instructional programs. Overall, this study provides hope for
superintendents that they can play a valuable role in improving instruction in their districts.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
8
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires that by 2014, 100% of all students must be
proficient in reading and math. The reality is that many schools nationwide are far from
reaching this goal. Historically, the majority of students in low-income communities have
performed significantly below their peers in more affluent communities based on standardized
tests in reading and math. In order to address this achievement gap, the United States Congress
enacted the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, which emphasizes standards-based
education reform. According to Elmore (2003), NCLB “is the single largest nationalization of
education policy in the history of the United States.” As part of NCLB, schools must assess
students’ achievement in meeting state standards as well as in meeting annual federal targets of
proficiency in reading and math. Each year, the federal targets increase so that by 2014, 100% of
all students must be proficient in reading and math. Schools that fail to meet the annual federal
targets for two or more consecutive years are considered Program Improvement (PI) schools and
they face potential sanctions such as restructuring the school, closing the school, or turning the
school into a charter school.
While many schools and districts are still struggling to improve their students’ academic
achievement, there are districts that have sustained improvement in their students’ academic
achievement for multiple years. This study set out to study school districts that have successfully
improved their students’ academic achievement through the lens of analyzing the critical aspects
of oversight that superintendents must employ to improve instruction in their school districts.
Background
Overseeing a school district can be a daunting task and superintendents are often
expected to “create miracles” and “walk on water” (Engler, 2010). According to the American
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
9
Association of School Administrators’ (AASA) Professional Standards for the Superintendency,
superintendents should demonstrate proficiency in the following areas: 1) leadership and district
culture, 2) policy and governance, 3) communications and community relations, 4)
organizational management, 5) curriculum planning and development, 6) instructional
management, 7) human resources management, and 8) values and ethics of leadership. Despite
the many challenges that superintendents face, they also have a powerful opportunity as school
district leaders to find and implement solutions to district-wide problems. According to Julius et
al. (1999), Machiavelli’s overall leadership and management philosophy is that a leader’s role is
to find and implement solutions to problems. Superintendents must often implement new
changes in their school districts since “business as usual will produce results as usual” (Hord,
1990). Meanwhile, one of the main leadership lessons in the documentary film, The Fog of War:
Eleven Lessons From the Life of Robert S. McNamara (Morris, Williams, & Ahlberg, 2003), is
when faced with challenges, leaders need to develop a plan and consider the consequences.
Furthermore, according to Bolman and Deal (2008), there are four main frames of leadership: 1)
symbolic, 2) political, 3) human resources, and 4) structural.
While superintendents have a huge responsibility overseeing school districts, according
to Thomas (2001), there is a lack of research on superintendents’ effectiveness. Additionally,
measuring a superintendent’s effectiveness can be challenging due to politics, board relations,
and the instability of the superintendent position. According to Waters and Marzano (2007),
there is empirical evidence that superintendents can have a positive effect on student
achievement such as by empowering a district with a goal-oriented culture. However, there are
very few studies conducted specifically on the impact that superintendents have on the
implementation of district-wide instructional programs that improve student achievement.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
10
Several studies describe ways that school districts in general can improve student
achievement. Elmore (2003) believes that one of the problems in public schools is that there is
not enough emphasis on capacity-building and curriculum-focused professional development.
Mac Iver and Farley (2003) advocate that school districts’ central offices need to focus the
majority of their time, energy, and resources on improving instruction and student achievement.
According to an EdSource (2006) study, districts can improve student achievement by
effectively communicating high expectations among all stakeholders and taking responsibility
for student achievement. More specifically, at the school district level, the superintendents who
were interviewed recommended the following top six strategies to be most effective with low-
income students: 1) data and assessment, 2) professional development, 3) curriculum package,
4) role of the principal, 5) school culture/high expectations, and 6) instruction. Meanwhile, the
teachers and principals who were interviewed emphasized four top instructional strategies: 1)
prioritizing student achievement, 2) implementing a coherent, standards-based instructional
program, 3) using assessment data to improve student achievement and instruction, and 4)
ensuring the availability of instructional resources.
In order to address the challenges that urban school district leaders often face, Childress,
Elmore, and Grossman (2006) provide insightful information regarding how to more effectively
manage urban school districts. To begin with, they believe that urban school district’s central
administration can be instrumental in creating positive changes in urban school districts. Based
on actual information obtained from studying 15 districts nationwide, the authors developed a
framework for improving urban school districts that includes: 1) developing a strategy for
teaching and learning, 2) creating a culture of performance, 3) implementing systems and
structures to support the district’s strategy, 4) allocating resources to appropriate needs, 5)
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
11
obtaining stakeholder “buy-in,” and 6) managing environmental effects. Childress, Elmore, and
Grossman (2006) showcased specific urban school district reform efforts in order to further
illustrate each aspect of their framework. For instance, in order to illustrate how school districts
could develop a strategy for teaching and learning, the authors describe how two different school
districts, San Francisco Unified School District and Montgomery County Public Schools,
implemented two different strategies that both resulted in increased student academic gains.
More specifically, San Francisco Unified School District implemented a decentralized model in
which its principals were given more freedom over their schools’ money and instructional
programs in return for greater accountability placed on the principals to obtain higher academic
results. In contrast, Montgomery County Public Schools centralized its instructional programs so
that the district developed the curriculum that all the schools used. Regardless of which strategy
was used, both school districts increased their students’ academic performance in reading and
math. The authors attribute these gains not to the specific strategy implemented, but to both
school districts’ emphasis on improving teaching and learning, on having clear objectives, and
on establishing a corresponding accountability system. While the authors describe how both
traditional schools and charter schools have seen academic success at individual schools, they
describe how both school systems have struggled to transfer these individual successes
systemwide.
Togneri and Anderson (2003) found the following factors that were essential for school
districts to improve instruction: 1) acknowledge poor performance and seek solutions, 2) have a
systemwide approach to improving instruction, 3) instill a vision that focuses on student learning
and guide instructional improvement, and 4) redefine leadership roles. Some of the common
characteristics that Darling-Hammond (2001) found among successful urban schools include an
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
12
emphasis on the purpose and mission of eliminating the achievement gap in its communications
with staff, students, and parents; greater personalization of the curriculum; and focusing on the
goal of the student-as-citizen.
Some successful schools have been known to implement Resnick’s Principles of
Learning: 1) organizing for effort, 2) clear expectations, 3) fair and credible evaluations, 4)
recognition of accomplishments, 5) academic rigor in a thinking curriculum, 6) accountable talk,
7) socializing intelligence, 8) self-management of learning, and 9) learning as apprenticeship
(Trumbell & Pacheco, 2005). Tilly (2006) advocates that Response to Intervention (RtI) should
be implemented in schools in order to assist struggling students, especially students with special
needs, because the RtI model believes in the importance of implementing effective research-
based strategies to improve student achievement. According to Datnow, Park, and Wohlstetter
(2007), successful schools prioritize instructional time and refine instructional methods based on
data. Additionally, Hancock and Lamendola (2005) describe the importance of empowering
teachers and other staff to be leaders who can help the principal improve the school’s overall
organizational and instructional effectiveness.
Communication is a common theme in several research studies on effective schools and
districts. Cotton (1989) found that communicating high expectations of students can have a
significant positive effect on student achievement, while Resnick and Hall (2003) recommend
that schools should construct environments for socializing intelligence. Some researchers have
found that the best way to strengthen a school’s culture and to ensure that stakeholders are
meeting the school’s expectations is by giving feedback, being explicit, and communicating in
multiple ways and multiple times (Stronge, 2006; Resnick & Hall, 2003; Dutro & Moran, 2002).
Furthermore, several studies support the implementation of Professional Learning Communities
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
13
(PLC) (Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T., 2006), that regularly meet to seek each
other’s advice and feedback on an informal basis.
While there have been many studies conducted on successful schools and districts, there
is still a paucity of research on the specific role that superintendents play as instructional leaders
and the direct impact superintendents can have on increasing student achievement. Since
superintendents play an important role in overseeing school districts and ensuring that district-
wide priorities are carried out, there is a need for more research that focuses specifically on the
role that superintendents play in improving instruction district-wide.
Statement of the Problem
While districts have increased their strategic efforts in improving student achievement in
light of increased incentives and pressures created by No Child Left Behind, many districts are
still struggling with improving the academic achievement of their Hispanic, African American,
and socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Additionally, research on schools that have
made gains in closing the achievement gap have focused mainly on practices that occurred at
specific individual schools or changes implemented by central district office staff as a whole.
There is a dearth of research on how superintendents can specifically impact student
achievement district-wide. There is also a lack of research on successful suburban
superintendents and on successful practices among suburban school districts. This study
addresses this problem by analyzing the oversight practices of successful suburban district
superintendents as instructional leaders.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to better understand superintendents’ roles as instructional
leaders by analyzing the critical aspects of oversight superintendents must employ to improve
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
14
instruction in their school districts. Based on a review of the literature, school districts that
demonstrated multi-year increases in literacy and math achievement had superintendents who
implemented a structured district-wide instructional plan and mobilized the human, social, and
physical capital needed to effectively implement the plan. This study will add to the literature by
examining suburban school districts that have successfully improved student achievement in
language arts and math over a three-year period in order to identify those factors that
superintendents have contributed to this success.
Research Questions
This study will answer the following four research questions:
1. How do superintendents define a district-wide plan for improving instruction in
language arts and math?
2. How do superintendents mobilize human, social, and physical capital to build a
coalition of instructional leaders?
3. How do superintendents build the capacity of site-level instructional leaders to
implement the chosen instructional programs district-wide?
4. How do superintendents evaluate the effectiveness of their instructional programs?
Significance of the Study
There is a scarcity of research regarding the specific role and impact that school district
superintendents have on district-wide student achievement. Several studies have demonstrated a
positive correlation between district-wide reform efforts and increased student achievement.
However, additional research is needed on the specific role that superintendents play in district-
wide instructional reform efforts. The results of this study will help inform superintendents and
school district officials on specific ways that superintendents can impact district-wide
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
15
instructional programs to increase student achievement.
Assumptions
The results of this study are based on the following assumptions:
• That California’s Academic Performance Index (API) data and California
Standardized Test (CST) data, including percentages of students who score Proficient
and Advanced in English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics, are indicators of
student achievement.
• That all data obtained from the California Department of Education (CDE) website is
accurate.
• That participation of all participants was voluntary.
• That all responses to the interview and survey questions were truthful.
• That superintendents’ oversight of district-wide instructional programs impact
individual school site’s implementation of the instructional programs.
Limitations and Delimitations
Several factors limit this study:
• In order to keep the study manageable, the number of interviews conducted and
surveys administered had to be limited.
• No principals, teachers, classified staff members, students, or community members,
including parents, were interviewed or surveyed.
• The study was completed in a limited time frame.
• The limited sample size and qualitative nature of the study limit generalizing the
findings beyond the specific districts involved.
• Analysis of interview and survey data is subject to the interpretation by the
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
16
researcher.
• The study is designed to identify a correlation, not causation, of superintendents’
oversight of district-wide instructional programs with student achievement.
The criteria used to select school districts for this study included:
• For surveys only:
o Districts must be located in southern California.
o Districts must be suburban districts with 7,000-15,000 student populations.
• For surveys and interviews:
o Districts must be located in southern California.
o Districts must be suburban districts with 7,000-15,000 student populations.
o Districts must serve at least 50% Hispanic and African American students.
o Districts must serve at least 50% socioeconomically disadvantaged students as
determined by the percent of students who qualify for the National School Lunch
Program.
o Districts must have demonstrated a three-year increase in the percent of students
who scored Proficient or Advanced on state standardized tests in English
Language Arts and Mathematics from the 2008-2009 school year to the 2010-
2011 school year.
Definitions of Related Terms
• Academic Performance Index (API)
The California Department of Education (CDE) defines API as the following:
The Academic Performance Index is the cornerstone of California’s Public Schools
Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA). The purpose of the API is to measure the academic
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
17
performance and growth of schools. It is a numeric index (or scale) that ranges from a
low of 200 to a high of 1000. A school’s score on the API is an indicator of a school’s
performance level. The statewide API performance target for all schools is 800. A
school’s growth is measured by how well it is moving toward or past that goal. A
school’s API Base is subtracted from its API Growth to determine how much the school
improved in a year. (CDE website).
• Achievement Gap
The Achievement Gap is defined by the researcher of this study as the persistent
historical disparity in academic performance, based on state standardized tests, between students
in more affluent communities compared to students in less affluent communities as well as
between White and Asian students compared to Hispanic and African American students.
• California Standards Test (CST)
The California Department of Education (CDE) defines CST as the following:
The California Standards Tests in English-language arts, mathematics, science, and
history-social science are administered only to students in California public schools.
Except for a writing component that is administered as part of the grade 4 and 7 English-
language arts tests, all questions are multiple choice. These tests were developed
specifically to assess students’ performance on California’s Academic Content Standards.
The State Board of Education adopted these standards that specify what all California
children are expected to know and be able to do in each grade or course. (CDE website).
• Four Frames of Leadership
According to Bolman and Deal (2008), leaders may utilize and exhibit one or more of the
following leadership styles: 1) symbolic, 2) human resource, 3) structural, or 4) political.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
18
• National School Lunch Program (NSLP)
The United States Department of Agriculture defines NSLP as the following:
The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is a federally assisted meal program
operating in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions. It
provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children each school day.
The program was established under the National School Lunch Act, signed by President
Harry Truman in 1946. (United States Department of Agriculture website).
• No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
The U.S. Department of Education (US DOE) defines NCLB as the following:
No Child Left Behind is the latest reauthorization of ESEA [Elementary and Secondary
Education Act] and requires states to set goals for all students to be at least proficient on
statewide standardized assessments based on statewide academic content standards by the
2013-2014 school year. (U.S. Department of Education website).
• Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
The PISA website defines PISA as the following:
The Programme for International Student Assessment is administered to 15 year-olds in
43 countries and purports to assess critical thinking and problem-solving skills by seeing
how well students can apply knowledge to real world situations. (PISA website).
• Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
The California Department of Education (CDE) defines Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged as the following:
“Socioeconomically disadvantaged” is defined as a student whose parents both have not
received a high school diploma OR a student who participates in the free or reduced-price
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
19
lunch program (also known as the National School Lunch Program). (CDE website).
• Suburban School
A Suburban School is defined by the researcher of this study as a school located in a
town or smaller city located just outside of a larger urban city.
• Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)
The TIMSS and PIRLS [Progress in International Reading Literacy Study] International
Study Center defines TIMSS as:
For the past 20 years, TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study)
has measured trends in mathematics and science achievement at the fourth and eighth
grades. It has been conducted on a regular 4-year cycle since 1995, making TIMSS 2011
the fifth assessment of mathematics and science achievement trends. TIMSS Advanced,
which measures trends in advanced mathematics and physics for students in their final
year of secondary school, was conducted in 1995 and 2008, and is scheduled for 2015
(with the sixth assessment of TIMSS). (TIMSS & PIRLS website).
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
20
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The most fundamental overarching change in U.S. K-12 education since the introduction
of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001 is that there is greater scrutiny regarding public
schools’ academic outcomes. One of the reasons for this greater scrutiny is because Americans
overall have been found by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) to be performing below other
countries in areas such as math, science, and critical thinking skills. From an economic
standpoint, U.S. businesses are concerned that based on current student academic achievement
scores, there will not be enough academically qualified job candidates for them to hire from
within the U.S. (Friedman, 2005). Another reason for this greater scrutiny is because within the
U.S., there is a large gap in the academic achievement of different sub-populations. Described
by some as a civil rights issue, this achievement gap is often found between students in low-
income areas compared to students in higher income areas. The achievement gap is also often
associated with race, in which Caucasian and Asian students tend to perform higher in English
language arts and math compared to Latino and African American students.
A consequence of this greater scrutiny is that educators at all levels have had increasing
pressure from both the government and the public to improve American students’ academic
achievement. As a result, teachers’, principals’, and superintendents’ roles have had to change in
order to meet this new demand. The additional challenges that educators face include
determining how to best improve students’ academic achievement and who should be involved
with these efforts. In order to help address these issues, many studies have been conducted
regarding how either principals, individual schools, or school districts have been able to
overcome the achievement gap or at least demonstrate improvement in American students’
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
21
academic achievement. Nevertheless, there is a shortage of research on the specific role that
superintendents play as instructional leaders as well as concrete ways that effective
superintendents have improved instruction in their districts.
This chapter will first describe research conducted on the state of the American education
system compared to other countries as well as research on the achievement gap in order to
provide the context for why there is a need to improve instruction and student achievement in
America’s schools. Next, this chapter will provide an overview of the research that has been
conducted regarding the relationship between student achievement and district-wide reform
efforts, school reform efforts, resource management, and the effectiveness of superintendents.
Since there is a scarcity of research on superintendents as instructional leaders, this chapter will
review research on principals as instructional leaders as well as research on instructional
leadership versus transformational leadership. Finally, this review will highlight gaps in the
current research and discuss how this dissertation helps enhance our understanding of the critical
aspects of oversight that superintendents, as instructional leaders, employ to improve instruction.
State of the American Education System
Recent education discourse describes how Americans are too content with the state of the
United States while the rest of the world is working hard to dominate America in areas that have
been taken for granted (Friedman, 2005; Isaacs, 2009; and Miller, Sen, Malley, & Burns, 2009).
For example, the U.S. has a history of believing that America is the best place to increase one’s
chances of having a better life than one’s parents. However, Isaacs (2009) shows that the
research indicates that it is difficult to move upward in society, especially if one starts off among
the bottom economic tier in America. Meanwhile, the statistics that Miller et al. (2009) shows
demonstrate how America is regressing compared to the rest of the world: the U.S. has higher
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
22
numbers of behavior problems during the school day, the U.S. needs a longer amount of time to
teach reading because American students cannot read at grade-level, and the U.S. is graduating
less students in the science, engineering, and technology fields. As a result, Friedman (2005)
describes how many American employers would rather hire international employees because
they are willing to work harder and produce better results than Americans.
The Achievement Gap
The Achievement Gap is defined by the researcher of this study as the persistent
historical disparity in academic performance, based on state standardized tests, between students
in more affluent communities compared to students in less affluent communities as well as
between White and Asian students compared to Hispanic and African American students. One
of the goals of many school districts across America is to close the achievement gap and to prove
that a student’s background does not have to negatively impact his/her academic achievement.
Rothstein (2004) provides somewhat contradicting viewpoints regarding this since his analysis
indicates that effective schools can make a difference in closing the achievement gap, but he also
describes how the effects of poverty and social class play an even greater role in students’
academic achievement. For instance, Rothstein (2004) points out several challenges that
students from low-income families face such as poor healthcare, different parenting styles, and
deficits in the amount of vocabulary they hear at home compared to students from middle class
families. Rothstein (2004) also describes how schools can help provide foundational skills, but
how they still have a long way to go to provide socioeconomically disadvantaged students with
the years of rich cultural expertise that middle class students experience.
Karoly (2001) also found that most programs that were created to alleviate poverty such
as job training, drop out prevention programs, and class size reduction in schools need more
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
23
research to determine their cost-effectiveness, and how many of these programs barely help
families get out of poverty, if at all. An additional challenge that certain student populations
have to overcome is how historical discrimination has negatively impacted students’ academic
achievement (Harford, 2008).
In order to assist more schools in eliminating the achievement gap, EdSource (2006)
evaluated a group of California elementary schools that serve a large socioeconomically
disadvantaged population. The purpose of this study was to find out why some schools do better
academically even when compared to other schools that serve similar student populations. A
unique aspect of this study was that data was gathered through a combination of surveys
administered to teachers and principals, in addition to interviewing 20 superintendents. This is
powerful because principals and superintendents are often not viewed as highly or as important
as teachers. The information obtained for this study also provides a well-rounded perspective
since it analyzes data from multiple viewpoints in the education system: from teachers who
work in the classrooms, from principals who oversee school sites, and from superintendents who
oversee an entire school district.
Educators can learn practical information from EdSource (2006) in order to improve their
schools and school districts. Since the study’s results indicate that there is not one magic policy
or practice that will solve the achievement gap problem by itself, the findings describe multiple
practices and policies that are all more likely to be found at high-performing schools. At the
school district level, the superintendents who were interviewed recommended the following top
six strategies to be most effective with low-income students: 1) data and assessment, 2)
professional development, 3) curriculum package, 4) role of the principal, 5) school culture/high
expectations, and 6) instruction. These results are interesting since one would initially assume
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
24
that instruction would be the number one priority since teaching focuses on instruction.
Tucker (1996) would probably agree with the superintendents that data and assessment
should be the number one priority because instruction cannot improve unless schools evaluate
and assess student and teacher data in order to determine if any gaps exist and if so, what specific
plan will be implemented to close the gaps. On the other hand, the teachers and principals at
high-performing schools did emphasize four top instructional strategies: 1) prioritizing student
achievement, 2) implementing a coherent, standards-based instructional program, 3) using
assessment data to improve student achievement and instruction, and 4) ensuring the availability
of instructional resources (EdSource, 2006).
District-Wide Reform Efforts
There is research that supports that schools and districts can have a significant positive
impact on students’ academic achievement regardless of the students’ backgrounds (EdSource,
2006 and 2010). One way to increase student achievement is to raise expectations not just for
students, but for adults as well (EdSource, 2006). Meanwhile, Mac Iver and Farley (2003)
advocate that school districts’ central offices need to focus the majority of their time, energy, and
resources on improving instruction and student achievement. The research described in this
section focuses on specific ways that districts have been able to improve instruction and student
achievement.
Most research on district-wide reform efforts studied large urban school districts.
Managing an urban school district can be a daunting task. In order to address the challenges that
urban school district leaders often face, Childress, Elmore, and Grossman (2006) provide
insightful information regarding how to more effectively manage urban school districts. To
begin with, they believe that urban school district’s central administration can be instrumental in
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
25
creating positive changes in urban school districts. Based on actual information obtained from
studying 15 districts nationwide, the authors developed a framework for improving urban school
districts that includes: 1) developing a strategy for teaching and learning, 2) creating a culture of
performance, 3) implementing systems and structures to support the district’s strategy, 4)
allocating resources to appropriate needs, 5) obtaining stakeholder “buy-in,” and 6) managing
environmental effects.
Childress et al. (2006) showcased specific urban school district reform efforts in order to
further illustrate each aspect of their framework. For instance, in order to illustrate how school
districts could develop a strategy for teaching and learning, the authors describe how two
different school districts, San Francisco Unified School District and Montgomery County Public
Schools, implemented two different strategies that both resulted in increased student academic
gains. More specifically, San Francisco Unified School District implemented a decentralized
model in which its principals were given more freedom over their schools’ money and
instructional programs in return for greater accountability placed on the principals to obtain
higher academic results. In contrast, Montgomery County Public Schools centralized its
instructional programs so that the district developed the curriculum that all the schools used.
Regardless of which strategy was used, both school districts increased their students’
academic performance in reading and math. Childress et al. attribute these gains not to the
specific strategy implemented, but to both school districts’ emphasis on improving teaching and
learning, on having clear objectives, and on establishing a corresponding accountability system.
A drawback that they found in this study was that even though both the traditional schools and
charter schools saw academic success at individual schools, both school systems struggled to
transfer these individual successes system-wide. In addition to overcoming challenges of
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
26
implementing system-wide reform, superintendents must also think about how to sustain their
successful reform efforts over time. Datnow (2005) warns that reforms that place “more
demands on the system and its resources tended to face greater difficulty in sustainability.”
The following are factors that Togneri and Anderson (2003) found were essential for
school districts to improve instruction: 1) acknowledge poor performance and seek solutions, 2)
have a system wide approach to improving instruction, 3) instill a vision that focuses on student
learning and guide instructional improvement, and 4) redefine leadership roles. The researchers
also emphasized that districts should also be good at data-driven decision-making, including the
ability to quickly analyze longitudinal data, and professional development.
In their case study of four small urban school districts, Hentschke, Nayfack, and
Wohlstetter (2009) found that superintendents who led successful school reform efforts in
smaller urban school districts differed from large urban district superintendents by demonstrating
a more hands-on instructional leadership style, especially in regards to: 1) obtaining, managing,
and using student achievement data, 2) overseeing curricular and instructional strategies, and (3)
structuring the operational practices and routines of both school and district leaders. The
researchers indicate that additional research is needed in this area to determine whether the size
of the district or other factors contributed to this difference since superintendents of smaller
school districts seem better positioned to be able to engage in more hands-on activities such as
meeting more regularly with principals and conducting more classroom visits.
Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004 and 2007), and Wohlstetter, Datnow, and Park (2008)
all bring up interesting insights about how we can improve America’s public education system
by better understanding the relationship between providers and directors or principals and agents.
Ultimately, what they describe is how school districts, school site leaders, and teachers can work
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
27
more effectively together as demonstrated among specific school districts and charter
management organizations that were studied by Wohlstetter, Datnow, and Park (2008). This
supports Bolman and Deal’s (2008) human resources side of leadership.
School Reform Efforts
EdSource (2010) describes results from a large-scale survey study that provides specific
action steps that middle schools can implement in order to increase student achievement. These
specific action steps were obtained based on an analysis of high-performing middle schools. Of
particular interest is that the following practices were found among high-performing middle
schools that served low socio-economic students: 1) principals replaced staff members if
needed, 2) the schools provided a more personal touch when interacting with students for both
negative behaviors such as contacting students who skipped classes and positive behaviors such
as celebrating students who had perfect attendance, 3) teachers were partially evaluated based on
student achievement, and 4) teachers were assigned to classes based on students’ needs.
While EdSource (2010) lists numerous other practices of high-performing middle
schools, Black and William (1998) focus on analyzing one specific practice of administering
formative assessments in the classroom and how this specific practice can increase student
achievement. Interestingly, EdSource (2010) mentioned that the middle schools that were
studied only partially evaluated teachers based on student achievement, but a different analysis
by EdSource (2006), indicates that schools need to do a better job formally evaluating teachers
and principals based on student achievement data (outputs).
Darling-Hammond (2001) believes that high-performing schools are not necessarily the
result of having charismatic leaders, but she describes how successful schools have specific
structures that include:
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
28
A collective set of goals, commitments, and practices enacted throughout the school;
small continual learning groups for students and teachers; shared governance coupled
with teaching teams; time for teachers to collaborate and learn together; and a rich array
of learning opportunities for all members of the school community. (p. 150)
Resnick’s Principles of Learning have been found to help turnaround schools via: 1)
organizing for effort, 2) having clear expectations, 3) implementing fair and credible evaluations,
4) recognizing accomplishments, 5) instilling academic rigor in a thinking curriculum, 6)
utilizing accountable talk, 7) socializing intelligence, 8) encouraging self-management of
learning, and 9) learning as apprenticeship (Trumbell & Pacheco, 2005).
Tilly (2006) advocates that Response to Intervention (RtI) should be implemented in
schools in order to assist struggling students, especially students with special needs, because the
RtI model believes in the importance of implementing effective research-based strategies to
improve student achievement. Cotton (1989) found that communicating high expectations of
students can have a significant positive effect on student achievement. Resnick and Hall (2003)
recommend that schools should construct environments for socializing intelligence. Datnow,
Park, and Wohlstetter (2007) found that successful schools prioritize instructional time and
refine instructional methods based on data. Stronge’s (2006) research regarding teacher
evaluations is enlightening since it refutes the notion that the school administrator cannot both
coach and evaluate teachers. Additionally, Hancock and Lamendola (2005) describe the
importance of empowering teachers and other staff to be leaders who can help the principal
improve the school’s overall organizational and instructional effectiveness.
Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, and Many (2006), found that instruction could be improved when
educators meet regularly as a Professional Learning Community (PLC) to provide help and
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
29
support from each other, including sharing best practices and giving feedback when teachers are
struggling. They also recommend that principals must make sure that their teachers are informed
about why PLCs are important and how to effectively implement a PLC at the school site. The
strategy of involving adult learners in the development of their own professional development
program is supported by Butler’s (1992) research on staff development. Furthermore, Elmore
(2003) believes that one of the problems in our public schools is that there is not enough
emphasis on capacity-building and curriculum-focused professional development.
Many researchers have found that the best way to strengthen a school’s culture and to
ensure that stakeholders are meeting the school’s expectations is by giving feedback, being
explicit, and communicating in multiple ways and multiple times (Stronge, 2006; Resnick &
Hall, 2003; Dutro & Moran, 2002). Many superintendents and their districts must try a different
approach to assisting their students since according to Hord (1990), “business as usual will
produce results as usual.”
Resource Management
Resource management, especially how limited resources are used to improve instruction,
is a skill that superintendents will need to have as school district budgets continue to decrease
under current federal and state budget constraints. According to Adams (2010), our education
systems have been good with focusing on compliance budgeting, but they need to spend their
energy on making sure they are using their resources efficiently and effectively to improve
student learning. In particular, Adams (2010) recommends changing general and categorical
funds to student-based funding. Taylor (2010) warns that schools tend to be inefficient, but
Miles (2010) describes that a strategic transformation needs to take place so that educators can
also have more control over their resources and school structures. Thus, just like with the charter
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
30
schools arena, there is a need for greater accountability protocols in the traditional school system
in exchange for greater autonomy.
Brewer and McEwan (2010) compiled a series of articles that describe how K-12
education is shifting toward a cost-benefit model that analyzes the financial, human resource,
and student outcomes costs and benefits of different education reform efforts. Adams (2010)
supports Brewer and McEwan’s (2010) emphasis on the importance of resource allocation in
education, especially in light of our nation’s emphasis on achieving “ambitious learning goals”
with limited funds.
More recently, education leaders have begun to look for more efficient ways of delivering
instruction that are both cost-effective and get results. For example, Sandler (2010) and
Christensen, Johnson, and Horn (2010) describe how the use of technology is growing among
schools in order to better meet individual students’ needs and improve student achievement.
Weiss (2010) recommends investing in good quality technology tools to help improve our
instructional effectiveness so that we do not have to rely on superhuman efforts to improve
student academic achievement. This challenges the traditional educational system since
computers are less expensive than staff salaries.
California’s experiment with class size reduction is a specific example of why resource
allocation is important. Brewer, Krop, Gill, and Reichardt (1999) describe how states such as
California invested billions of dollars into reducing class sizes, but they should have considered
other alternatives such as improving teacher quality because reducing class sizes statewide is an
expensive policy that is politically difficult to reverse once implementation begins. Additionally,
Levin and Belfield (2010) found that reducing class size was not as effective in improving
reading achievement as computer-assisted instruction or peer tutoring. Thus, money should have
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
31
been allocated toward a variety of projects to determine which was the most cost-effective before
rolling out a specific policy statewide. As a result, superintendents should learn from this
example when they determine how to best use their districts’ limited resources to improve
instruction.
The Effectiveness of Superintendents
Superintendents play important roles as school district leaders, yet, school districts across
the country have experienced a decline in the number and quality of candidates applying for
superintendent positions (Beaudin, Thompson, & Jacobsen, 2002). Beaudin, Thompson, and
Jacobsen (2002) found that one of the main reasons why educators do not apply for
administrative positions such as the superintendency is because of these positions’ low
compensation compared to the amount of days, hours, and responsibilities required. Another
reason why individuals may avoid aspiring to become a superintendent is because
superintendents are treated more like independent contractors, and school boards often expect
superintendents to “create miracles” and “walk on water” (Engler, 2010).
According to Julius, Baldridge, and Pfeffer (1999), Machiavelli’s overall
leadership/management philosophy is that a leader’s role is to find and implement solutions to
problems. Superintendents have a powerful opportunity as school district leaders to find and
implement solutions to district-wide problems. One of the main leadership lessons in the
documentary film, The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons From the Life of Robert S. McNamara
(Morris, Williams, & Ahlberg, 2003), is when faced with challenges, leaders need to develop a
plan and consider the consequences. Meanwhile, according to Bolman and Deal (2008), there
are four main frames of leadership: 1) symbolic, 2) political, 3) human resources, and 4)
structural. When applied to superintendents as leaders, an example of symbolic leadership is
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
32
when the superintendent attends certain events such as school graduation ceremonies and
football games because the superintendent serves as a “symbol” of the district. An example of
political leadership is when a superintendent negotiates employment contracts with a teachers’
union or when a superintendent must find a way to work with board members who have different
priorities. Superintendents demonstrate a human resources side of leadership when they focus on
building relationships and involving others in decision-making. Structural leadership occurs
when superintendents focus more on a sequential way to do things such as using a top-down
approach to implement an instructional program.
In order to determine superintendent effectiveness, the American Association of School
Administrators’ (AASA) recommended the following personnel evaluation standards:
proprietary standards, utility standards, feasibility standards, and accuracy standards. In addition
to recommending personnel evaluation standards, AASA also published the Professional
Standards for the Superintendency that cover the following areas: 1) leadership and district
culture, 2) policy and governance, 3) communications and community relations, 4)
organizational management, 5) curriculum planning and development, 6) instructional
management, 7) human resources management, and 8) values and ethics of leadership.
Stufflebeam (1995) recommends that superintendents’ evaluation process should be based on
these standards as well as AASA’s recommended personnel evaluation standards.
According to Glass (2007), superintendents should be evaluated “to diagnose strengths,
weaknesses and professional development” needs (p. 24). However, superintendents are often at
the mercy of the school board members’ personalities and political agendas, so the
superintendent’s evaluation is not always objective and it can be used to dismiss a superintendent
if he/she does not get along with the school board. This sentiment matches Candoli, Cullen, and
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
33
Stufflebeam’s (1994) findings that superintendents’ evaluations focused mostly on
“superintendent/board relationships, general effectiveness, and budget development and
implementation” (p. 2). Thus, in order to provide a more consistent and effective evaluation
process, Candoli et al. (1994) recommend that school districts evaluate superintendents based on
AASA’s personnel evaluation standards.
Besides descriptions of school boards checking off a scale evaluation or determining
whether a superintendent has met the goals that the school board agreed to, Thomas (2001)
confirms that there is a lack of research on superintendents’ effectiveness. Additionally,
measuring a superintendent’s effectiveness can be challenging due to politics, board relations,
and the instability of the superintendent position since there is often high turnover among
superintendents, mainly due to school boards being quick to dismiss superintendents they do not
like or who they feel is not meeting their expectations.
With the country’s increasing emphasis on accountability, superintendents must also
balance bureaucratic accountability, professional accountability, and community accountability.
According to Burke (2004), bureaucratic accountability is characterized by top-down rules that
can be regulated. Professional accountability involves professionals working together to
constantly improve their practice (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003). Meanwhile, Goldberg and
Morrison (2003) describe how school leaders also play an integral role in community
accountability since they should help communicate and evaluate the school’s needs with the
community.
According to Waters and Marzano (2007), there is empirical evidence that
superintendents can have a positive effect on student achievement such as by empowering a
district with a goal-oriented culture. Their research is believed to be the largest quantitative
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
34
analysis of the research on how school district leaders impact student achievement. More
specifically, they conducted a meta-analysis of 27 quantitative research studies conducted from
1970 to 2005 that included 2,817 districts and 3.4 million student achievement scores. From this
analysis, Waters and Marzano (2007) found statistically significant correlations between student
achievement and the following six responsibilities of effective superintendents: 1) collaborative
goal-setting, 2) five-year, non-negotiable goals for achievement and instruction, 3) board
alignment and support of district goals, 4) monitoring goals for achievement and instruction, 5)
use of resources to support achievement and instruction goals, and 6) defined autonomy.
Regarding whether effective superintendents gave more autonomy to its school leaders,
Waters and Marzano (2007) found that building-level autonomy was positively correlated with
student achievement while site-based autonomy was negatively correlated with student
achievement, so the researchers interpreted these results to mean that effective superintendents
provided “defined autonomy,” which they defined as setting “clear, non-negotiable goals for
learning and instruction, yet provid[ing] school leadership teams with the responsibility and
authority for determining how to meet those goals.” An additional finding from this research is
that they also found a positive correlation between superintendent tenure and student
achievement.
Eck and Goodwin (2010) describe the challenges that superintendents and school districts
face regarding how much autonomy they should give to their principals. Their advice is that this
challenge is a “balancing act” and that how much autonomy to give to districts versus principals
as well as what to give districts versus individual school sites autonomy over depends on the
different situations of each individual school, district, and the leaders involved.
After analyzing seven studies that were conducted between 1986 and 2002, Petersen and
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
35
Barnett (as cited in Alsbury, 2008) noted that increased student achievement in high-performing
schools could be indirectly linked to specific superintendent activities. These specific
superintendent activities included: “(a) collaboratively developing goals with
administrators/board, (b) evaluating instructional effectiveness, (c) planning for instruction, (d)
developing principals as instructional leaders, (e) selecting personnel, (f) facilitating staff
development, (g) collaboratively developing a vision for instruction, and (h) evaluating and
monitoring instructional progress” (p. 207). Similarly, Kowalski (2006) describes how
superintendents must implement the following leadership functions: collaborative visioning,
inclusive planning, capacity building, facilitating, and representing.
Petersen, Sayre, and Kelly (2007) summarize six studies conducted from 1990 to 2002
that focused on different ways superintendents oversaw their districts’ curriculum and
instruction, and they found the following patterns:
(a) the importance of a clearly articulated instructional vision, (b) coordination and
socialization of the individuals and groups responsible for teaching and learning, (c) the
importance of maintaining a high level of visibility, (d) clear articulation of goals and
instructional objectives, (e) monitoring and evaluating all instructional and curricular
program implementations and (f) communication with various stakeholders. (p. 3)
After studying three superintendents who oversaw efforts to improve student
achievement over four years, Cudeiro (2005) found that superintendents positively influence
student achievement through strengthening their principals’ roles as instructional leaders. Some
specific ways that these superintendents did this was through creating a district-wide vision for
improving student achievement, defining what instructional leadership looks like in the district,
supporting principals such as by allocating more resources to school sites and having principals
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
36
meet monthly to support each other, and providing district-wide professional development in
areas such as instructional strategies, supervising instruction, and data-driven decision making.
Through survey results obtained from principals and school board members regarding
their superintendents’ instructional leadership, Petersen (2002) found that there was a statistically
significant relationship between superintendents’ instructional visions and a school district’s
ability to achieve academic success through means such as increasing school board and
community involvement.
Additionally, teachers have been found to believe that superintendents can have a
positive impact on their ability to improve student achievement. In particular, when they
interviewed and surveyed teachers at seven mid-sized Midwest school districts, Petersen, Sayre,
and Kelly (2007) found that the teachers believed that their superintendents’ ability to manage
limited resources such as time, allowed the teachers to improve their practice through targeted
professional development and increased time to work collaboratively with their colleagues.
Principals as Instructional Leaders
Reitzug, West, and Angel (2008) conducted a phenomenological qualitative study that
analyzed how principals viewed themselves as instructional leaders and their personal
assessments of the impact they had on teaching and learning in their respective schools. Through
in-depth interviews with 20 principals in the southeastern United States, the researchers found
that the principals’ definitions of instructional leadership fell within four categories: 1)
relational, 2) linear, 3) organic, and 4) prophetic. The relational instructional leader is similar to
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) human resources frame of leadership that focuses on developing and
building relationships among an organization in order to motivate people to reach a goal such as
improving student achievement. Linear instructional leadership is described as aligning
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
37
curriculum with standards and assessments, and some practical applications include
implementing district-wide pacing plans and on-going benchmark assessments. Organic
instructional leadership is aligned with the concept of developing professional learning
communities, where there is shared-decision making and school-wide buy-in so that staff
members meet regularly to work together to improve student achievement. Finally, the prophetic
instructional leader is similar to a visionary leader who inspires his/her staff to a specific “call to
action” and to challenge his/her staff to re-examine the purpose of education beyond just test
scores. While this study helped shed a light on how principals conceptualize their roles as
instructional leaders, it does not provide insight into which instructional leadership style works
best to increase student achievement.
Valentine and Prater (2011) surveyed high school principals and teachers from 131
schools in Missouri about principals’ instructional, managerial, and transformational leadership
styles. Their quantitative analysis found that each of the following nine leadership factors had
some influence on student achievement: 1) instructional improvement, 2) curricular
improvement, 3) identifying a vision, 4) providing a model, 5) fostering group goals, 6)
providing support, 7) providing stimulation, 8) high expectations, and 9) interactive processes.
Additionally, while Valentine and Prater (2011) found that principals must possess instructional
and managerial leadership knowledge and skills in order to impact student achievement, the three
factors that most influenced student achievement scores (providing a model, identifying a vision,
and fostering group goals) were identified by the researchers to be transformational leadership
attributes that require principals to have strong relationship skills and the ability to lead by
example.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
38
Instructional Leadership vs. Transformational Leadership
Hallinger (2003) synthesizes the educational research that has been conducted on
instructional leadership and transformational leadership to determine whether one leadership
style is more effective. Based on his review, Hallinger (2003) described instructional leadership
to be more directive and top-down while transformational leadership was more collaborative.
His conclusion was that school leaders should abide by a contingency leadership model where
their leadership style is contingent upon the specific school context. For instance, Hallinger
(2003) suggests that a more direct, top-down instructional leadership style may initially be
needed in “schools at risk,” but he advocates that all school leaders will eventually need to
implement a more collaborative transformational style of leadership to obtain buy-in from the
staff in order to sustain school improvement over time.
In order to evaluate the impact that principals’ instructional and transformational
leadership styles had on teachers’ instructional practices and student achievement, Marks and
Printy (2003) conducted a mixed-method study of 24 elementary, middle, and high schools from
16 states and 22 school districts. Through the use of surveys, interviews, observations of
classroom instruction and school meetings, student assessment analysis, and document review,
Marks and Printy (2003) found that schools that had principals who implemented an integrated
leadership style that included both transformational and shared instructional leadership,
demonstrated higher quality pedagogy in the classroom and higher levels of student
achievement.
Halverson, Grigg, Pritchett, and Thomas (2007) describe how high-stakes testing have
led to what they believe is a new instructional leadership focus on creating data-driven schools.
Their research used a case study approach to study the data-driven practices of four Midwestern
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
39
elementary and middle schools. While they learned more details about school leaders’ specific
data-driven practices, they acknowledge that their study is limited in its ability to demonstrate a
causal link between whether school leaders’ data-driven practices directly impact student
achievement.
Two More Tools to Improve Schools, Districts, and Instruction
Two other specific methods that schools and districts can use to improve instruction and
student achievement is to conduct a gap analysis or benchmarking project. In the book, Turning
Research Into Results: A Guide to Selecting the Right Performance Solutions, Clark and Estes
(2008) describe how to conduct a gap analysis in order to improve overall organizational
effectiveness. The gap analysis consists of six steps: 1) Identify key business/organization
goals, 2) Identify individual performance goals, 3) Determine performance gaps, 4) Analyze
gaps to determine causes, 5) Identify and implement knowledge/skill, motivation, and
organizational process and material solutions, and 6) Evaluate results and revise goals (Clark &
Estes, 2008, p. 22). The first three chapters describe the importance of using research-based
tools for improving organizational performance; how to create concrete, challenging, and current
business/organization goals; and how to diagnose performance gaps between a
business/organization’s current performance compared to its desired performance goals. All of
this information is valuable to educators because it can be directly applied to addressing
challenges found in K-12 education.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), there are three main factors that may lead to
performance gaps: 1) gaps in knowledge and skills, 2) motivational challenges, and 3)
organizational barriers. Both Clark and Estes (2008) and Anderson and Krathwohl (2001)
describe how people often are not effective because they lack the specific knowledge and skills
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
40
regarding how to do a specific task. Other times, people have the knowledge and skills but they
lack the motivation, inspiration, or drive to complete a task (Clark & Estes, 2008, and Mayer,
2008). Finally, individuals may have the knowledge, skills, and motivation, but their
organization may pose a barrier to their ability to complete a task by either not providing them
with the resources they need or by having or not having policies and procedures that may hinder
a person’s ability to overcome a performance gap (Clark & Estes, 2008).
In order to improve school practices, Tucker’s (1996) benchmarking method provides
practical details and sample tools of how to implement a benchmarking project at a school site.
To begin with, Tucker (1996) describes how benchmarking is not just comparing one school to
another school. Many schools fall into this trap of thinking that they are engaging in meaningful
work to transform their school practices when they are just focusing on surface-level analysis.
Instead, benchmarking in the K-12 arena should involve an in-depth study in which the end
result is the transfer of specific best practices from one school to another. Tucker’s
benchmarking method begins with first determining what needs to be benchmarked and then
selecting a team to conduct the benchmarking. The next steps involve determining what the
team’s school currently does (both positive and negative) and selecting a benchmarking partner
that demonstrates exemplary results in the area being studied. Once a partner is selected, the
team should study the partner’s practices, analyze any gaps between the team’s school and its
selected partner, create recommendations based on this analysis, and obtain buy-in from
stakeholders regarding how to transfer the information learned to the team’s specific school.
Finally, the last benchmarking steps are to actually implement a specific plan, monitor results,
and make changes as needed. According to Tucker (1996), the hardest part of the benchmarking
process is not determining what the best practices are, but in implementing the best practices in a
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
41
different school or organization. Regardless of this challenge, benchmarking provides schools
and districts with a step-by-step method that can be used to improve instruction and increase
student achievement.
Summary
There has been numerous research conducted on a variety of ways that schools and
districts can improve instruction. Yet, many schools and districts continue to struggle in
implementing the recommendations found in both research and practice. Meanwhile, there is a
scarcity of research on superintendents as instructional leaders and the specific ways that
superintendents provide oversight to improve instruction in their districts. The few research
studies that do describe how superintendents can either directly or indirectly influence instruction
and student achievement only provide general descriptions of how the superintendents achieved
this. Additional information such as a deeper analysis is needed in order for other
superintendents to replicate these methods and results. Chapter Three will describe the specific
methods used in this study in order to provide a deeper analysis of how superintendents can
improve instruction.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
42
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the specific research methodology used in this study. First, this
section will restate the purpose of the study and the research questions. Next, the research design
as well as the sample and population will be described. Additionally, this chapter will include
details about the study’s instrumentation, conceptual framework, data collection, and data
analysis.
Restatement of the Purpose of the Study
Superintendents play an important role as instructional leaders of school districts, yet
there is limited research on the specific ways that superintendents can positively impact
instruction and student achievement district-wide. Thus, the purpose of this study was to better
understand superintendents’ roles as instructional leaders by analyzing the critical aspects of
oversight superintendents must employ to improve instruction in their school districts. In
particular, this study looked at the specific contributions made by suburban school district
superintendents whose districts increased student achievement in language arts and math based
on state standardized assessments over a period of three years.
Based on a review of the literature, school districts that demonstrated multi-year
increases in language arts and math achievement tended to have superintendents who mobilized
the human, social, and physical capital needed to effectively implement a structured district-wide
instructional plan. This study will confirm whether this is the case among successful suburban
school districts.
Restatement of the Research Questions
This study answered the following four research questions:
1. How do superintendents define a district-wide plan for improving instruction in
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
43
language arts and math?
2. How do superintendents mobilize human, social, and physical capital to build a
coalition of instructional leaders?
3. How do superintendents build the capacity of site-level instructional leaders to
implement the chosen instructional programs district-wide?
4. How do superintendents evaluate the effectiveness of their instructional programs?
Research Design: A Mixed Methods Approach
Prior research on how districts, schools, and superintendents have impacted instruction
and student achievement mainly provided an overview of how these results were achieved. In
order to provide a richer detailed description of specific strategies and methods that current and
future superintendents can implement to improve instruction in their districts, this study
implemented a mixed methods approach that included both quantitative and qualitative methods.
According to Creswell and Plano Clark (2011), a mixed methods approach “provides strengths
that offset the weaknesses of both quantitative and qualitative research” (p. 12).
A survey consisting of closed-ended questions was distributed to obtain quantitative data
and interviews were conducted to collect qualitative data. The quantitative survey allowed the
researcher to collect data that provided an overview of a variety of multiple superintendents’
attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors regarding their respective districts’ instructional reform efforts.
In order to provide more descriptive details behind the survey results, in-depth interviews were
conducted with four suburban district superintendents. In particular, the interviews provided a
more “behind-the-scenes” look at how superintendents were intimately involved with district-
wide instructional efforts as well as a “step-by-step” guide for what superintendents specifically
did to help improve instruction. Another qualitative method used was document review.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
44
Documents related to districts’ instructional plans and programs were analyzed and evaluated in
comparison to the information collected via the surveys and interviews. As a result, triangulation
was conducted to provide richer data analysis (Patton, 2002).
Sample and Population
There were two main rounds of how samples were selected for this study. In the first
round, superintendents of medium-sized suburban school districts with 7,000 to 15,000 student
populations located within the southern region of California were invited to complete a survey.
For the second round of participants, purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002) was used to select four
California suburban superintendents whose districts demonstrated a three-year increase in
student achievement based on state standardized tests in both language arts and math. More
specifically, these school districts were selected using the Ed-Data and DataQuest systems based
on the following particular characteristics: medium-sized suburban districts with 7,000 to 15,000
student populations, at least 50% of each district’s student population is Hispanic and/or African
American, at least 50% of each district’s student population is socioeconomically disadvantaged,
and the districts demonstrated positive growth in student performance in English Language Arts
and Math based on the California Standards Test (CST) over the span of three years from 2009
to 2011 (see Table 1 for a list of these four districts’ characteristics). The final four selected
superintendents also had a positive reputation either through awards they or their districts
received or through word of mouth in the education community. These four superintendents
completed a survey and participated in a one-on-one interview.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
45
Table 1
Characteristics of the Four Main Suburban Districts Included in This Study
Total
Student
Population
% of
Hispanic
and/or
African
American
Students
% Socio-
economically
Disadvantaged
2009 %
Proficient
or
Advanced
in English
Language
Arts
(ELA)
2011 %
Proficient
or
Advanced
in ELA
%
increase
in ELA
over 3
years
2009 %
Proficient
or
Advanced
in Math
2011 %
Proficient
or
Advanced
in Math
%
increase
in Math
over 3
years
District A
8,021 93.3% 93.2% 38.0% 44.0% +6.0% 46.0% 48.0% +2.0%
District B
13,633 83.8% 59.1% 51.0% 62.6% +11.6% 55.7% 61.0% +5.3%
District C
14,665 65.1% 61.8% 57.5% 65.3% +7.8% 59.7% 67.0% +7.3%
District D
10,170 77.5% 85.9% 46.2% 57.5% +11.3% 50.7% 59.9% +9.2%
Instrumentation
This study conducted a mixed methods approach that included a survey, in-depth
interviews, and document review. Both the survey and interview questions were created by the
researcher and a research partner based on the study’s research questions. The research partner
was a fellow dissertation student who was conducting a similar study, but with large urban
district superintendents instead of suburban district superintendents. Both researchers used the
same research questions, the same survey questions, and the same interview questions in their
studies. The actual survey questions can be found in Appendix A, the actual interview questions
can be found in Appendix B, and an overview of the documents collected can be found in
Appendix C.
The survey questions were closed-ended questions such as Likert scale type questions
and multiple choice type questions that limited the participants’ responses so that the data could
be analyzed via quantitative methods. The interviews were standardized open-ended interviews
so that all interviewees were asked the same questions in order to increase the reliability and
validity of the qualitative data collected among all interviewed participants. If time allotted,
probing questions were asked to allow for some flexibility in obtaining additional insight into
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
46
and follow up on responses given to questions asked during the structured portion of the
interview. Patton (2002) recommends this study’s approach of administering structured
interviews when studying multiple sites so that the responses can be compared across the sites.
Finally, the documents analyzed for the document review included districts’ mission and vision
statements, district-wide instructional programs-related planning and implementation documents,
and both district-wide and school-wide professional development agendas and handouts.
According to Patton (2002), documents “can provide a behind-the-scenes look at program
processes and how they came into being” and they can reveal “the enormous complexity of the
logistics” behind the preparation and implementation of programs such as rolling out district-
wide instructional initiatives (p. 294).
Conceptual Framework
Based on an analysis of the literature, and in conjunction with this dissertation’s research
questions, this study’s survey and interview questions focused on the following three areas: 1)
district-wide reform efforts, 2) instructional leadership, and 3) transformational leadership. In
the literature review, different research studies had different definitions for these areas, and there
was also overlap among how prior research categorized what belonged under each area. As a
result, for the purposes of this study, the specific seminal research described below served as the
guide for how to define each of these areas.
The overall findings from Childress, Elmore, and Grossman (2006) and Togneri and
Anderson (2003) helped determine that the main questions to include under the category of
district-wide reform efforts were those that asked about district-wide instructional objectives,
instilling a vision that focused on student learning and instructional improvement, and
establishing a corresponding accountability system that included how results and changes were
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
47
communicated with stakeholders. All of these questions were related to the research question:
How do Superintendents define a district-wide plan for improving instruction in Language Arts
and Math?
The survey and interview questions included under the instructional leadership category
focused on specific instructional strategies, instructional programs, and how superintendents
developed instructional leaders such as through professional development. These questions
related to the following two research questions: 1) How do Superintendents build the capacity of
site level instructional leaders to implement the chosen instructional programs? and 2) How do
Superintendents evaluate the effectiveness of his/her instructional program(s)? According to
Hentschke, Nayfack, and Wohlstetter (2009) superintendents who led successful school reform
efforts in smaller urban school districts demonstrated a more hands-on instructional leadership
style that included obtaining, managing, and using student achievement data, overseeing
curricular and instructional strategies, and structuring the operational practices and routines of
both school and district leaders. Meanwhile, Cudeiro (2005) found that superintendents
positively influenced student achievement through defining what instructional leadership looks
like in the district, allocating more resources to school sites, and providing district-wide
professional development in areas such as instructional strategies, supervising instruction, and
data-driven decision making.
The final category of questions focused on transformational leadership, which were
aligned to Bolman and Deal’s (2008) human resources leadership style that focused on
relationship building and were related to the research question: How do Superintendents
mobilize human, social, and physical capital to build a coalition of instructional leaders?
Hallinger (2003) suggests that school leaders’ leadership style should be contingent upon the
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
48
specific school context. For instance, he recommends that a more direct, top-down instructional
leadership style may initially be needed in “schools at risk,” but he advocates that all school
leaders will eventually need to implement a more collaborative transformational style of
leadership to obtain buy-in from the staff in order to sustain school improvement over time.
Additionally, Marks and Printy (2003) found that schools that had principals who implemented
an integrated leadership style that included both transformational and shared instructional
leadership, demonstrated higher quality pedagogy in the classroom and higher levels of student
achievement.
Overall, Waters and Marzano’s (2007) research provides the backbone that underlies all
the survey, interview, and research questions asked in this study. In particular, their research
found the following six responsibilities of effective superintendents: 1) collaborative goal-
setting, 2) five-year, non-negotiable goals for achievement and instruction, 3) board alignment
and support of district goals, 4) monitoring goals for achievement and instruction, 5) use of
resources to support achievement and instruction goals, and 6) defined autonomy. The
alignment of this study’s research questions to the survey and interview questions as well as to
the three main areas identified in this conceptual framework can be found in Appendix A and B.
Data Collection
This study sought to obtain district-wide perspectives about the role superintendents play
in improving instruction in suburban school districts. Thus, the study began by first soliciting
medium-sized suburban district superintendents in Southern California to complete an online
survey consisting of 31 questions. Out of 60 superintendents who were sent the survey, 33
completed the entire survey, for a response rate of 55%. Next, the study used purposeful
sampling to select four suburban district superintendents to participate in both the online survey
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
49
and an in-depth structured interview. The interviews were conducted at each superintendent’s
workplace and the interviews lasted an average of 60 minutes each. Each interview was audio-
recorded and the researcher took notes during the interviews as well. At the end of each
interview, the researcher requested that the interviewee forward any documents related to the
information that was discussed during the interviews. The researcher also gave each interviewed
participant a list of sample documents that they could send. After each interview, the researcher
also wrote reflective notes.
Data Analysis
The data was analyzed utilizing the following process. The first step was analyzing the
survey results. A table was created to see any patterns that were found among the responses
obtained from the superintendents. Next, a deeper analysis was conducted based on the survey
data obtained from the four purposefully identified districts. These four district superintendents’
responses were compared to the other superintendents’ survey responses to look for any
similarities and differences.
After the survey data was analyzed, the interview responses were analyzed. The recorded
interview responses were first transcribed. Then, the researcher reviewed the transcribed
interviews and coded the data using both an inductive and deductive method (Patton, 2002). The
deductive method included coding the data based on the pre-determined research questions. The
inductive method included coding the data after finding patterns and themes among the interview
data. Since the inductive method brought out new patterns and themes that emerged from the
data, these newly coded categories were distributed among the four research questions that the
researcher found to be the best fit. Documents from the four purposefully selected districts were
also analyzed and triangulation of the survey data, interview data, and data obtained from the
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
50
document review increased the credibility of the study’s findings. A more detailed analysis of
these results is described in Chapter Four.
Validity and Reliability
Field testing of the survey and interview questions was conducted with two different
educators with various positions and experiences. This allowed the researcher to determine in
advance whether the study’s subjects would understand each question and whether questions
needed to be changed or provided with certain context in order to obtain more valid data from
the instruments. Additionally, the reliability of the study’s results was strengthened since a
variety of superintendents were surveyed and then four of the surveyed superintendents were
also interviewed in order to obtain a more well-rounded perspective of the superintendents.
Ethical Considerations
Even though their individual research studies’ participants were different, the researcher
and the researcher’s partner submitted a joint application to the Institutional Review Board (IRB)
of the University of Southern California since their studies were similar and implemented the
same research methods, including administering the same survey and interview questions. In
order to protect participants’ identities, pseudonyms were used for all individual participants’
names and the names of their respective schools and districts. All participants were also
informed in writing that their participation was voluntary and their responses would be kept
confidential. Any participants who were interviewed were also informed at the beginning of the
interview that their participation was voluntary, that they could stop the interview at any time,
and that their verbal permission was required in order to audio-record the interview, but they
would still be able to participate in the interview if they requested not to be audio-recorded.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
51
Summary
This chapter described the methods used in this study to examine superintendents as
instructional leaders in suburban school districts with an emphasis on suburban districts that have
successfully improved student achievement in language arts and math over a three-year period in
order to identify those factors that superintendents have contributed to this success. In particular,
the chapter described the study’s mixed methods instrumentation, data collection, and data
analysis process that included how data obtained via surveys, interviews, and document review
were analyzed via triangulation methods. The study’s conceptual framework and how the
framework relates to the study’s research questions were also described. Furthermore, the
study’s validity, reliability, and ethical considerations were discussed. Chapter Four will build
upon this chapter by describing the results obtained from this mixed methods study.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
52
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Even though there has been increasing pressure over the years for school districts to
improve student achievement, there has not been much research available on how
superintendents can specifically impact student achievement district-wide. Even less prevalent is
research on successful suburban superintendents and on successful practices among suburban
school districts. This study addresses this problem by analyzing the oversight practices of four
successful suburban district superintendents as instructional leaders. Through the use of mixed
methods that included surveys, interviews, and document review, this chapter presents the
findings that address the following four research questions:
1. Research Question One: How do superintendents define a district-wide plan for
improving instruction in language arts and math?
2. Research Question Two: How do superintendents mobilize human, social, and
physical capital to build a coalition of instructional leaders?
3. Research Question Three: How do superintendents build the capacity of site-
level instructional leaders to implement the chosen instructional programs
district-wide?
4. Research Question Four: How do superintendents evaluate the effectiveness of
their instructional programs?
Participants and Methodology
This study used a mixed methods approach that included surveys, interviews, and
document review. First, all superintendents located in Southern California whose districts served
a student population between 7,000 to 15,000 students were emailed an invitation and website
link to complete a survey. Any superintendents who did not complete the survey online were
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
53
mailed a hard copy of the survey to complete, which included a self-addressed stamped envelope
to return the completed survey to the researcher.
A total of 33 completed surveys were received out of 60 surveys that were sent, for a
response rate of 55%. The majority of respondents were Caucasian (85%) and male (64%). The
superintendents’ average age range was between 51 to 60 years old. The average number of
years the respondents have worked in their current superintendent positions was 5.5 years.
Twelve (36%) of the superintendents have been in their current positions for one to three years,
nine (27%) have been in their current positions for four to six years, and twelve (36%) have been
in their current positions for seven or more years (the range of years was from one to 25).
Additional characteristics of the superintendents who completed the survey can be found in
Table 2. In order to maintain the confidentiality of the superintendents who participated in this
study, the superintendents’ names are not mentioned in this study, and each superintendent is
referred to as a female even though both males and females participated in both the surveys and
interviews.
Table 2
Characteristics of the Superintendent Survey Respondents
# of
Survey
Respond-
ents
Avg # of
Yrs in
Current
Position
Avg
Age
Range
#
Male
#
Female
#
African
Ameri-
can
#
Asian
#
Hispanic/
Latino
#
Caucasian
#
Other
33 5.5 51-60 21 12 1 0 3 28 1
% of
Responses
100% 100% 64% 36% 3% 0% 9% 85% 3%
In addition to completing surveys, four suburban school district superintendents from
among the 60 initially identified in Southern California were selected to participate in an hour-
long interview. These superintendents and their districts were selected based on the following:
• The superintendents’ individual reputation in the education community as a successful
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
54
education leader,
• The districts increased student achievement in English Language Arts and Math over a
three year period from 2009 to 2011 based on state standardized tests,
• The districts serve at least 50% or more Hispanic and/or African American students, and
• At least 50% of each district’s student population is socioeconomically disadvantaged.
The four superintendents who were interviewed were also asked to provide supporting
documentation for items they discussed during their interview. The researcher provided the
superintendents with a copy of the Document Review Matrix (Appendix C) that includes
samples of specific documents that the superintendents could provide. Three of the
superintendents provided the researcher with documents immediately after the interview. The
superintendents were also given a self-addressed stamped envelope to mail documents to the
researcher; none of the superintendents selected this method to mail documents to the researcher.
Three out of four of the interviewed superintendents sent documentation to the researcher via
email.
Research Findings
Research Question One: How do Superintendents Define a District-wide Plan for
Improving Instruction in Language Arts and Math?
Both the survey and interview questions that addressed the first research question focused
on how district-wide initiatives are started, including how districts’ instructional vision and plans
are created, and how the districts’ initiatives are communicated to stakeholders. The specific
interview questions related to this first research question can be found in Appendix B and are
listed below:
1. What is your district’s instructional vision?
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
55
2. How do you develop your district-wide instructional plan? Describe the decision-making
process. Is there a department in charge of instruction? What role do you play in this
process?
3. How do you communicate the district’s instructional vision and plans with your
stakeholders? How do you communicate your results and any changes made?
4. Tell me about your leadership style. How do you lead?
5. How much autonomy do you give to your staff and school sites to make instructionally
related decisions?
The specific survey questions related to this first research question and a breakdown of
the responses received can be found in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 3
Superintendents’ Responses to Survey Questions Related to Research Question #1
Survey Question
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
My district has developed a district-wide
instructional plan that includes high
expectations of academic excellence for
ALL students.
25 (76%) 7 (21%) 1 (3%) 0
I know what my district’s vision is for
improving instruction in LANGUAGE
ARTS.
26 (79%) 6 (18%) 1 (3%) 0
I know what my district’s vision is for
improving instruction in MATH.
26 (79%) 6 (18%) 1 (3%) 0
I communicate timely information about the
district’s instructional programs with all
stakeholders.
17 (52%) 16 (48%) 0 0
I believe that districts should allow school
sites to determine how to implement
instruction at their individual schools.
3 (9%) 17 (52%) 11 (33%) 2 (6%)
I believe that districts should create a
district-wide plan on how instruction will be
implemented at the individual school sites.
9 (27%) 18 (55%) 5 (15%) 1 (3%)
Note. Out of 33 total respondents.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
56
According to the 33 suburban superintendents who completed the survey, all but one
indicated that their districts developed a district-wide instructional plan that includes high
expectations of academic excellence for all students and that they know what their district’s
vision is for improving instruction in both language arts and math. The one superintendent who
disagreed with these items had only been in her current position for one year, so this
circumstance may be the reason why she responded in this way. All 33 of the superintendents
believe that they communicate timely information about their districts’ instructional programs
with all stakeholders. However, the most interesting data collected from the group of survey
questions in Table 3 is that close to 40% of the superintendents did not believe that districts
should allow school sites to determine how to implement instruction at their individual schools,
which means that only a little over 60% of the superintendents believe that school sites should
determine their schools’ instructional implementation. Meanwhile, 82% of the superintendents
believe that districts should create a district-wide plan on how instruction will be implemented at
the individual school sites.
These figures appear to be contradictory since how can 82% of the superintendents say
that the districts should determine how individual schools should implement instruction when out
of these same superintendents, over 60% also believe that schools should be in control of how to
implement instruction at their sites? It is this researcher’s belief that districts can create district-
wide guidelines for the school sites to follow, but that additional details in instructional
implementation can also be determined by each school site. While the overall survey results do
not give a clear picture of exactly how districts are able to both provide a district-wide
instructional plan for schools to follow in addition to allowing schools to oversee how to
implement instruction at their specific sites, the responses from the four superintendents who
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
57
were interviewed provide additional insights.
What is interesting is that the four successful suburban school district superintendents
expressed divergent opinions in how they responded to the survey questions. For instance, based
on just the survey responses, two of the superintendents believed that districts should not allow
school sites to determine how to implement instruction at their individual schools in contrast to
one of the superintendents who strongly disagreed that districts should create a district-wide
instructional plan for schools to follow. Upon further analysis, the individual interviews
revealed more contextual data for understanding these divergent survey results.
The superintendent who indicated in her survey response that she strongly disagreed that
districts should create a district-wide instructional plan for schools to follow, interestingly
described during her interview that her district does have a district-wide instructional vision and
plan that “is laid out in… a comprehensive document that was… a very, very inclusive process
to develop that instructional direction. It really includes our specific beliefs and values for what
we refer to as our ‘Whatever It Takes Initiative.’ Common assessments are part of that for the
purpose of improving instructional practice, so collaboration is a very, very high priority and a
very strong value of ours, across each of our schools.”
All four superintendents who were interviewed talked in detail about the work that they
and their central office staff have been doing to engage all stakeholders in implementing their
districts’ instructional plans at the individual school sites. As a result, all four superintendents
shared that having a district-wide vision for how the district will improve instruction is
important. In particular, the superintendent who indicated in her survey that she strongly does
not believe that districts should create a district-wide plan on how instruction will be
implemented at the individual school sites actually shared enthusiastically during the interview
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
58
about the district’s various instructional initiatives and priorities. However, she also emphasized
multiple times about how all of these district-wide initiatives were not driven by the central
office, but instead, she described in detail how each school site played an instrumental role in
implementing the district’s instructional direction:
For example, the English One teachers meet together on a weekly basis, or the Algebra
One teachers meet together on their campuses, so they do that weekly. That time is built
into their alternative bell schedule. They have professional collaboration time weekly,
and they have a required embedded support [for students], or required tutorials embedded
during the day, not after school or before school or Saturdays. The other half of the
Whatever It Takes Instructional Direction is our pyramid of interventions.
We have a pretty sophisticated system that has been built to identify very early on
when kids are struggling to be able to provide intervention support for them before they
fail so that way, they never feel like they’re not in the game. The time and support that’s
built together by the staff for each campus to build up these pyramid of interventions has
really been very, very helpful.
This superintendent also described the role that both the district’s central office and the
school site principals play in supporting their teachers with implementing the district’s
initiatives:
I tell our administrators we are servant leaders; our job is to clear the path so they
[teachers] can run faster. We have quality people who really do an outstanding job, and
they feed off of each other. I've mentioned several times [a specific central office staff
member]; she's really phenomenal. She does a lot of research, and provides research data
for our teachers to inform their thinking, so they don’t have to spend time doing that…
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
59
We give them [teachers and principals] lots to read; we'll give them articles to read,
things that will inform their decisions and their conversations, but we don’t tell them
what to do. We just try to create a more… rich environment for them to do their work.
In contrast, both of the interviewed superintendents who indicated in their surveys that
they did not believe that school sites should be allowed to determine how to implement
instruction, also described during their interviews about the importance of engaging teachers in
creating and implementing district-wide initiatives. Thus, just because a superintendent may
believe that school sites should not be creating their own instructional implementation plans, this
does not mean that school site principals and teachers should not be part of the development of
the district’s instructional plans and it does not mean that individual stakeholders do not have a
voice in the process. One of the superintendents described this delicate balancing act as the
following:
We do have common district course outlines now that every school uses. However, it
wasn’t, ‘Here they are. Use them.’ Teachers have time to develop those and work
together in teams.
The other superintendent shared a similar sentiment:
I really believe that you need to get your stakeholders involved… I could’ve probably
written this plan all by myself, but it really was about this community and what’s
important to this community, and what they want to see in terms of their graduates.
Thus, it became clear that the survey question about whether districts should create a
district-wide plan on how instruction will be implemented at the individual school sites can be
interpreted in two ways: 1) Who should create a district-wide plan for instruction? The district
or the school sites?, or 2) Should districts have a district-wide instructional plan or should each
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
60
school site create its own instructional plan even if they are not all aligned district-wide? Since
all four interviewed superintendents described the importance of having a district-wide
instructional plan to guide and support the schools, then the one “divergent superintendent” was
actually not divergent in her viewpoint, but instead, she most likely was referring to who should
be involved with creating and implementing district-wide instructional plans. Likewise, the two
superintendents who indicated that school sites should not develop their own implementation
plans most likely did not mean that the school sites should not be involved in the development
process. Instead, all four superintendents described the importance of having a district-wide plan
that was created with individual stakeholder input.
Table 4
Creation and Communication of the District’s Instructional Vision and Instructional Programs
% of
superintendents
who indicated
that the
following
stakeholders
participated in
the creation of
the district’s
instructional
VISION
% of
superintendents
who indicated
that the
following
stakeholders
participated in
the
communication
of the district’s
instructional
VISION
% of
superintendents
who indicated
that the
following
stakeholders
participated in
the creation of
the district’s
instructional
PROGRAMS
% of
superintendents
who indicated
that the
following
stakeholders
participated in
the
communication
of the district’s
instructional
PROGRAMS
Superintendent 91% 100% 73% 100%
District Level Staff 91% 100% 100% 94%
District Board
Members
82% 79% 33% 76%
Principals 91% 97% 97% 97%
Teachers 85% 82% 97% 85%
Students 33% 36% 12% 21%
Parents 67% 58% 33% 48%
Community
Members
64% 52% 24% 42%
Note. Out of 33 total respondents.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
61
The main highlights from the survey data displayed in Table 4 are the following:
• Only between 73-91% of the superintendents helped create their districts’
instructional vision or programs, but 100% of the superintendents did participate in
communicating both their districts’ instructional vision and programs.
• All 100% of district level staff participated in creating their districts’ instructional
programs compared to 97% of principal and teacher involvement with this.
• While district board members were not likely to participate in creating districts’
instructional programs (33% participation rate), the majority of them (76%)
participated in communicating their districts’ instructional programs.
• Principals (91-97%) and district level staff (91-100%) were the most involved with all
four areas listed in the table.
• Students (12-36%) were the least involved with all four areas listed in the table.
Regarding the creation and communication of districts’ instructional vision and
programs, out of the four interviewed superintendents, one of them indicated on her survey that
the district board members were the only stakeholders involved with creating the district’s
instructional vision. However, this superintendent’s interview responses contradicted her survey
response since during the interview, she shared how multiple stakeholders, including herself,
were involved with the creation of the district’s instructional vision. Two of the interviewed
superintendents indicated that every single stakeholder listed in the survey was involved with the
creation of their districts’ instructional vision, and one of them indicated that everyone except
students and parents were involved with the creation of the district’s instructional vision. None
of these four superintendents had board members involved with the creation of the instructional
programs, they all personally participated in the creation and communication of their districts’
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
62
instructional programs with their district level staff, principals, and teachers, and only one of
them included students, parents, and community members in both the creation and
communication of the district’s instructional programs.
Overall, all four of the interviewed superintendents indicated that their districts had
district-wide instructional visions and programs that include high expectations of academic
excellence for all students compared to 97% of the surveyed superintendents who expressed the
same sentiment. The document review provided additional support that the districts of the
interviewed superintendents have documented their instructional visions and plans as well as
communicated their visions and plans with stakeholders via mediums such as newsletters,
memos to staff, and annual reports to external stakeholders. All 33 of the superintendents who
completed the survey indicated that they were involved with either the creation and/or
communication of their districts’ instructional visions and programs. While district level staff,
principals, and teachers were noted as the main stakeholders behind the creation and
communication of their districts’ instructional visions and programs, there appears to be some
divergent opinions regarding how much autonomy districts should give to individual schools in
both creating and implementing instructional programs for their sites.
Research Question Two: How do Superintendents Mobilize Human, Social, and Physical
Capital to Build a Coalition of Instructional Leaders?
The survey and interview questions that addressed the second research question focused
on how superintendents and their districts provided time and resources for their staff to focus on
instructional priorities, ways that stakeholders worked together across the district, how
superintendents built relationships within the district, and how superintendents motivated and
recognized quality performance. The specific interview questions related to this second research
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
63
question can be found in Appendix B and are listed below:
1. How do you engage all stakeholders to work together in the creation and implementation
of the district’s instructional plans? Who is involved? How do you get buy-in, especially
from staff who are resistant to your plans?
2. How do you build relationships within the district? What would we observe when
watching you work with your staff?
3. Explain your experience in running meetings and leading groups. What does this look
like?
4. What resources do you allocate for your district’s instructional programs? What supports
do you provide to your schools? What challenges did you overcome in order to get the
resources you needed to support your instructional plans? How did you overcome these
challenges?
5. How do you motivate and recognize quality performance in your district?
The specific survey questions related to this second research question and a breakdown of
the responses received can be found in Tables 5, 6, and 7.
Table 5
Superintendents’ Responses to Survey Questions Related to Research Question #2
Survey Question
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
My district provides opportunities for
employees to work together and collaborate
to improve instruction.
24 (73%) 9 (27%) 0 0
My district provides its staff with the
resources they need to do their jobs.
15 (45%) 14 (42%) 4 (12%) 0
I am able to bring diverse groups of
stakeholders together to improve
instruction.
10 (30%) 21 (64%) 2 (6%) 0
Note. Out of 33 total respondents.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
64
Over time, superintendents have had to learn how to maneuver through the changing
education landscape such as learning how to increase student achievement with declining
resources. The teaching profession has also changed over the years from a mostly independent
activity in which teachers closed their classroom doors and independently taught their students
each day to a more collaborative profession where teachers and administrators are often sharing
instructional strategies both within their schools as well as with other schools. While the
superintendents who completed the survey felt confident (73% strongly agree) that their districts
provided opportunities for employees to work together and collaborate to improve instruction,
they were not as confident about their personal ability to bring a diverse group of stakeholders
together to improve instruction (30% strongly agree).
Regarding resources, only 45% strongly agreed that their districts provided their staff
with the resources they needed to do their jobs. Another 42% felt that their districts did okay
with providing resources, but 12% actually disagreed, which means that these superintendents
did not believe that their districts provided their staff with the resources they needed to do their
jobs. What is even more interesting is that one of the superintendents who was also interviewed
as part of this study because of both her positive reputation in the education community and her
district’s ability to improve student achievement over a three-year period was one of the
superintendents who felt that their districts did not provide adequate resources.
In particular, this superintendent shared how, “we’ve done everything practically with no
money.” In contrast, one of the superintendents who indicated in her survey that she agrees that
her district provides its staff with adequate resources to do their jobs, shared the opposite
sentiment during the interview. During the interview, this superintendent shared that she was
frustrated because she can’t “really be the superintendent that I want to be” and that she can’t
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
65
implement all the programs and changes that she wants to implement due to budget cuts.
Another superintendent echoed this sentiment by explaining how “the resources are not there to
be able to do more of what we know works well.” These examples show how even though a
district may appear to be moving in the right direction, it does not mean that people are satisfied
with the circumstances that they are in or that they have everything they need to keep the
positive momentum going.
In order to overcome these financial challenges, the four interviewed superintendents
shared how they had to prioritize their initiatives and as a result, prioritize which items received
funding. For instance, one superintendent shared how “we’ve purposely put our best human
resources and more financial resources in the schools that have students with more poverty.”
Table 6
Who Districts Meet With and Learn From
My district provides a forum for meeting with
and learning from (select all that apply):
Superintendent 85%
District Level Staff 88%
Principals 97%
Teachers 94%
Students 36%
Parents 79%
Community Members 55%
Educators From Other Districts 58%
Educational Consultants and/or Vendors 73%
Note. Out of 33 total respondents.
The percentages for the responses in Table 6 help provide greater context for the
responses that were obtained in Table 5. For instance, in Table 5, all 33 of the surveyed
superintendents felt that their districts allowed for employees to meet and work together.
However, the data in Table 5 did not indicate which employees were collaborating. Table 6
provides more specificity about which stakeholders are collaborating. As to be expected, most
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
66
districts provide a forum for meeting with and learning from principals (97%), teachers (94%),
district level staff (88%), and the superintendent (85%). This is supported by the interview data
in which all of the four interviewed superintendents shared how their districts provide multiple
opportunities for mainly a combination of principals, teachers, district staff, and/or the
superintendent to work together on district initiatives. Based on the information shared during
the interviews, most of these collaborative opportunities occurred after school hours such as after
school or over the summer, depending on the district.
It would be interesting to compare whether urban school districts tap into their parents as
a resource as much as suburban school districts appear to do as indicated in the 79% response
rate received in this study for engaging parents. A surprising finding is that 73% of respondents
indicated that their districts provide for opportunities to meet with and learn from educational
consultants and/or vendors. Thus, despite the recent declining funding environment, the majority
of the suburban school districts surveyed are still utilizing educational consultants/vendors. This
is consistent with the information provided by the superintendents who were interviewed. All
four superintendents who were interviewed mentioned that they initially worked with and/or are
currently working with an educational consultant or vendor to provide specific training for their
staff and all of them mentioned that the end goal was to strengthen their staff’s implementation
of new instructional strategies so that they could eventually train their own staff from within.
A final category that was analyzed as part of the second research question was which
stakeholders played an instrumental role in removing barriers to schools’ abilities to improve
instruction (see Table 7). All 100% of the 33 superintendents surveyed believed that they played
an instrumental role in removing barriers in their districts. District level staff and principals were
also valued as playing a significant role in removing barriers (97% each). Teachers only
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
67
received an 85% affirmative rating and only 76% of the superintendents believed that district
board members helped remove barriers. It would be interesting to see if district level staff,
principals, teachers, and board members have the same perceptions as superintendents regarding
which stakeholders play an instrumental role in removing barriers for schools. Other
stakeholders who did not participate in this survey, but who should be considered for future
surveys are students, parents, community members, and government officials.
Table 7
Stakeholders Who Remove Barriers to Improving Instruction
The following individuals play an instrumental
role in removing barriers to our schools’ abilities
to improve instruction (select all that apply):
Superintendent 100%
District Level Staff 97%
District Board Members 76%
Principals 97%
Teachers 85%
Note. Out of 33 total respondents.
Each year, superintendents have an increasingly difficult challenge of having to
determine how to mobilize human, social, and physical capital to improve their districts’
instructional effectiveness. This has become even more challenging due to declining funds in
public education. Despite these challenges, the superintendents who participated in this study
believe that their positions play an important role in helping to mobilize people to work together
and in removing barriers for their schools.
Research Question Three: How do Superintendents Build the Capacity of Site-level
Instructional Leaders to Implement the Chosen Instructional Programs District-wide?
The survey and interview questions that addressed the third research question focus on
the core emphasis of this research study regarding the superintendent as an instructional leader.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
68
The questions revolve around how involved the superintendent is in regards to the district’s
instructional programs, including how decisions are made, how much autonomy school leaders
have to make decisions at their sites, whether professional development is provided to support
the instructional leaders, and what type of leadership style do superintendents employ to improve
instruction district-wide. The specific interview questions related to this third research question
can be found in Appendix B and are listed below:
1. What do you see is your role as an instructional leader in your district? What leadership,
management, and supervisory behaviors do you employ to support instruction in your
district?
2. What do you believe are best instructional practices for language arts and math?
3. What are some instructional trends and methodologies used in your district that relate to
language arts and math?
4. What are your district’s instructional strengths? What contributed to these strengths?
How will you assure that these strengths are maintained?
5. What are your district’s instructional weaknesses? What contributed to these weaknesses
and how do you plan to overcome these weaknesses?
6. How do you build instructional leaders in your district? Describe your process/procedure
for this. What professional development do you provide?
7. What is the last new procedure for instruction that you incorporated into the district?
Who was involved and what were the results?
The specific survey questions related to this third research question and a breakdown of
the responses received can be found in Tables 8, 9, 10, and 11.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
69
Table 8
Superintendents’ Leadership Style
My leadership style is (select all that apply):
Top down 12%
Collaborative 88%
Hands-on 67%
Hands-off 6%
Effective 61%
Empowering 79%
Note. Out of 33 total respondents.
Table 8 shows that based on all the survey respondents, 88% described their leadership
style as collaborative, but only 79% felt that their leadership style was empowering and only
61% felt that they were effective. Very few of the superintendents (12%) implemented a top
down leadership style as exemplified by one of the interviewed superintendents’ statements: “I
think the days are gone of the dictatorial type of leader.” Only two superintendents (6%)
described their leadership style as hands-off, and both of these superintendents also selected
“hands-on” to describe their leadership style, so they might have felt that their leadership style
was situational so that sometimes they were hands-on and sometimes they were hands-off. This
confusion was expressed by one of the superintendents:
When I was completing your survey, I was perplexed by the hands-off or hands-on
because I felt, well, I’m not really hands-off, I’m more hands-on, but not a micro-
manager. I’m hands-on only because I’m so passionate and so excited about this work.
An interesting observation is that only 67% indicated that they were hands-on. However, since
88% described themselves as collaborative, one would have assumed that the “hands-on”
category would have received a higher percentage since being collaborative can imply that the
superintendent is working with others in a hands-on way.
One of the interviewed superintendents described why it is important to be collaborative:
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
70
I believe in being collaborative... it is only together that we can succeed… you have to
have the collaboration and support of everyone… you can’t force things. I mean you can
try, but then you’re going to get ritual compliance.
When analyzing the survey responses from only the four interviewees, three out of the
four superintendents who were interviewed described their leadership style as collaborative,
hands-on, effective, and empowering. The fourth superintendent described her leadership style
as only collaborative. However, when these superintendents were interviewed, all of them
described ways in which they were hands-on and how they all believed in leading by example.
This sentiment is captured in the following statement by one of the interviewed
superintendents:
Administrators have to be proficient and feel comfortable with what training is going to
take place prior to teachers, so that they’ll work together. We do things a year before we
do it with teachers… you set the tone for the type of leaders you want your leaders to
be… when I do a meeting… I provide them something that they can turnaround and use
with their teachers and, hopefully, that they can turnaround and use in their classroom, so
using instructional strategies and good facilitation practices that they will learn to use.
Another superintendent described hands-on leadership style in the following way:
I’m in classrooms. I’m in schools. I’m in back to school nights. I talk to teachers, do a
room walk, talk to teachers about what I see. I want them to know that I am very
interested in and knowledgeable about the curriculum instruction that we’re doing, and I
want to hear from them on how it is going. I’m very hands-on… at least it’s really
important for me to do the staff development for my administrators because I think they
need to see me as an instructional leader and I need to model to them what I want them to
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
71
do with their staffs, with their principals. We’re all teachers and educators, and it’s
important that we all model what we want to see… The feedback that I’m getting is the
staff is really excited to see me in the classroom…
A third example of a hands-on superintendent is the following:
I try to lead by example. I try to model a strong work ethic. My messages are constantly
about students. I think I’m very hands-on. I’m visible at the schools. I want the
principals to feel supported so I don’t want them to feel they can’t call or ask for help or
pick my brain. I tell them, ‘I’ve pretty much seen it all. I’ve had all your jobs. I’ve done
every job in this school district… So I know the shoes that people have on and what they
have to go through.
Since 88% of the 33 superintendents who were surveyed believed that they were
collaborative, the information in Table 9 helps provide additional information about which
stakeholders were involved in the implementation of the districts’ instructional vision and
programs.
Table 9
Implementation of the District’s Instructional Vision and Instructional Programs
% of superintendents
who indicated that the following
stakeholders participated in the
implementation of the district’s
instructional VISION
% of superintendents
who indicated that the following
stakeholders participated in the
implementation of the district’s
instructional PROGRAMS
Superintendent 82% 76%
District Level Staff 91% 91%
District Board Members 30% 15%
Principals 100% 100%
Teachers 94% 97%
Students 45% 36%
Parents 48% 30%
Community Members 33% 15%
Note. Out of 33 total respondents.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
72
The main highlights from the survey data displayed in Table 9 are the following:
• Only between 76-82% of the superintendents helped implement their districts’
instructional vision or programs.
• Principals are the only stakeholders where 100% participated in both the
implementation of the district’s instructional vision and programs.
• Most district board members did not participate in the implementation of both the
district’s instructional vision (30%) and programs (15%).
• A potential untapped resource may be students, parents, and community members
since only 15-48% of the surveyed districts involved one or more of these
stakeholders with the implementation of their districts’ instructional vision and
programs.
Table 10
Superintendents’ Responses to Survey Questions Related to Research Question #3
Survey Question
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
I feel prepared to help improve instruction
in my district.
27 (82%) 6 (18%) 0 0
I believe I am an effective instructional
leader who plays an instrumental role in
improving instruction in my district.
20 (61%) 13 (39%) 0 0
I empower my staff to make decisions
related to instruction.
23 (70%) 10 (30%) 0 0
I value employee contributions to the
district’s instructional programs.
31 (94%) 2 (6%) 0 0
I motivate employees to take pride in
producing quality results in student
achievement.
23 (70%) 10 (30%) 0 0
Note. Out of 33 total respondents.
The data in Table 10 help provide greater insight into the third research question
regarding how superintendents build the capacity of site-level instructional leaders to implement
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
73
the chosen instructional programs district-wide. Since 100% of the surveyed superintendents
believe that they are prepared to help improve instruction in their districts and they all believe
that they are effective instructional leaders, it would be interesting to find out how many of these
superintendents were former teachers and/or school site administrators, and whether that
previous experience helped prepare them to be their districts’ instructional leaders as
superintendents.
In terms of empowering their staff to make decisions related to instruction, a common
theme among the four interviewed superintendents was that they provided a lot of support and
professional development for their staff. Some of the descriptions of the four interviewed
districts’ professional development opportunities include the following:
• “We have a very extensive summer professional development program.”
o All teachers are invited and at least 80% or more attend.
o Teachers are paid to attend for 10 days.
o The first week is structured professional development and the second
week is for teachers to plan together to implement what they learned in the
previous week.
• “We dedicated a lot of time for [professional development], a lot of time, and we
really believed in the trainer of trainers model… This district has always been
really good at staff development. I think the instructional strengths is that they
look at staff development from K-12 so that there’s continuity.”
• “We also plan professional development around what the goals are for the year.
There’s the district administrator professional development, the school
administrator professional development, the teacher professional development are
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
74
all in alignment. Then we as a district do follow up. We’re in the process of
doing follow up professional development for our teachers… In the summer, we
had a five-day training for our teachers.”
o The training was not mandatory and teachers were paid if they attended.
• More than one of the interviewed districts implemented Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs) throughout the school year and many of them also
implemented district-wide instructional-related committees that included various
stakeholders including teachers who attended meetings that usually took place
once a month in most of the districts.
Additionally, the four superintendents who were interviewed for this study shared how
they provided opportunities for their staff to learn from each other because they wanted their
staff to take ownership of the district’s instructional initiatives. One superintendent used a
metaphor to describe how to get staff to take ownership: “The really good leader plants the
seeds, kind of spreads the word, nurtures, waters, helps things grow, and then, other people
eventually think it was their idea.”
Table 11
Areas of Appropriate Training
My district provides its staff with appropriate
on-going training for (select all that apply):
Curriculum 94%
Instruction 94%
Assessment 91%
Data Analysis 91%
Standards Implementation 91%
Personal Professional Growth 70%
Note. Out of 33 total respondents.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
75
The survey results in Table 11 match the interviewed superintendents’ statements about
the importance of training and professional development. When analyzed individually by each
topic, over 90% of the surveyed superintendents said that their districts provided appropriate on-
going training for curriculum (94%), instruction (94%), assessment (91%), data analysis (91%),
or standards implementation (91%). However, only 76% of the surveyed superintendents
indicated that their districts provided their staff with appropriate training in all of the following
main educational areas: curriculum, instruction, assessment, data analysis, and standards
implementation. The area in which the least amount of surveyed superintendents (70%) felt that
they provided adequate training in was for personal professional growth. The documents that the
four interviewed superintendents provided as part of the document review verify that these four
districts spend a lot of time and energy on professional development.
To summarize the findings for the third research question, over half (55%) of the
suburban superintendents who were surveyed in this study believe that they are collaborative,
hands-on, and effective instructional leaders and 76% of the surveyed superintendents believe
that their districts provide adequate training for their staff in curriculum, instruction, assessment,
data analysis, and standards implementation. The four interviewed superintendents provided
additional insight into how they were hands-on and how they specifically provided support to
their staff.
Research Question Four: How do Superintendents Evaluate the Effectiveness of Their
Instructional Programs?
The survey and interview questions that addressed the fourth and last research question
focus on the districts’ use of data, including tracking student achievement data as well as
evaluating program effectiveness and providing staff with time to reflect on performance. The
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
76
specific interview questions related to the fourth research question can be found in Appendix B
and are listed below:
1. How does your district collect information/data concerning student achievement? How is
this data disaggregated and decisions made based on this data?
2. How do you evaluate your district’s instructional programs? What opportunities are in
place for your staff to reflect on and improve past academic performance?
The specific survey questions related to the fourth research question and a breakdown of
the responses received can be found in Table 12.
Table 12
Superintendents’ Responses to Survey Questions Related to Research Question #4
Survey Question
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
My district gives regular feedback to
schools regarding how to improve
instruction at their school sites.
22 (67%) 11 (33%) 0 0
My district collects information/data
concerning student achievement.
31 (94%) 2 (6%) 0 0
My district provides its staff with time and
resources to reflect on and improve the
district's past academic performance.
19 (58%) 13 (39%) 1 (3%) 0
My district does a good job evaluating the
effectiveness of its instructional programs.
10 (30%) 21 (64%) 2 (6%) 0
I recognize and reward positive employee
performance related to instruction.
14 (42%) 18 (55%) 1 (3%) 0
Note. Out of 33 total respondents.
As demonstrated by the data in Table 12, 100% of the participating suburban school
districts collect information/data concerning student achievement. What is not clear is whether
they only collect their students’ state standardized test scores or whether their districts collect
other student achievement data, including both formative and summative assessments. It is also
not known how often this data is collected, what grades and subjects this data is collected for,
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
77
and what is accomplished with this data. Similarly, 100% of the participating suburban school
districts give regular feedback to schools regarding how to improve instruction at their school
sites. However, the nature of this feedback is unclear, including how often is feedback provided,
what specific feedback if given, as well as to whom and how is the feedback delivered. Almost
all (97%) of the respondents reported that their districts provide staff with time and resources to
reflect on and improve their districts’ past academic performance, and 97% indicated that they,
as superintendents, recognize and reward positive employee performance related to instruction.
Meanwhile, not all of the respondents (6% disagreed) believed that their districts did a good job
evaluating the effectiveness of their instructional programs.
The insights from the four superintendents who were interviewed for this study provided
additional details regarding how successful suburban district superintendents evaluated the
effectiveness of their instructional programs. Two of the superintendents described their student
information systems and their data analysis systems, including how they recently changed and/or
added new systems to help their districts better collect, analyze, and communicate results to their
staff, parents, and other stakeholders.
The move to a new data management system for one of the districts is explained below:
One of the things we did when I got here is get a more robust data management system
because what we had couldn’t give us the data we wanted, so we went to a better system.
The four interviewed superintendents also shared how they are constantly communicating
data, including recognizing quality staff performance, via memos, newsletters, annual reports,
email messages, the district’s website, and via staff meetings. Two of the interviewed
superintendents shared how they have monthly meetings with the school administrators to review
their schools’ data. Meanwhile, all four interviewed superintendents described how individual
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
78
school sites are empowered to analyze their own data and create plans for their schools based on
the data. In addition to tracking state standardized test scores, all four districts also track data
from internal assessments such as interim assessments. Other data such as attendance,
suspensions, expulsions, and graduation rates are also tracked by some of the districts.
Additionally, in all four districts, the individual schools must submit reports about their schools’
data, plans, and progress either through a presentation given during a meeting with stakeholders
such as parents and board members or via a written report such as individual school annual
reports and data books.
A final insight from the data collected overall is that district level staff and principals
appear to play a significant role in data analysis as well as in helping to provide the support and
guidance that teachers need to implement the district’s instructional priorities. The following
quote best captures the importance of both data analysis and in providing support to school site
staff so that they can effectively improve their student outcomes:
Every year we assess where we are, what we’ve done really well, where our kids are
excelling, and what we haven’t done. We determine a focus for that year. We all know
what you focus on is where you have improvement… I think you have to really invest in
your principals as instructional leaders because that’s where the rubber meets the road…
I believe my job is to develop instructional leaders… This year we’re really focusing on
the role of the principal in evaluation… What I have found is when you find teachers who
are really performing and you give them a leadership role, they love it. They want more
leadership roles. I think our goal is to mentor them and to try to support them in terms of
growing as possibly administrators.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
79
Summary and Discussion of Findings
This chapter presented and analyzed the research findings from both surveys and
interviews that were conducted with suburban school district superintendents. The analysis
provided additional insight into the following four research questions:
1. Research Question One: How do superintendents define a district-wide plan for
improving instruction in language arts and math?
2. Research Question Two: How do superintendents mobilize human, social, and
physical capital to build a coalition of instructional leaders?
3. Research Question Three: How do superintendents build the capacity of site-level
instructional leaders to implement the chosen instructional programs district-
wide?
4. Research Question Four: How do superintendents evaluate the effectiveness of
their instructional programs?
Based on this data analysis, the participating suburban district superintendents believe
that districts should have an instructional vision and plan, and that it is important to involve
multiple stakeholders with the creation, communication, and implementation of the district’s
instructional vision and programs. An area of greatest contention and confusion, based on the
data, was whether districts should allow school sites to determine how to implement instruction
at their individual schools. According to the four successful suburban district superintendents
who were interviewed for this study, it is paramount that districts have district-wide instructional
plans, but that stakeholders from the school sites, especially principals and teachers, must be
involved with the development and implementation of the districts’ plans.
Regarding leadership styles, successful suburban district superintendents see themselves
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
80
as collaborative, hands-on, effective, and empowering instructional leaders who are often
intimately involved with the development and implementation of the district’s instructional
programs. Furthermore, the interviewed suburban district superintendents also described how
their districts valued professional development and constantly used data to evaluate their
progress and drive instruction. Additional analysis, implications, and recommendations for
future research are described in Chapter Five.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
81
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS
Background and Overview of the Study
The role of superintendents has evolved over the years. Since the introduction of No
Child Left Behind in 2001, school districts have been held to higher accountability standards
regarding student achievement. As a result, superintendents have had to focus more of their time
and energy on helping their districts improve instruction in order to increase student
achievement. However, there has not been an abundance of research on whether superintendents
can make a significant impact on their districts’ student achievement. Moreover, there is even
less research on suburban school district superintendents and their role in improving instruction
district-wide. Thus, this research set out to study suburban school district superintendents as
instructional leaders and the critical aspects of oversight that suburban superintendents must
employ to improve instruction.
Through a triangulation analysis of data from surveys completed by 33 Southern
California suburban district superintendents, interviews conducted with four successful suburban
district superintendents, and documents provided by the four interviewed superintendents, this
study helped answer the following four research questions:
1. Research Question One: How do superintendents define a district-wide plan for
improving instruction in language arts and math?
2. Research Question Two: How do superintendents mobilize human, social, and
physical capital to build a coalition of instructional leaders?
3. Research Question Three: How do superintendents build the capacity of site-level
instructional leaders to implement the chosen instructional programs district-
wide?
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
82
4. Research Question Four: How do superintendents evaluate the effectiveness of
their instructional programs?
Limitations
Since the superintendents who participated in both the surveys and interviews were
located in Southern California, the data might not be reflective of other communities such as
Northern California nor of communities in other states. Also, since the participating districts’
sizes were limited to between 7,000 to 15,000 students, the data might not be reflective of
smaller or larger suburban districts. Additionally, the four superintendents who were
interviewed were chosen based on their personal reputations as leaders in their field, the student
population that their districts served, and their districts’ ability to improve student achievement
in language arts and math based on state standardized test scores over a three-year period. As a
result, their reputations were subjective based on the researcher’s knowledge of the Southern
California education landscape, so there may have been more effective superintendents who
could have been interviewed instead. Since the interviewed superintendents’ districts had to
serve at least 50% socioeconomically disadvantaged and at least 50% African American and/or
Hispanic student populations, the knowledge gained from this study might not be as effective
with a different student population. Furthermore, since success was defined by state
standardized test scores, there may be other ways to enhance instruction and improve student
achievement that is not measured by standardized tests.
Implications
The information obtained from the surveys, interviews, and document review conducted
as part of this study indicate that suburban district superintendents believe that they play a
valuable role in improving instruction in their districts. In particular, the interviews provided
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
83
specific examples of how successful suburban district superintendents played an instrumental
role in improving instruction. More specifically, the following six key findings were obtained:
1. Have a district-wide instructional plan: It is important for districts to have a
district-wide plan for improving instruction. The superintendent should play a
key role in creating and communicating this plan to other stakeholders. This
plan does not necessarily have to dictate which specific instructional materials
to use. Instead, at a minimum, the district-wide instructional plan should
serve as a road map for school staff to follow so that they know what is
expected of them and their students.
2. Obtain buy-in from key stakeholders: In order to obtain buy-in from staff to
implement the district-wide instructional plan, superintendents should involve
key stakeholders from individual school sites such as principals and teachers
with the creation, communication, and implementation of the district’s
instructional vision and programs. Superintendents should have a plan for
how to involve these stakeholders that includes how the stakeholders will be
chosen to participate, how often will the stakeholders meet, when and where
will the meetings take place, and who will lead the meetings.
3. Be hands-on: Effective superintendents’ leadership styles are hands-on,
collaborative, and empowering. An example of what this looks like is that
effective superintendents often attend all or most of the district-wide
professional development for principals, and the superintendents make an
effort to visit as many schools and classrooms as possible. The
superintendents who were interviewed for this study happened to all be former
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
84
teachers and principals, so they also had previous experience with instruction
that allowed them to be even more hands-on with their districts’ instructional
vision and programs.
4. Provide professional development: Effective superintendents provide an
abundance of professional development specifically tied to the district’s
instructional vision and programs for their principals and teachers. For
example, one district provided a whole year of training for principals on a
specific instructional methodology before training all the teachers in the
method. This way the principals were ready to support the teachers once the
instructional initiative was implemented in the schools.
5. Budget for enough support and have a sustainability plan: Effective suburban
school districts usually begin a new instructional initiative with a consultant
who trains district staff so that the district can eventually train its own staff to
sustain the new programs. One superintendent described this strategy as the
“trainer of trainers model.” Thus, districts should plan to budget enough for a
consultant to help for the first few years of implementing a new instructional
initiative. Even with declining funding, the effective superintendents kept
professional development on instructional initiatives a priority and they found
the resources needed to do this.
6. Use data to drive instruction: Effective superintendents are constantly
analyzing student achievement data with their staff and board. For instance,
have principals and school sites create annual data books, annual school
reports, or data presentations that are shared with stakeholders such as parents
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
85
and board members. Superintendents should meet regularly with principals
either one-on-one or as a group to review student achievement data at least
monthly, and the principals should be empowered to share this information
with their school sites. Additionally, if a staff member resists implementing a
new district initiative, use data to motivate and win the person over.
Summary
While superintendents have numerous responsibilities to oversee, their main
responsibility is to provide a quality education to the students that their districts serve. However,
this task can be daunting. Therefore, this study provides both current and aspiring
superintendents, especially suburban district superintendents, with specific examples of how they
can use their position as their districts’ main instructional leader to improve instruction and
thereby increase student achievement district-wide.
In addition to learning about the superintendent’s role and impact as an instructional
leader, some interesting insights were also gained from this study regarding other aspects of how
districts improve instruction. For instance, 100% of the successful superintendents interviewed
in this study talked about how their districts implemented a specific instructional program,
strategy, or methodology. All four interviewed superintendents also emphasized the importance
of obtaining buy-in from principals and teachers as well as the importance of providing training
so that both principals and teachers have the tools they need to be successful in implementing the
district’s instructional programs.
Overall, this study provides hope for superintendents that their work does not have to be
in vain and that the district-wide instructional reform efforts that they introduce to their districts
can be embraced district-wide and can ultimately improve student achievement.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
86
Recommendations for Future Research
While this study added to the body of research on superintendents and especially on
superintendents as instructional leaders, additional research is still needed in the following areas
in order to better understand how superintendents can play a significant role in improving
instruction and student achievement district-wide:
1. Is there a difference between the instructional leadership styles of suburban
district superintendents compared to urban district superintendents?
2. How do teachers and principals view the superintendent’s role as an
instructional leader?
3. Are superintendents who were former teachers better equipped to serve as
instructional leaders than superintendents with no prior instructional
background?
4. Do superintendents’ instructional leadership differ between a unified school
district, a high school district, and an elementary school district?
5. Does the number of years a superintendent has worked at a district affect the
district’s student achievement?
6. Will a superintendent’s instructional initiatives sustain after the superintendent
leaves the district?
In addition to conducting research that is focused specifically on the superintendent,
additional research is also needed on the following:
1. What are better ways to determine success in student achievement besides
measuring standardized test scores?
2. Will the recommendations in this study improve student achievement among a
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
87
more heterogeneous student population and/or a more homogeneous student
population?
3. Are there specific instructional programs that work better than others in
increasing student achievement in reading and math? If so, which student
populations have these programs been effective with?
4. Since students are the most important stakeholder because their lives are the
most affected by whether they do well academically, then additional research
is needed on the students’ point of view regarding what will help them
increase their own academic achievement.
5. More research is also needed regarding what parents and community members
believe will help improve instruction and increase student achievement.
6. Furthermore, greater clarity is needed when research refers to having districts
create instructional plans for individual schools to implement versus allowing
school sites to create instructional plans for their individual schools.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
88
References
Adams, J.E. (2010). Introduction: Smart money and America’s schools. In J.E. Adams, Jr.
(Ed.), Smart money: Using educational resources to accomplish ambitious learning
goals (pp. 1-26). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Alsbury, T.L. (2008). School board member and superintendent turnover and the influence on
student achievement: An application of the dissatisfaction theory. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 7(2), 202-229.
Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York:
Addison Wesley Longman.
Beaudin, B.Q., Thompson, J.S., & Jacobsen, L. (2002). The administrator paradox: More
certified, fewer apply. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.
Black, P., & William, D. (1998, October). Inside the black box: Raising standards through
classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-148.
Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brewer, D.J., Krop, C., Gill, B.P., & Reichardt, R. (1999). Estimating the cost of national class
size reductions under different policy alternatives. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 21(2), 179-192.
Brewer, D.J., & McEwan, P.J. (2010). Economics of education. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Burke, J.C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands. In J.C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of accountability (pp. 1-24).
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
89
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Butler, J. A. (1992, March). Staff development. School Improvement Research Series, 12.
California Department of Education. (2010, September). Overview of California’s 2009-10
accountability progress reporting system. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/overview10.pdf
Candoli, C., Cullen, K., & Stufflebeam, D. (1994). Superintendent performance evaluation:
Current practice and directions for improvement. Kalamazoo, MI: Center for Research
on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation, Western Michigan University
Evaluation Center.
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006, November). How to manage urban school
districts. Harvard Business Review, 55-68.
Christensen, C., Johnson, C.W., & Horn, M.B. (2010). Disrupting class: How disruptive
innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Clark, R.E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Cotton, K. (1989). Expectations and student outcomes. NW Archives: School Improvement
Research Series (SIRS).
Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research
(2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cudeiro, A. (Dec. 2005). Leading student achievement: A study finds superintendents affecting
instructional gains through their strong relationship with principals. School
Administrator, 62(11), 16-20.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
90
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform models in changing
district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 121-153.
Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data. Los Angeles, CA: Center
on Educational Governance, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern
California.
Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for
professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Dutro, S., & Moran, C. (2002). Rethinking English language instruction: An architectural
approach. (Unpublished article).
Eck, J., & Goodwin, B. (Jan. 2010). Autonomy for school leaders: What does research have to
say about how much freedom at the site level is too much? School Administrator, 67(1),
24-27.
EdSource. (2006). Similar students, different results: Why do some schools do better?
Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
EdSource. (2010). Gaining ground in the middle grades: Why some schools do better.
Mountain View, CA: Author.
Elmore, R. F. (2003, November). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 6-
10.
Engler, T.D. (2010). Superintendents' lives as independent contractors. The School
Administrator, 67(3), 36-37.
Friedman, T.L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the 21st century. New York, NY:
Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
91
Glass, T.E. (2007). Superintendent evaluation: What AASA's study discovered. The School
Administrator, 64(6), 24-26, 28.
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.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional
and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-351.
Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Prichett, R., & Thomas, C. (2007). The new instructional leadership:
Creating data-driven instructional systems in school. Journal of School Leadership, 17,
159-194.
Hancock, M., & Lamendola, B. (2005, March). Learning from urban schools: A leadership
journey. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 74-78.
Harford, T. (2008). The logic of life: The rational economics of an irrational world. New York,
NY: Random House.
Hentschke, G.C., Nayfack, M.B., & Wohlstetter, P. (2009). Exploring superintendent leadership
in smaller urban districts: Does district size influence superintendent behavior?
Education and Urban Society, 41(3), 317-337.
Hentschke, G., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004, Spring-Summer). Cracking the code of accountability.
USC Urban Ed, 17-19.
Hentschke, G., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). K-12 education in a broader privatization context. In
K. Bulkley & L. Fusarelli (Eds.), The politics of privatization in education: The 2007
yearbook of the politics of education association. Published as a special issue of
Educational Policy, 21(1).
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
92
Hord, S. M. (1990). Realizing school improvement through understanding the change process.
Issues About Change, 1(1).
Isaacs, J.B. (2009). International comparisons of economic mobility. In J.B. Isaacs, I.V.
Sawhill, & R. Haskins (Eds.), Getting ahead or losing ground: Economic mobility in
America (pp. 37-44). Washington, DC: The Bookings Institution.
Julius, D., Baldridge, J.V., & Pfeffer, J. (1999). A Memo from Machiavelli. The Journal of
Higher Education, 70(2), 113-133.
Karoly, L.A. (2001). Investing in the future: Reducing poverty through human capital
investments. In S.H. Danziger & R.H. Haveman (Eds.), Understanding poverty (pp. 314-
356). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kowalski, T.J. (2006). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases (2
nd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Levin, H.M., & Belfield, C. (2010). Cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. In
D.J. Brewer & P.J. McEwan (Eds.), Economics of education (pp. 197-201). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
Mac Iver, 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, The Johns Hopkins
University.
Marks, H.M., & Printy, S.M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
Mayer, R.E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
93
Merrill Prentice Hall.
Miles, K.H. (2010). Making strategic resource decisions. In J.E. Adams, Jr. (Ed.), Smart
money: Using educational resources to accomplish ambitious learning goals (pp. 123-
140). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Miller, D.C., Sen, A., Malley, L.B., & Burns, S.D. (2009). Comparative indicators of education
in the United States and other G-8 countries: 2009. Washington, DC: Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
Morris, E. (Producer/Director), Williams, M. (Producer), & Ahlberg, J. (Producer). (2003). The
fog of war: Eleven lessons from the life of Robert S. McNamara [Motion picture].
United States: Sony Pictures Classics.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Petersen, G.J. (2002). Singing the same tune: Principals' and school board members'
perceptions of the superintendent's role as instructional leader. Journal of Educational
Administration, 40(2), 158-171.
Petersen, G. J., Sayre, C., & Kelly, V. (2007, Fall). What teachers think: An investigation of
teachers’ perceptions regarding the superintendent’s influence on instruction and
learning. Instructional Leadership Forum, II, p.1 – 29. [On-line]
http://education.ucsb.edu/Graduate-Studies/Joint-Doc- Educational-Leadership/jdp-
forum07.pdf
Reitzug, U.C., West, D.L., & Angel, R. (2008). Conceptualizing instructional leadership : The
voices of principals. Education and Urban Society, 40(6), 694-714.
Resnick, L., & Hall, M. W. (2003). Principles of learning for effort-based education.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
94
Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to
close the black-white achievement gap. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Sandler, M.R. (2010). Social entrepreneurship in education: Private ventures for the public
good. New York, NY: Rowan & Littlefield Education.
Stronge, J. H. (ed.) (2006). Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best
practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Stufflebeam, D.L. (1995). A conceptual framework for study of superintendent evaluation.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 9, 317-333.
Taylor, L.L. (2010). Economic approaches to school efficiency. In D.J. Brewer & P.J.
McEwan, Economics of education (pp. 208-213). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Thomas, J.Y. (2001). The public school superintendency in the twenty-first century: The quest
to define effective leadership. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of
Students Placed At Risk.
Tilly, W. D. (2006, Winter/Spring). Response to intervention: An overview – What is it? Why
do it? Is it worth it? The Special Edge, 19(2).
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to
improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: Learning First
Alliance.
Trumbell, E., & Pacheco, M. (2005). The teacher’s guide to diversity: Building a knowledge
base. Human Development, Culture, and Cognition, 1, 29-32, 78-111.
Tucker, S. (1996). Benchmarking: A guide for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
95
Valentine, J.W., & Prater, M. (2011). Instructional, transformational, and managerial leadership
and student achievement: High school principals make a difference. NASSP Bulletin,
95(1), 5–30.
Waters, J.T., & Marzano, R.J. (2007). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. Educational Research Service
Spectrum, 25(2), 1-12.
Weiss, J. (2010). Organizing school systems for continuous improvement. In J.E. Adams, Jr.
(Ed.), Smart money: Using educational resources to accomplish ambitious learning
goals (pp. 109-122). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Wohlstetter, P., Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2008). Creating a system for data-driven decision-
making: Applying the principal-agent framework. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 19(3), 239-259.
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
96
Appendix A
Survey Questions
SURVEY INSTRUMENT FOR SUPERINTENDENTS
The following instrument is designed to better understand your district’s instructional vision and
plans as well as your and other stakeholders’ involvement with the creation, implementation, and
evaluation of your district’s instructional programs. Please select the responses that most closely
match with your district’s current practice. The survey should take about 15 minutes to
complete. All of your responses will be kept confidential.
DISTRICT-WIDE REFORM EFFORTS:
1. My district has developed a district-wide instructional plan that includes high
expectations of academic excellence for all students.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
2. I know what my district’s vision is for improving instruction in language arts.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
3. I know what my district’s vision is for improving instruction in math.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
4. I communicate timely information about the district’s instructional programs with all
stakeholders.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
5. I believe that districts should allow school sites to determine how to implement
instruction at their individual schools.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
6. I believe that districts should create a district-wide plan on how instruction will be
implemented at the individual school sites.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
97
7. My leadership style is (select all that apply):
a. Top down
b. Collaborative
c. Hands on
d. Hands off
e. Effective
f. Empowering
8. For each of the following stakeholders, check off which items they participated in (check
all that apply): creation of the district’s instructional VISION, communication of the
district’s instructional VISION, and implementation of the district’s instructional
VISION:
Superintendent
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the district’s instructional VISION
District Level Staff
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the district’s instructional VISION
District Board Members
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the district’s instructional VISION
Principals
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the district’s instructional VISION
Teachers
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the district’s instructional VISION
Students
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the district’s instructional VISION
Parents
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the district’s instructional VISION
Community Members
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the district’s instructional VISION
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP:
1. My district gives regular feedback to schools regarding how to improve instruction at
their school sites.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
98
2. My district collects information/data concerning student achievement.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
3. My district provides its staff with time and resources to reflect on and improve the
district’s past academic performance.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
4. I feel prepared to help improve instruction in my district.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
5. My district does a good job evaluating the effectiveness of its instructional programs.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
6. I believe I am an effective instructional leader who plays an instrumental role in
improving instruction in my district.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
7. My district provides its staff with appropriate on-going training for (select all that apply)
a. Curriculum
b. Instruction
c. Assessment
d. Data Analysis
e. Standards Implementation
f. Personal Professional Growth
8. For each of the following stakeholders, check off which items they participated in (check
all that apply): creation of the district’s instructional PROGRAMS, communication of
the district’s instructional PROGRAMS, and implementation of the district’s
instructional PROGRAMS:
Superintendent
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the district’s instructional PROGRAMS
District Level Staff
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the district’s instructional PROGRAMS
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
99
District Board Members
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the district’s instructional PROGRAMS
Principals
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the district’s instructional PROGRAMS
Teachers
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the district’s instructional PROGRAMS
Students
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the district’s instructional PROGRAMS
Parents
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the district’s instructional PROGRAMS
Community Members
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the district’s instructional PROGRAMS
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP:
1. My district provides opportunities for employees to work together and collaborate to
improve instruction.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
2. My district provides its staff with the resources they need to do their jobs.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
3. I empower my staff to make decisions related to instruction.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
4. I value employee contributions to the district’s instructional programs.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
5. I motivate employees to take pride in producing quality results in student achievement.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
100
6. I recognize and reward positive employee performance related to instruction.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
7. I am able to bring diverse groups of stakeholders together to improve instruction.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
8. My district provides a forum for meeting with and learning from (select all that apply):
a. Superintendent
b. District Level Staff
c. Principals
d. Teachers
e. Students
f. Parents
g. Community Members
h. Educators from Other Districts
i. Educational Consultants and/or Vendors
9. The following individuals play an instrumental role in removing barriers to our schools’
abilities to improve instruction (select all that apply):
a. Superintendent
b. District Level Staff
c. District Board Members
d. Principals
e. Teachers
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION:
1. Your School District: _____________________________________________________
Your School District name will only be seen by the researcher in order to track surveys that were
completed, and it will not be included in the final dissertation. Instead, only pseudonyms (fake
names) will be used when referring to any individual school districts in the final dissertation.
2. Your Title: _____________________________________________________
3. Number of Years in Current Position: _______
4. Gender: Male Female
5. Ethnicity: Caucasian Hispanic/Latino African American Asian Other
6. Age: <30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61+
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
101
Appendix B
Interview Questions
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS MATRIX
Research
Questions
How do
Superintendents define
a district-wide plan for
improving instruction in
Language Arts and
Math?
How do Superintendents
build the capacity of site
level instructional leaders
to implement the chosen
instructional programs?
How do
Superintendents
evaluate the
effectiveness of his/her
instructional
program(s)?
How do Superintendents
mobilize human, social,
and physical capital to
build a coalition of
instructional leaders?
Study
Focus
Areas
District-Wide Reform
Efforts
Instructional Leadership Transformational
Leadership
Interview
Questions
for Super-
intendents
1. What is your
district’s instructional
vision?
2. How do you develop
your district-wide
instructional plan?
Describe the decision-
making process. Is
there a department in
charge of instruction?
What role do you play
in this process?
3. How do you
communicate the
district’s instructional
vision and plans with
your stakeholders?
How do you
communicate your
results and any changes
made?
4. Tell me about your
leadership style. How
do you lead?
5. How much
autonomy do you give
to your staff and school
sites to make
instructionally related
decisions?
6. What do you see is your role as an instructional
leader in your district? What leadership,
management, and supervisory behaviors do you
employ to support instruction in your district?
7. What do you believe are best instructional
practices for language arts and math?
8. What are some instructional trends and
methodologies used in your district that relate to
language arts and math?
9. What are your district’s instructional strengths?
What contributed to these strengths? How will you
assure that these strengths are maintained?
10. What are your district’s instructional
weaknesses? What contributed to these weaknesses
and how do you plan to overcome these weaknesses?
11. How do you build instructional leaders in your
district? Describe your process/procedure for this.
What professional development do you provide?
12. How does your district collect information/data
concerning student achievement? How is this data
disaggregated and decisions made based on this
data?
13. How do you evaluate your district’s instructional
programs? What opportunities are in place for your
staff to reflect on and improve past academic
performance?
14. What is the last new procedure for instruction
that you incorporated into the district? Who was
involved and what were the results?
15. How do you engage
all stakeholders to work
together in the creation
and implementation of the
district’s instructional
plans? Who is involved?
How do you get buy-in,
especially from staff who
are resistant to your plans?
16. How do you build
relationships within the
district? What would we
observe when watching
you work with your staff?
17. Explain your
experience in running
meetings and leading
groups. What does this
look like?
18. What resources do
you allocate for your
district’s instructional
programs? What supports
do you provide to your
schools? What challenges
did you overcome in order
to get the resources you
needed to support your
instructional plans? How
did you overcome these
challenges?
19. How do you motivate
and recognize quality
performance in your
district?
THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF OVERSIGHT
102
Appendix C
Document Collection
DOCUMENT REVIEW MATRIX
Research
Questions
How do
Superintendents define
a district-wide plan for
improving instruction in
Language Arts and
Math?
How do Superintendents
build the capacity of site
level instructional leaders
to implement the chosen
instructional programs?
How do
Superintendents
evaluate the
effectiveness of his/her
instructional
program(s)?
How do Superintendents
mobilize human, social,
and physical capital to
build a coalition of
instructional leaders?
Study
Focus
Areas
District-Wide Reform
Efforts
Instructional Leadership Transformational
Leadership
Evidentiary
Documents
Collected
1. District’s
instructional vision
statement
2. District’s
instructional planning
documents
3. District-wide
professional
development calendars
and agendas
4. District-wide
memos and e-mail
messages regarding
how the district
communicates its
instructional vision,
plans, and programs
with its stakeholders
1. Documents with specific details about the
district’s instructional programs for language arts
and math
2. School site professional development calendars
and agendas
3. Documents regarding the district’s student
achievement results
4. Documents regarding how the district evaluates
its instructional programs
1. Superintendents’
daily/weekly/monthly
schedules
2. Agendas from
meetings led by the
superintendent
3. Copies of the district’s
budget
4. Newspaper articles or
other artifacts (such as
thank you letters and
email messages) about
how the superintendent
met with stakeholders
and/or overcame specific
challenges
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to better understand superintendents’ roles as instructional leaders, especially suburban district superintendents, by analyzing the critical aspects of oversight that suburban superintendents employed to improve instruction in their school districts. More specifically, this study set out to determine: 1) how superintendents define a district-wide plan for improving instruction in language arts and math, 2) how superintendents mobilize human, social, and physical capital to build a coalition of instructional leaders, 3) how superintendents build the capacity of site-level instructional leaders to implement the chosen instructional programs district-wide, and 4) how superintendents evaluate the effectiveness of their instructional programs. This study implemented a mixed-methods approach in which 33 Southern California suburban district superintendents completed a survey, four of these surveyed superintendents also participated in a structured interview, and additionally, the four interviewed superintendents provided relevant district documents that were analyzed as part of a document review. Through the process of triangulation, the study’s findings indicate that suburban superintendents whose districts increased student achievement in language arts and math over a three-year period implemented a collaborative, hands-on, and empowering leadership style that involved multiple stakeholders with the creation, communication, and implementation of the districts’ instructional vision and programs. These superintendents also made it a priority to provide their staff with the resources and professional development needed to implement their districts’ instructional initiatives, and their districts regularly analyzed data to evaluate the effectiveness of their instructional programs. Overall, this study provides hope for superintendents that they can play a valuable role in improving instruction in their districts.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The evolution of superintendents as instructional leaders: past, present, and future
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Leadership characteristics, practices and board perceptions that support superintendent longevity in suburban school districts: a case study
PDF
Getting to the Core: an examination into the resources, strategies and skills superintendents employed as they implemented the Common Core state standards and the politics in play
PDF
Effective strategies that urban superintendents use that improve the academic achievement for African-American males
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
The secondary school principal's role as instructional leader in teacher professional development
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
An examination of traditional versus non-traditional superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve student achievement
PDF
Superintendents' viewpoint of the role stakeholders can play in improving student achievement
PDF
The sustainability of superintendent-led reforms to improve student achievement
PDF
Superintendent stewardship in California school districts with continuously-improving API scores: reflections on the act of leadership
PDF
Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals
PDF
Strategies California superintendents use to implement 21st century skills programs
PDF
A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st century skills
PDF
A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st century skills
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st -century skills
PDF
Strategies employed by successful superintendents and boards of education resulting in increased student achievement
PDF
Strategies employed by successful urban superintendents responding to demands for student achievement reform
Asset Metadata
Creator
Palisoc, Margaret J.
(author)
Core Title
The critical aspects of oversight that suburban superintendents, as instructional leaders, must employ to improve instruction
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/05/2013
Defense Date
02/25/2013
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Education,instructional leaders,K-12,OAI-PMH Harvest,suburban districts,superintendents
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy Max (
committee chair
), García, Pedro Enrique (
committee member
), Marsh, David D. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
margaretpalisoc@gmail.com,palisoc@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-230775
Unique identifier
UC11295016
Identifier
usctheses-c3-230775 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-PalisocMar-1516.pdf
Dmrecord
230775
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Palisoc, Margaret J.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
instructional leaders
K-12
suburban districts
superintendents