University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

(USC Thesis Other)

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

1
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY K-12 URBAN
SUPERINTENDENTS TO IMPROVE THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
by
Gretchen Janson
____________________________________________________________________
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 2014

Copyright 2014 Gretchen Janson
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

2
Acknowledgements
The guidance, encouragement, and inspiration of several individuals shaped
this work and assisted me in completing the dissertation process. It is with sincere
appreciation that I first acknowledge the wisdom and leadership of my dissertation
chair, Dr. Rudy Castruita, and my committee members, Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr.
John Roach. Their experience and knowledge proved to be paramount and their
insights added depth to the findings that are contained herein. Their commitment to
quality education for all students proved motivating in this work.
I must give thanks to my writing partners, Tiffani Curtis, Raul Ramirez, and
Charles D. Smith. We worked tirelessly together and challenged each other
throughout this process. The synergistic nature of our work helped me to cull critical
concepts and become both a better researcher and a better educator.
Without the love and encouragement of my family, the completion of this
dissertation would not have been possible. This work is as much theirs as it is mine.
My parents, Dr. Karl Enockson and Mary Lou Enockson, are appreciated for
motivating me to continually strive for greater accomplishments in life and for being
a source of constant support. My husband, Rich Janson, has been my rock through
the entire process and his unwavering commitment to me and to my work has been
invaluable. And my children, Emma, Matthew, and William, are truly my font of
inspiration. I hope to have modeled a passion of life-long learning and continued
personal improvement that persists with them throughout their lives.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2

List of Tables 6

Abstract 7

Chapter One: Overview of the Study 9
Introduction 9
Statement of the Problem 13
Purpose of the Study 14
Research Questions 15
Significance of the Study 15
Assumptions 16
Limitations 16
Delimitations 17
Definition of Terms 17

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 20
Introduction 20
The Role of the Superintendent 22
Leadership Theoretical Framework 25
Equity and Access for English Language Learners 29
Creating a Collaborative Culture 33
Building Leadership Capacity 36
Conclusion 38

Chapter Three: Methodology 40
Introduction 40
Purpose of the Study 41
Research Questions 42
Rationale for Mixed-Methods Study Design 43
Research Design 44
Sample and Population 44
Instrument Validity 45
Instrumentation 45
Quantitative Instrumentation 46
Qualitative Instrumentation 47
Data Collection 47
Quantitative Data Collection 48
Qualitative Data Collection 48
Data Analysis 49
Quantitative Data Analysis 49
Qualitative Data Analysis 49
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

4
Summary 50

Chapter Four: Results 51
Introduction 51
Purpose 52
Response Rate 52
Quantitative Demographic Data 53
Qualitative Demographic Data 59
Research Question One 62
Teacher Expectations for ELL Performance 64
Access to Highly Qualified Teachers 65
Instructional Leadership 66
Research Question Two 68
Teachers 70
District Level Personnel 71
School Level Administrators 72
Research Question Three 75
High Expectations for Student Achievement 78
Clearly Defined District Wide Academic Goals for 79
ELL Students
On-site Teacher Collaboration 80
Research Question Four 81
Valid and Reliable Assessment Instruments 83
Analysis of Subgroup Assessment Data 84
Established Instructional Norms 85
Summary 87

Chapter Five: Conclusion 89
Introduction 89
Statement of the Problem 90
Purpose of the Study 91
Research Questions 91
Review of the Literature 91
Methodology 93
Findings 94
Implications 97
Recommendations for Future Study 98
Conclusion 100

References 101
Appendices 108
Appendix A: Research Question/Instrument Connection 108
Appendix B: Survey Instrument 113
Appendix C: Interview Protocol 117
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

5
Appendix D: Survey Cover Letter 119
Appendix E: Proposed Interview Letter 120
Appendix F: Information Letter 121

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

6
List of Tables
Table 1: Quantitative Survey: Response Rate 55
Table 2: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Gender 56
Table 3: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Ethnicity 57
Table 4: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Age 58
Table 5: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Education 58
Table 6: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Experience in Current 59
District
Table 7: Quantitative Survey: Overall Superintendent Experience 60
Table 8: Quantitative Survey: District Characteristics 61
Table 9: Qualitative Interview: Characteristics for Superintendents 63
and Districts
Table 10: Superintendent Rating of Factors that are Important in 66
ELL Academic Achievement
Table 11: Superintendent Rating of Stakeholder Importance in ELL 73
Academic Decisions
Table 12: Superintendent Rating of Factors that are Important in 79
Implementing Plans to Improve ELL Academic Achievement
Table 13: Superintendent Rating of Factors that are Important in 86
Monitoring and Evaluating the Plans to Improve ELL
Academic Achievement

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

7
Abstract
The superintendents of large, urban K-12 school districts in California have
been charged with improving academic outcomes for the growing subgroup of
students classified as English language learners (ELL). Pressures from both internal
and external sources have shaped this charge. The evolving role of the
superintendent demands an increase in involvement with instructional programs that
are implemented in support of high needs student subgroups, including ELL
students. Superintendents’ focus has shifted from one of management to one of
instructional leadership, as this leader is now more directly held accountable for
student achievement. This shift in positional expectation has proved to be
challenging for superintendents and an achievement gap persists for ELL students in
California despite the effort that has been expended in support of this group of
students.
This study utilized a mixed-methods design to answer four research questions
related to superintendent leadership and ELL academic achievement. Data was
collected via a quantitative survey of 14 superintendents and qualitative interviews of
eight superintendents. This data was used to support the four research findings.
First, factors that superintendents consider in the development of plans to
support ELL students are teacher expectations, access to highly qualified teachers,
and the importance of instructional leadership. Second, superintendents believe the
critical stakeholders that should be included in decisions about supporting the ELL
student subgroup are teachers, district level personnel, and school level
superintendents. Third, the strategies superintendents consider when executing plans
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

8
to improve the academic achievement of ELL students are establishing high
expectations for student achievement, developing clearly defined district wide
academic goals for ELL students, and structuring on-site teacher collaboration. And
fourth, the strategies that superintendents use to monitor and evaluate ELL academic
achievement include using valid and reliable assessment instruments, analyzing
subgroup assessment data, and establishing instructional norms.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

9
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
The pressure facing public school systems in the United States continues to
increase. Brought to the forefront more than 30 years ago in A Nation at Risk penned
by Denner (1983), school leaders at all levels are being asked to address a growing
global achievement gap to ensure the nation’s economic viability. This gap
demonstrates that American schools are not producing success at the same levels as
global competitors. Results from international exams solidify this mounting concern.
High school age students tested in 2006 we far outperformed by competing countries
in literacy, mathematics, and science (Schneider, 2009). It can be posited that if
American students do not possess the skills needed for employment upon completion
of compulsory education, the United States may not be able to effectively compete in
the global economy (Schmidt & McKnight, 1998). School leaders are obligated to
address this concern to ensure the nation’s future economic viability.
When considering academic achievement in the United States, a significant
population whose needs must be addressed is the group of students designated as
English language learners (ELL). Between 1996 and 2006, the nation’s K-12 ELL
population rose by over 60 percent while the size of the overall student population
remained essentially unchanged (ARRA, 2009). The proportion of ELL school
children has increased from 6.8 percent of the total K-12 school population in 1995-
96 to 10.3 percent in 2005-2006 (ARRA, 2009). The immigration of non-English
speaking students continues to increase and these students are arriving at the nation’s
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

10
schools with fewer academic skills (Contreras, 2002). In the state of California, one
in every four students is classified as ELL (Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly, &
Callahan, 2003).
Married with this population growth is an inadequate response by school
leaders to address the unique needs of these students and capitalize on their assets.
90% of ELL students were unable to earn a proficient score on the English Language
Arts portion of the 2004 California Standards Test (Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly,
Driscoll, 2005). 61% of ELL students were unable to pass the English Language Arts
portion of the 2004 California High School Exit Exam (Gándara, et al., 2005).
Resting on the shoulders of the superintendents of large, urban school districts is the
need to ensure adequate support for these students.
Obstacles that face the superintendents of large, urban school districts
continue to expand and evolve, making the path to success more challenging. These
superintendents are facing changing student demographics, yet have not been
provided with the necessary tools to ensure high achievement for all. From 1989 to
2009, the number of Caucasian/White students in public schools in the United States
has decreased from 68% to 55%. Moreover, the Hispanic/Latino population has seen
a dramatic increase from 11% to 22% (National Center for Education Statistics,
2011). The leaders of large urban school districts now must be prepared to address
the needs of an increasingly heterogeneous student population (Center for
Continuing Study of the California Economy, 2005).
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

11
While working to build a strong foundation for student success, the leaders of
large, urban school districts must also navigate a barrage of recurring political
pressures. Demands exist with increased media reporting of standardized testing
information. Superintendents are faced with challenges when questions arise in the
community about dissatisfaction with published score reports (Mountford, 2004).
Elected school board members demand increased student achievement and make
determinations about the termination or retention of superintendents based on student
success rates. The longevity of the superintendents of large urban school districts
belies the political challenges that exist. Superintendent tenure is a persistent
problem in relation to student achievement. The average urban superintendent only
holds his/her post for an average of 2.33 years (Yee & Cuban, 1996). Pressures from
external and internal entities often lead to the removal of superintendents or their
decision to move on to less challenging endeavors (Yee & Cuban, 1996).
At the forefront of the myriad of pressures facing urban school leaders is the
increased focus on bureaucratic accountability for student outcomes. The No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was part of a growing educational policy shift that
aimed to use pressure on school districts in an effort to improve their efficiency,
equity, and effectiveness (Lauen & Gaddis, 2012; Daly, Der-Martirosian, Ong-Dean,
Park, & Wishard-Guerra, 2011). At the heart of the NCLB Act is a belief that all
students can learn and possess the ability to succeed, when the instruction they
receive is of high quality (Borkowski & Sneed, 2006). While educators may agree
that this is an important first tenet in a school reform system, the changing
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

12
regulations and lack of effective financial support have left schools unfairly saddled
with sanctions that do not assist in making improvements (Borkowski & Sneed,
2006).
Under the NCLB Act, the assessment results of all students are monitored
closely. The students are analyzed not only collectively, but also by numerically
significant subgroup. Students are grouped by ethnicity, language proficiency, socio-
economic status, and special education needs (Borkowski & Sneed, 2006). When
schools or districts do not meet Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) across one or more of
these subgroups they are placed in Program Improvement. Sanctions of increasing
severity are placed on these entities. Superintendents must manage the broad
requirements set forth by the law. These sanctions include offering School Choice to
another local campus with higher assessment results, offering to pay for
Supplemental Educational Services (SES) at outside agencies, and making the
determination to restructure the staff at schools which post persistently poor test
scores (Borkowski & Sneed, 2006). These are all sanctions that come at a high cost
to superintendents, both financially and politically.
The superintendents of large, urban school districts are thus impelled to
ensure the academic success of their student bodies. Their actions must be aligned
with the accomplishments of their students. While these leaders may be logistically
removed from the classrooms with students, it does not mean that their daily actions
will not make an impact at that level. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) found
a statistically significant relationship between the actions district office level
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

13
leadership and student achievement. These researchers noted that specific steps taken
by leaders could make an impact at the student level. Also important to note, it was
determined that there existed a positive correlation between superintendent tenure
and student achievement (Marzano, et. al, 2005). As superintendents were afforded
more time to implement and foster change in instructional practices over the long
term, their students began to demonstrate improvement.
The role of instructional leader has been a shift in perspective in relation to
the superintendent role. The initial intent of the superintendent position was more of
a professional buffer to the political forces that met a school district (Bjork & Lindle,
2001). Merely managing the political challenges of a school district is no longer
sufficient for a modern superintendent. This leader must demonstrate that he/she
possesses a strong knowledge of how to propel students forward academically
(Bredeson, Klar, & Johansson, 2007). These leaders must demonstrate that they have
an understanding of what it takes to make students successful. They must then ensure
that they allocate resources and place priorities on the actions that mean the most for
students.
Statement of the Problem
The increasing focus on accountability for student academic outcomes has
placed a spotlight on the need for school leaders to improve student academic
achievement. Compounding layers of pressure have formed across all levels of
school leadership in this regard including the NCLB Act, political forces, public
opinion, the involvement of the Office of Civil Rights, and demands from parent
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

14
groups. Superintendents must navigate this challenging terrain. They are required to
ensure that all student groups are acquiring the knowledge needed to pass high stakes
standardized exams and, ultimately, become educated and employable members of
their communities.
One numerically significant student group that is of particular concern to the
leaders of large urban K-12 school districts is the group that has been classified as
ELL. A distinct achievement gap persists between ELL students and their native
English-speaking peers (CDE, 2010). Despite the external demands to improve the
academic performance of ELL students, limited information can be found in the
literature to direct the superintendents of large urban school districts to the strategies
they may employ to ensure that these students are successful. An analysis of the
literature provided an abundance of information directed at teachers and school site
leadership regarding the support of ELL students. Yet, a dearth of research exists at
the superintendent level.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to ascertain the superintendent leadership
strategies that positively impact the academic achievement of students identified as
ELL in large urban K-12 school districts. Specifically, the study considered the
approaches employed by superintendents in developing, implementing, and
monitoring improvements to ELL student academic outcomes.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

15
Research Questions
The following questions guided this study:
1. What factors do urban superintendents consider when developing strategies
to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners?
2. Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban superintendents to assist
in improving the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners?
3. What strategies do urban superintendents execute when implementing plans
to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners?
4. What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor and evaluate the
academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?

Significance of the Study
This study adds to the body of scholarly literature by identifying the
strategies used by the superintendents of large, urban superintendents to increase the
academic achievement of ELL students. It provides guidance to current or aspiring
superintendents in designing and implementing plans to increase student
achievement. Additionally, school boards seeking to develop criteria to assess the
performance of superintendents could utilize this information.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

16
The findings included here have the potential to provide much-needed
guidance to superintendents who are in training. They may use this information to be
better equipped to meet the challenge of increasing the academic achievement of
ELL students. The study may serve to provide guidance to district and school-level
staff working to support the implementation of instructional reform plans.
Assumptions
The study assumed the following:
1. Superintendent leadership can impact student achievement.
2. Superintendents can identify and communicate strategies used to improve
student achievement.
3. The chosen procedures and methods are appropriate.
4. The information gathered will sufficiently address the research questions.

Limitations
The study included the following limitations:
1. The validity of the data was reliant upon the chosen instruments of
measurement.
2. Inherent challenges to the isolation of specific leadership strategies that
impact student achievement from other variables.
3. The ability or willingness of superintendents to provide accurate
responses.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

17
4. The ability to gain access to superintendents of large, urban school
districts.
Delimitations
The delimitations of this study were:
1. Data collection was limited to urban superintendents in California with
student populations of more than 20,000.
2. Districts serve populations with at least 20% ELL students.
3. Interviews were limited to three urban superintendents.
Definition of Terms
Academic Performance Index: Comprehensive annual measurement of the
academic performance of individual schools and districts in California
Academic achievement: Quantifiable mastery of grade level standards as
measured by mandated annual standardized tests
Accountability: A means by which to monitor the implementation and
effectiveness of an agreement between a director and a provider
Achievement gap: Disparity in achievement among various groups of
students
Adequate Yearly Progress: A federal measure of students meeting or
exceeding “proficient” status on mandated annual standardized tests in
English language arts and mathematics
Assessments: Tools to measure student achievement
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

18
At-risk students: Minority students, students who are learning English as a
second language, and students from families with low socio-economic status
California High School Exit Exam: Exam that California students must pass
to earn a high school diploma
California Standards Test: Annual standardized summative exam given to
California students in grades 2-11
California English Language Development Test: Annual standardized
summative exam given to all California students in grades K-12 designated as
English language learners
English language learners: Students from families that report that a language
other than English is spoken in the home
Global economy: Interdependent economies of the world’s nations
Instructional leadership: Leadership style that generates both the will and the
capacity for student achievement improvements within an institution
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: The most recent reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act that ushered in an era of federal
accountability
Program Improvement: A status assigned to schools that fail to meet federal
student achievement targets for two consecutive years under the provisions of
NCLB
Sanctions: Penalties designed to encourage compliance
School Accountability Report Card: Annual public disclosure of school-level
data
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

19
School Choice: A sanction in NCLB that allows families to select another
campus within the district
Stakeholders: Individuals and groups that occupy formal and informal roles
within an organization
Subgroup: An identifiable group of students within a student population
Superintendent: The highest-ranking administrator in a district
Supplemental Educational Services: Services paid for by the district to
outside educational entities
Teacher expectations: A set of predetermined beliefs that a teacher holds
about the potential students have for academic success
Urban schools: Schools serving a disproportionate number of at-risk students

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

20
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Accountability demands for improved academic outcomes for all students
continue to intensify. These demands are particularly cogent in relation to a growing
subgroups of students classified as English language learners (ELLs). As such, the
pressure placed upon urban superintendents to closely guide and monitor the
instructional programs of their schools also mounts (Lauen & Gaddis, 2012). As the
ELL student subgroup grows in the United States (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2011), the unique needs of these students must be at the forefront of daily
instructional leadership decisions made. Significant gaps exist between ELL students
and their native English-speaking counterparts (Gándara, et al., 2005). The current
K-12 education system is not sufficiently supporting these students to ensure their
success. Without the significant academic accomplishment of this burgeoning
student subgroup, the United States will struggle to compete in the future global
marketplace (Schmidt & McKnight, 1998).
Of the myriad of burdens faced by the superintendents of large, urban K-12
school districts, the direct bureaucratic accountability that is mandated by NCLB
may be the most clearly challenging. This legislation is considered a distinct impetus
for school leaders to improve the academic performance of all students, with a
focused emphasis on ELL students (Borkowski & Sneed, 2006). If this significant
subgroup of students is ignored and their needs are not met, schools face a
progressively severe series of sanctions. While criticisms of the NCLB Act abound,
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

21
this may be considered one positive aspect of this challenged document. The direct
focus on improving the success rates of traditionally underserved populations has
directly aligned the interests of school district leaders with the academic achievement
of these students (Borkowski & Sneed, 2006; Hentschke, Nayfact, & Wohlstetter,
2004).
The review of literature that follows concentrates on existing research that
defines superintendent leadership strategies that can be utilized to ensure the
adequate and effective support of ELL students. This review comprises vital
background information, contextual understanding within an existing theoretical
framework, and a review of the common themes discovered that outline potentially
promising practices. The background and contextual information focus on the two
significant stakeholders addressed in this study. First, the role of superintendent is
reviewed. Historical information about the transformation of that position is
highlighted and concerns with tenure are noted. Next, a comprehensive analysis of
the plight of ELL students is outlined. Issues of equity and access in relation to this
specific population are considered.
The literature suggests that to increase positive academic outcomes for ELL
students, superintendents must focus their attention to these students and the
practices that are most likely to lead to increased student achievement. A
comprehensive review of existing literature meted out key themes that may likely
build the foundation necessary to ensure academic success for K-12 ELL students in
large urban districts. These key themes are: (a) addressing ELL equity and access in
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

22
education, (b) creating a collaborative district and school culture, and (c) building
capacity across all levels of leadership.
The Role of Superintendent
In an analysis of superintendent leadership strategies employed to improve
student academic achievement, it is critical to fully understand the unique role of a
superintendent. The information uncovered in a review of current literature
demonstrates that two distinct aspects of this leadership position have molded the
present-day job duties and expectations. The research serves as confirmation that this
is a position that has seen a distinct shift in expected standards. The superintendent is
now required to primarily serve as an instructional leader who guides the day-to-day
educational programs (Kowalski, 2013; Lewis, Rice, & Rice, 2011; Byrd, Drews, &
Johnson, 2007; Bredeson & Kose, 2007; Marzano, et al., 2005). Another important
aspect noted in the literature is the challenges that come with superintendent tenure
(Pascopella, 2011; Yee & Cuban, 1996). Superintendents are being afforded shorter
amounts of time to make significant academic improvements in their districts. This
challenge is more pronounced when considering the superintendents of large, urban
school districts (Pascopella, 2011; Yee & Cuban, 1996). These superintendents are
expected to make immediate and drastic improvements in relation to student
academic achievement.
The direct connection to of classroom instruction is a relatively new
expectation of superintendents (Marzano, et al., 2005). This is a position that has
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

23
dramatically evolved in tandem with new school and district accountability systems.
Kowalski (2013) notes that the superintendent position has seen four phases of
transitioning expectations. He sets the most current role as possessing the greatest
challenge. This author sees that the role of superintendent has evolved from a teacher
of teachers, to a manager, to a statesman, and to now an applied social scientist. The
roles of manager and statesman more aptly fit the position of superintendent prior to
the implementation of the NCLB Act. This position’s duties largely consisted of
general oversight and attendance at symbolic or significant events (Lewis, et al.,
2001). The position was more of a figurehead who delegated and monitored from a
position of ultimate authority (Byrd, et al., 2007). The superintendent is expected to
be an instructional leader. This leader is required to deftly research and propose new
instructional techniques, monitor their implementation, gauge their effectiveness, and
then determine whether or not these techniques are positively impactful for students
and merit sustainment.
The work of Marzano, et al. (2005) echoes the move toward superintendents’
instructional leadership. In surveying to determine the traits of effective school
leaders, both the knowledge of and the involvement in curriculum, instruction and
assessment rank as statistically significant for current superintendents (Marzano, et
al., 2005). The shift in federal and state assessment systems can be viewed as the
impetus for this change in job expectancy. The change in the expectations for
districts laid out in the NCLB Act has led to distinct adjustments to the opinions of
the public, the media, and school boards, when considering the qualities needed in a
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

24
superintendent (Lauen & Gaddis, 2012). In searching for a new superintendent, it is
now expected that a candidate have a strong background in instruction and
curriculum in order to gracefully command the reins as a district’s ultimate
instructional leader. New prospective candidates for this position are certain to face
numerous interview questions about this topic and will be expected to speak
thoughtfully and intentionally to the instructional plans to be implemented in support
of improved student academic achievement (Borkowski & Sneed, 2006). Those
already in the position must work to improve their knowledge of reforms to improve
student outcomes. The pressure to raise test scores is often heightened by the threat
of contract dissolution if NCLB requirements are not met (Borkowski & Sneed,
2006).
Coupled with the mounting pressure on superintendents to improve student
academic achievement is the shortened tenure during which they are given the
chance to make these improvements (Yee & Cuban, 1996). As superintendents are
seeing the expectations for their position change, they are also being provided a
shorter amount of time to do this. In studying the superintendents of large, urban
school districts, this is particularly noteworthy. These leaders experience an average
tenure of approximately 2.33 years (Yee & Cuban, 1996). They are often removed
from their positions by school boards who are dissatisfied with performance.
Superintendents also self-select to leave positions because of the intense internal and
external pressures to improve academic achievement, yet keep all stakeholders
satisfied (Byrd, et al., 2007). The current pressures heaped upon superintendents
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

25
under current public and bureaucratic pressures have brought about concerns that
there may result a lack of individuals willing to take on this position. Support and
guidance is needed to assist able leaders toward success in this position (Byrd, et al.,
2007).
The literature also bears out that superintendents are not being provided
sufficient time to make improvements and that this may be the cause of deficient
student achievement. The “revolving door” of superintendents that is coined by Yee
and Cuban (1996) can lead to low teacher morale and a lack of district vision. These
factors, in turn lessen the chance for effective and sustaining reforms to take hold.
As reflected in the literature, the evolution of job expectations for
superintendents has ensured that these leaders put student academic achievement and
instructional leadership at the forefront of their daily work. Negligence in doing so
will result in negative public perceptions and a shorter tenure. As such, this topic of
this study will build to the scholarly body of knowledge that may assist in guiding
future superintendents when working to support the growing population of ELL
students.
Leadership Theoretical Framework
This study will analyze the leadership strategies utilized by urban
superintendents through the theoretical framework of the four frames of leadership
defined by Bolman and Deal (2008). These researchers noted the need for successful
leaders to consider all aspects of their jobs through these four lenses. In an effort to
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

26
build a strong foundation for this study, a brief review of these frames follows.
Common themes found in the literature are then connected to these four frames.
Effective leaders may use a number of these approaches at the same time (Bolman &
Deal, 2008).
In working to ensure success in an organization, one of the first frames
Bolman and Deal (2008) suggest utilizing is the structural frame. A leader guiding
from the perspective of this frame moves to design and then implement a process, or
structure, appropriate to the problem and the circumstances. The structured leader
defines clear organizational standards. All members of a structured leader’s
organization understand the rules and expectations by which they will be judged.
Plainly demarcated goals are set with the intent of greater productivity. Goals not
only need to be clear to all, but also must be achievable to ensure a willingness to
work toward them. Leading through Bolman and Deal’s (2008) structural frame
means that leaders know how to manage the external environment for the benefit of
their organization. Structured leaders ensure that procedures and routines and
arranged that combat negativity or distractive input. These leaders clarify lines of
authority and maintain focus on the tasks and the facts. Logic prevails as the guiding
voice, not personality and emotions. The authors implore leaders to align their
structures with the work they hope to accomplish.
Bolman and Deal (2008) identify the political frame as an additional
perspective to consider when leading an organization. The political leader
understands the political reality of organizations. This leader considers all relevant
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

27
internal and external political inputs. Political history is considered. A political
leader understands how important interest groups and key stakeholder groups are.
The political frame directs a leader to consider the special agendas of all groups. This
leader understands and prepares for conflict and limited resources. This leader
recognizes major constituencies and develops ties to their leadership. Conflict is
managed as this leader builds power bases and uses power carefully. The leader
creates arenas for negotiating differences and coming up with reasonable
compromises. This leader also works at articulating what different groups have in
common and helps to identify external pressures for groups to address together
(Bolman & Deal, 2008). The political leader understands the value in building
relationships and empowering self to accomplish goals and effectively enact reforms.
A leader working within a school organization must also be keenly aware of
the human resource frame (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Schools and school districts
employ people to support and serve other people. Understanding how to effectively
manage human capital for the benefit of the organization is critical to school success.
All potential concerns must be considered through the human resource frame. The
human resource-focused leader views people as the heart of the organization. This
leader attempts to be responsive to human needs and goals to gain critical
commitment and loyalty. The emphasis must be on support and empowerment. The
leader who is aware of the human resource frame listens well and communicates
personal warmth and openness. This leader empowers people through participation
and attempts to gain the resources people need to do a job well. These leaders
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

28
confront poor performance when necessary, but employ a supportive stance when
working with staff members. This approach is particularly appropriate when
employee morale is low or declining (Bolman & Deal, 2008). If considering plans to
improve low student academic achievement, a superintendent would benefit by an
analysis of the potential barriers through the human resources frame.
Bolman and Deal (2008) find that a potential less tangible, yet equally
essential leadership frame is the symbolic frame. This frame directs leaders to
consider the culture, rituals, and beliefs deeply ingrained within an organization. It
implores leaders to not only understand this critical foundation of an organization,
but to also work to cultivate shared values and meanings among the organization’s
members. This leader views vision and inspiration as critical; people need something
to believe in. People will demonstrate loyalty to an organization that has a unique
identity and makes them feel that what they do is really important. Symbolism and
ceremony are considered in an effort to communicate a sense of organizational
mission. Symbolically centered leaders tend to be very visible and energetic. They
manage by walking around and being present. Often these leaders rely heavily on
organizational traditions and values as a base for building a common vision and
culture. This helps to build cohesiveness and meaning (Bolman & Deal, 2008). As
superintendents work to support improved academic achievement in their districts, it
appears critical that any obstacle in the way of success should be considered through
the symbolic frame.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

29
A review of current literature focused on leadership skills needed to support
ELL students will follow. These four frames will serve as the theoretical background
through which the literature will be reviewed. Connections the four frames will be
made throughout.
Equity and Access for English Language Learners
In an analysis of current research relating to the academic achievement of
ELL students, an overarching theme of deficient educational equity and access for
this student subgroup was evident. A report from state agencies in 41 states shows
that only 18.7 percent of ELL students are meeting expected state norms for reading
in English. Dropout rates for these students continue to remain higher than their
native English-speaking peers (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, & Saunders, 2005). The
need for educational leaders to effectively tackle this deficit is addressed throughout
the literature. Superintendents must not only know that this gap exists, but must be
willing to work to adjust existing barriers in their districts and shape policies that
help to improve equity and access for this historically marginalized group (Abeli &
Gándara, 2006).
The literature first leads educational leaders and reformers to understand that
the assessments by which the government is gauging the academic performance of
ELL students could be considered unfair and ineffective. Abeti & Gándara (2007)
posit that traditional standardized assessments that are required under the NCLB Act
could be considered invalid in their ability to accurate assess ELL students. The
linguistic complexity of these assessments is considered a barrier for second
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

30
language learners (Harris, 2012; Bunch, 2011). The assessment results could be
judged to be invalid as ELL students may not possess the linguistic abilities to
accurately demonstrate their complex understandings on these multiple choice
assessments (Abedi & Gándara, 2006; August & Shanahan, 2006; Genesee, et al.,
2005; Gándara, et al., 2003).
Suggestions to educational leaders hoping to combat this significant concern
include the need to promote awareness and to advocate for improvements to the
existing assessment system. The superintendents of large, urban school districts need
to ensure that staff members understand the fallibility of the assessments in
connection with the ELL population. Leaders need to require high expectations for
ELL students. Teachers must not blame ELL students for their poor assessment
performance (Abedi & Gándara, 2006). The district leader uses the structural frame
when the tone is set for expectations. When staff members have clear structural
expectations and are better informed about the causes of the poor assessment results,
efforts may be more effectively directed. Leaders are also expected to use the
political frame as they are called on to advocate for the plight of ELL students and
ineffective assessment (Abedi & Gándara, 2006; Genesee et al., 2005; Gándara et al.,
2003). Suggestions include district development of more appropriate common
benchmark assessments that more accurately gauge the learning of the ELL
population (Abedi & Gándara, 2006). The following common theme found in the
literature relating to ELL students could be driven by the poor test performance
outlined above. School staff perceptions that ELL students cannot succeed
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

31
academically could be the result of overwhelmingly poor performance on poorly
designed tests. Teachers of ELL students often cite their ELL status as the reason
why they are not achieving academically (August & Shanahan, 2006; Abedi &
Gándara, 2006; Gándara, et al., 2003). Teachers report beliefs and attitudes that
demonstrate that they are ill equipped to respond to cultural diversity in their
classrooms (Darling-Hammond, 2007; August & Shanahan, 2006; Abedi & Gándara,
2006). Effective professional development has not been provided to ensure that staff
members hold high regard for the abilities of all students. Teachers have not been
properly trained in the strategies needed to support a culturally diverse group of
students and capitalize on the abilities that they bring to the classroom (Darling-
Hammond, 2007; August & Shanahan, 2006; Abedi & Gándara, 2006). Cultivation
of the human resources frame would enhance the human capital upon which to build.
The existing literature implores urban superintendents to serve as the model
for high expectations for all students. Serving with the consideration of being a role
model connects to a leader’s symbolic frame as defined by Bolman and Deal (2008).
Coupled with informing the teaching staff about the inadequacies of the standardized
assessment systems must be the imperative to ensure that students are being
academically successful and intellectually challenged (Abedi & Gándara, 2006;
Gándara & Rumberger, 2002). Even if this group of students is scoring poorly on
standardized assessments, their abilities need to be respected and cultivated. Urban
superintendents need to be prepared to design and provide professional development
to staff members regarding the support of the ELL population. Appropriate respect
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

32
for and response to cultural diversity needs to be addressed with the teaching staff
(August & Shanahan, 2006). Measureable improvements need to be made to the
instructional programs in districts serving ELL students. Superintendents are
implored to make the improved instructional program for ELL students a top priority
(Darling-Hammond, 2007; Abedi & Gándara, 2006; Gándara & Rumberger, 2002).
In considering the literature reviewing the appropriate access and equity to a
high quality education for ELL students, inequitable resource allocation is a common
theme. The research bears out that ELL students have traditionally received fewer
resources than their native English-speaking peers. Limited or deficient resources for
ELL students that are cited include a less qualified teaching staff, lack of sufficient
high-quality instructional materials, physical segregation from native English-
speaking peers, and poorly maintained campuses (Abedi & Gándara, 2006; Genesee,
2005; Gándara & Rumbeger, 2002).
As the leading force of a school district, the superintendent must be entreated
to impacting this misalignment in resource allocation. In order to effectively support
the ELL population and make significant academic changes, the district resources
must be aligned to the needs of these students (Gándara, et al., 2003).
Superintendents must work to get the best teachers in positions to serve ELL
students. Effective leaders are those who take the risks involved in transferring high-
quality, well-trained teachers from sites with low ELL populations to those with
higher populations. When given the opportunity to hire new teachers, specific
considerations are made to seeking out staff members with culturally responsive
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

33
teaching styles that may best match the needs of ELL students (August & Shanahan,
2005). Regular checks of sufficient instructional materials must be mandated.
Superintendents who want to ensure success for ELL students will make equal
material distribution a priority. Considerations for integration with native English-
speaking peers will be made. Effective superintendents ensure that classes and
groups will be mixed with a varied level of English knowledge to ensure that ELL
students have multiple exposures to English and to ensure that they receive the same
quality education as all other populations (Gándara, et al., 2003). At the district level,
reviews should be made of classroom grouping to ensure this edict is adhered to. The
superintendent also must oversee the maintenance of all district facilities.
Superintendents hoping to improve the performance of ELL students should closely
review and analyze the preservation of the campuses that predominately house these
students. Ensuring clean and well-maintained facilities for these students may be the
first step in ensuring their academic success (Gándara, et al., 2003).
Creating a Collaborative Culture
An analysis of the literature also bears out the importance of creating a
culture of collaboration and data sharing in making impactful improvements to the
academic outcomes of students (Dolph & Grant, 2010; Williams, Tabernik, &
Krivak, 2009; Waters & Marzano, 2007; Fullan, Bertani, & Quinn, 2004; Peterson,
1999; Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994). Superintendents will need to
access all four theoretical frames of leadership when working with staff members to
cultivate a shared vision, set achievable goals, and maintain a system by which to
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

34
collaboratively monitor student success.
One of the most frequently referenced successful collaborative practices cited
in the literature review is the creation of collaborative goals. When goals are created
in a team environment, each member of the team is more willing to take ownership
of those goals and work to ensure that they are met. The existing research shows that
schools in which goals are collaboratively developed have a higher rate of student
success (Dolph & Grant, 2010; Williams, et al., 2009; Waters & Marzano, 2006;
Peterson, 1999). In working toward improving student academic achievement, clear
goals must be created. Some of those goals are already created for educators through
bureaucratic accountability, such as the requirements set forth by the NCLB Act. But
superintendents can work with their school staffs to create interim and site specific
goals collaboratively. The development of collaborative goals accesses both the
structural and symbolic frames. The measurable and defined goals ensure that there
is structure to the tasks that are being completed. The inclusion of all staff members
in the goal setting process symbolically demonstrates that the opinions and values of
all stakeholders are valued.
The literature also suggests educational leaders to not only set goals publicly
as a team, but to continue to monitor the progress toward meeting those goals. This
progress supervision should also be done in a collaborative venue (Brazer, Rich, &
Ross, 2010; Waters & Marzano, 2006; Peterson, 1999). To ensure that goals are
meaningful, this regular follow-up monitoring is required. Specific data must be
discussed and the progress toward the established goal should be the focus of
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

35
collaborative discussions (Dolph & Grant, 2010; Waters & Marzano, 2006; Peterson,
1999; Senge, et al., 1994). Following this data review, it is important for the group to
create new goals based on the findings from the data. This process is then cyclical
and ensures that staff members understand the need for continuous improvement
(Fullan, et al., 2004; Senge, et al., 1994). This concept coincides with the
expectations set forth by Bolman and Deal’s (2008) structural leadership frame. Staff
members understand the goals, know that they will be monitored and thus they are
propelled to ensure that they strive to meet those goals. This process should prove to
advance student academic outcomes and should be a strong consideration for all
urban superintendents who strive to improve student achievement.
Another important aspect regarding collaboration revealed in the literature
connects to the need to include members from various positional levels in the
collective discussions. In order for these meetings to be meaningful and successful,
they should include a diverse group of participants. These participants could include
the superintendent, district office level administrators, site-based administrators,
teachers, or paraprofessionals (Williams, et al., 2009). Including a variety of staff
members is valuable for a variety of reasons. When considering the four leadership
frames (Bolman & Deal, 2008), this concept adroitly addresses each one. The human
resources frame is satisfied in that staff members feel their voices and opinions are
valued when they are included. Structurally this includes all stakeholders in the
decision-making process and helps to hold all accountable for the collaborative goals
that are set. The political frame is addressed through the inclusion of various levels
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

36
of staff members. Understanding the political perspective of each group is critical to
the success of the group’s goals. And symbolically, having leaders of the
organization present in the meetings ensures that they are visible and demonstrates
their united commitment to the success of the established goals (Bolman & Deal,
2008). This literature demonstrates that when superintendents employ these
collaborative strategies they will result improved academic outcomes (Williams, et
al., 2009; Waters & Marzano, 2006). Superintendents are implored to visit sites
regularly.
Building Leadership Capacity
A review of the literature also bears out a recurring focus on successful
educational leaders and their ability to build leadership capacity. Leaders who
adroitly support others and build the abilities of new leaders have organizations that
run more efficiently and effectively (Kelly & Petersen, 2011; Spannuet & Ford,
2008; Rammer, 2007; Marzano, et al., 2005; Fullan, et al., 2004). A leader’s ability
to distribute leadership and support others also meets the expectations of all four of
the leadership frames defined by Bolman and Deal (2008) that serve as the
theoretical framework for this review. The human resources frame is met through the
support and cultivation of others. The structural frame is addressed in the shared
commitments and goals that become a part of building leadership in others.
Supporting future leaders matches the political frame in the development of networks
and connectedness. And a willingness to teach others how to lead demonstrates that,
symbolically, a leader cares about the professional development of others.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

37
In relation to superintendents, the common theme that persisted in relation to
successful capacity building was the ability to select and support high quality school
leaders. Superintendents that did this effectively demonstrate districts with greater
student academic achievement outcomes (Kelly & Petersen, 2011; Spannuet & Ford,
2008, Rammer, 2007; Applebaum & Valero, 2007; Marzano, et al., 2005). When
principals are successful, schools are successful. It is a superintendent’s duty to
match the correct leader to a site and then build capacity in that leader to support
student academic achievement (Spannuet & Ford, 2008).
The first step in this process is outlined in the literature as ensuring effective
hiring practices when selecting new school principals (Marzano, et al., 2005). The
principal position is often a role that is not protected by union practices or contracts.
This could be the pivot position that superintendents can use to create the greatest
impact. Superintendents can select people for the principal position and also dismiss
them, often without the mandates connected to unionized positions. This, in turn,
leads to heighten a principal’s desire to ensure effective student outcomes (Spannuet
& Ford, 2008; Rammer, 2007). The superintendents who use a careful process with
well-defined, research-based criteria in selecting new principals produce the greatest
improvements in student achievement outcomes (Rammer, 2007). The literature
suggests that the 21 leadership characteristics defined by Marzano, et al. (2005)
serve as a good starting point for selecting new principals. Superintendents are
implored to look for these qualities when beginning the process to select new leaders
for their school sites.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

38
Once new principals have been selected by a superintendent to lead the
schools, it is important that their support continue. Fullan, et al. (2004) encourages
superintendents to build a network of assistance for these new leaders.
Superintendents leading effective school districts connect their principals with each
other, oversee lateral capacity building, and help develop a shared commitment
among these school leaders (Fullan, et al., 2004). One of the biggest obstacles to new
principals is cited as being isolated (Applebaum & Valero, 2007). As a leader
working through the human resource frame, a superintendent needs to provide
support and assist new leaders to overcome this challenge. New principals need to be
guided through strengthening inter-organizational relationships and developing
professional networks (Kelly & Petersen, 2011). Superintendents who effectively
build this capacity in their principals will see improved student academic
achievement as a result (Spannuet & Ford, 2008; Fullan, et al., 2004).
Conclusion
In considering this review of the existing literature, it is apparent that
superintendent actions can make a statistically significant impact on student
academic achievement (Marzano, et al., 2005). This literature review demonstrates
that the new job expectations established for superintendents demand that these
educational leaders directly address student academic achievement. The expectation
is that all students will succeed and superintendents are ultimately charged with this
task. Ample research bears out that there is a significant gap in the support of ELL
students across the nation (Genesee, et al., 2005). Superintendents possess both the
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

39
moral imperative and the job requirement to use existing research coupled with their
immense power to support this traditionally marginalized group of students
(Borkowski & Sneed, 2006). The study that follows will outline suggestions gleaned
from new research conducted to target this information to specifically support the
ELL student population.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

40
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Authors: Tiffani Curtis, Gretchen Janson, Raul Ramirez, Charles D. Smith
1

Introduction
The expectations to improve student academic achievement continue to layer
new challenges upon school leaders (Borkowski & Sneed, 2006). Research posits
that if American students do not possess the skills needed for employment upon the
completion of compulsory education, the United States may not be able to effectively
compete in the global economy (Schmidt & McKnight, 1998). School leaders are
obligated to address this concern to ensure the nation’s future economic viability
(Schneider, 2009). In considering student academic achievement in the United
States, a significant population whose needs must be addressed is the group of
students designated as ELL. This is a subgroup that has seen significant population
growth over the past ten years, and continues to grow (ARRA, 2009). Coupled with
the increase in the ELL population is a distinct academic achievement gap relating to
this group of students (Gándara, et al., 2005).
As a result, the superintendents of large, urban school districts are impelled to
ensure the academic success of their student bodies, with distinct consideration for
the ELL subgroup. While these leaders may be logistically distanced from
classrooms, their actions still make a direct impact on student achievement
(Marzano, et al., 2005). The superintendent role has evolved to become the ultimate

1
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this chapter.
The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those listed.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

41
instructional leader of their school district (Lauen & Gaddis, 2012). Vital to student
success is a superintendent’s awareness of issues relating to ELL equity and access,
increased stakeholder collaboration, and increased leadership capacity (Waters &
Marzano, 2006; Fullan, et al., 2004; Gándara, et al., 2003). In addition to these major
themes, superintendent actions in this study were analyzed through the theoretical
framework on leadership defined by Bolman and Deal (2008) to determine which
leadership strategies were related to structural, human resource, political, and
symbolic frames.
The preceding chapters provided an overview of the study and a review of the
literature relating to the research topic. This chapter provides an outline of the study
and the methodology used. It specifically includes the purpose of the study, research
design, sample population, data collection protocols, and the data analysis process
used.
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to identify the superintendent leadership strategies that
positively impact the academic achievement of students identified as ELL in large
urban K-12 school districts. Specifically, the study considered the approaches
employed by superintendents in developing, implementing, and monitoring
improvements to ELL student academic outcomes.
The increasing focus on bureaucratic accountability for student academic
outcomes has highlighted the need for school leaders to improve student academic
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

42
achievement. Increases in high stake assessment results are called for from the
media, politicians, community members, school boards, and parents (Borkowski &
Sneed, 2006). Superintendents must navigate this road and ensure that they make the
demanded improvements to student achievement. Accountability demands create a
critical contextual lens for this challenge. Superintendents are required to ensure that
all student groups are acquiring the knowledge needed to pass high stakes
standardized exams and, ultimately, become educated and employable members of
their communities. Existing literature points superintendents in the right direction for
improving overall student achievement, but there is a lack of information on this
leadership role’s impact on ELL students specifically. This study aimed to identify
tangible strategies that can be employed to support this subgroup.
Research Questions
The following questions guided this study:
1. What factors do urban superintendents consider when developing
strategies to improve the academic achievement of students classified as
English language learners?
2. Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban superintendents to
assist in improving the academic achievement of students classified as
English language learners?
3. What strategies do urban superintendents execute when implementing
plans to improve the academic achievement of students classified as
English language learners?
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

43
4. What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor and evaluate the
academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
Rationale for Mixed-Method Study Design
For the purpose of this study, a mixed-methods approach was utilized, which
employed triangulation through sequential data collection and analysis (Maxwell,
2013). Quantitative data provided the means for identifying the strategies urban
superintendents in large districts employ to improve the academic achievement of
ELL students. This data set allowed for assertions to be made about the work of
superintendents in addressing the academic outcomes of this student subgroup.
However, it failed to provide the depth of knowledge required to fully address the
purpose of the study. The qualitative data compiled provided insight into the school
district context and the relationships required to gain a full understanding of the
actions undertaken by superintendents. Qualitative data provided rich information
that allowed the researcher to understand the underlying elements of superintendent
responses to the demand for increased achievement for students classified as ELL.
The joint use of quantitative and qualitative methods served to ensure
complimentarity and expansion within the study (Maxwell, 2013). Triangulation
allowed a more secure understanding of the issues within the investigation by
allowing the researcher to align the data from the closed-ended survey questions with
the authentic responses provided by open-ended qualitative interview methodology
(Maxwell, 2013).
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

44
Research Design
Identifying the leadership strategies urban superintendents employ to increase
the academic achievement of ELL students is a complex enterprise. As a result, a
mixed-methods study design was deemed appropriate to thoroughly address the
research questions. The study began with a quantitative survey of selected
superintendents, based upon the study criteria. Following the quantitative survey,
select superintendents were engaged in qualitative interviews.
Sample Population
In order to identify superintendents for both quantitative and qualitative
inquiry, the study used purposeful, criterion sampling (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam,
2009). Purposeful, criterion sampling allowed the researcher to select active school
superintendents in large, urban districts that served populations with a significant
subgroup of students classified as ELL. Quantitative sampling criteria utilized to
determine superintendent participation focused on district leaders from (a) California
school districts, (b) districts with a comprehensive enrollment of grades K-12, (c)
districts with an enrollment equal to or greater than 20,000 students, and (e) districts
with an ELL population equal to or greater than 20%. The quantitative and
qualitative sampling selection criteria for the study were identical. Superintendents
who agreed to participate in the qualitative interview were selected from participants
who indicated their willingness on the quantitative survey.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

45
Data used for the purpose of sampling was restricted to information reported
by the California Department of Education for 2012. School districts throughout the
state of California were included in the examination; however, 34 districts met the
aforementioned criteria of the study. The researcher elected not to extend the scope
of the study beyond the state of California due to the variance among states in
accountability formulae and assessment tools to monitor the achievement of students
classified as ELL. Consequently, determining equivalent performance levels of
student achievement for comparative purposes would extend beyond the aim of the
research study.
Instrument Validity
Support for survey and interview instrument validity was determined by the
similarity of the chosen instruments used in prior studies (Glass, Bjork, & Brunner,
2000). Questions were informed by the research on superintendents, superintendent
leadership and ELL populations in the body of scholarly literature. The instruments
of the study were gender neutral and were field tested on education professionals at
the district-office level and above to ensure the questions were presented in a cogent
and concise manner, while simultaneously confirming expected time commitments
for participants in the study, namely district superintendents.
Instrumentation
The quantitative and qualitative instruments listed below facilitated the
research and ensured that a consistent approach to collecting data was developed for
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

46
the inquiry process. The alignment between the four research questions and the
quantitative and qualitative instruments used in the course of this study is outlined in
Appendix A.
Quantitative Instrumentation
A review of the literature informed the quantitative survey question design.
The survey questions follow three major themes that emerged from the literature
review: (a) equity and access for ELL students, (b) creating a collaborative culture,
and (c) building capacity. The theoretical framework of Bolman and Deal’s (2008)
four frame, multi-lens leadership approach of structural, human resource, structural
and political tenets were aligned with the strategies employed by superintendents in
developing, implementing, and monitoring improvements to student academic
outcomes. The quantitative instrument used by the researcher included 39 questions
(Appendix B) organized in the following way: (a) six demographic questions, (b) one
question to determine the willingness to participate in a follow-up interview, and (c)
a survey consisting of 39 Likert-style items aligned with the four research questions.
Superintendents responded to the 39 Likert-style survey items with a value of
1-4, “1” representing strongly agree, “2” representing disagree, “3” representing
agree, and “4” representing strongly agree. Using the Likert-style format allowed the
researcher to measure the level of support for each survey item.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

47
Qualitative Instrumentation
The qualitative interview protocol consisted of eleven open-ended questions
that reflected the research questions and body of scholarly literature that is relevant
to the topic (Appendix C). The protocol was consistently implemented among
interview participants but was not limited to these questions alone. In addition to the
predesigned interview protocol, the researcher asked follow-up questions either to
gain clarity or to acquire more elaborate information about specific statements or
sentiments. The questions were designed to allow for opportunities for the
superintendents to share strategies they have been engaged in to respond to demands
for student achievement reform.
Data Collection
Data collection was divided into two distinct and linear phases. The first
phase involved gathering quantitative survey data from superintendents (Appendix
B). The second phase entailed conducting qualitative interviews with selected
superintendents. In accordance with the provisions of the Institutional Review Board
at the University of Southern California, applications were submitted to ensure that
the research subjects were protected during the course of the study. All identifiable
data was protected from access beyond this study and the participants’ identities
remain confidential. Participation in the study was voluntary.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

48
Quantitative Data Collection
Surveys were sent to 34 California superintendents identified as meeting the
sampling criterion. Surveys were delivered using Survey Monkey, an online survey
tool designed to collect and report survey data. Surveys were delivered via email,
along with a survey cover letter explaining the purpose of the study and the potential
risks and benefits of responding (Appendix D). Participants electing to participate in
the study were directed to follow a survey link contained in the email (Appendix B).
After 10 calendar days, the researcher phoned and sent follow-up emails to
participants who did not respond to the initial survey request.
Qualitative Data Collection
The researcher conducted interviews with eight California superintendents
who met the sampling criterion. Only superintendents who answered yes to a follow
up interview on the initial quantitative survey were contacted to participate in a 45-
minute interview.
The interviewer conducted the interviews using the protocol that had been
designed for this purpose (Appendix C). At the start of the interview, the survey
participant was asked to confirm his or her willingness to be audio recorded and was
provided with an information letter (Appendix F). At the time of the interview,
superintendents were offered an opportunity to receive a copy of the final
dissertation. Audio recordings of the interview were transcribed via a professional
transcription service.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

49
Data Analysis
To identify the strategies employed by superintendents in developing,
implementing, and monitoring improvements to student academic outcomes, the
researcher strategically analyzed quantitative and qualitative data. Research findings
were compared to the body of literature as to further validate the significance of the
study.
Quantitative Data Analysis
The researcher collected surveys from 14 participants. The data from each
survey was analyzed using the four research questions. Survey Monkey, an online
survey tool, was used to quantify the mean for each survey item, allowing the
researcher to identify the level of agreement with each research question.
Qualitative Data Analysis
Transcriptions of the interviews and the accompanying field notes were
analyzed using the step-by-step process of analysis as outlined by Merriam (2009).
The data analysis process included:
1. Data Management: Data was coded by assigning a designation that was
easy to retrieve specific pieces of data.
2. Category Construction: Categories were used to assign data to specific
categories to compare codes from the data to look for similar themes and
recurring patterns.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

50
3. Categories Sorted: Data was sorted into categories and subcategories
based on themes so that conclusion were drawn.
4. Theorizing: The researcher was able to derive meaning from making
inferences and theorizing the data to draw conclusions based on the data
collected.
Summary
The preceding chapter explained the purpose of the study, research design,
sample population, data collection protocols, and the data analysis process used in
the study. The all-encompassing research goals dictated the need for a mixed-method
study design. The study included a quantitative survey and a qualitative interview of
superintendents of large, urban school districts in California deemed applicable to
the study using purposeful, criterion sampling. The researcher strove to be
transparent in the process so as to limit the appearance of impropriety (Merriam,
2009). Chapter Four follows with an analysis of the data collected and the major
findings.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

51
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Introduction
Demands for improved academic achievement outcomes for all students
continue to intensify. High stakes testing and accountability systems require success
or immediate reform in response to failure. These mandates for the advancement of
student outcomes call for improvement among all subgroups of students (Lauen &
Gaddis, 2012). This study looked specifically at the burgeoning subgroup of students
classified as ELL and the efforts of school superintendents to support their unique
needs. The ELL student subgroup continues to grow in the United States (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2011) and the needs of these students must be
considered when instructional decisions are made in a school district. Significant
achievement gaps persist between ELL students and their native English-speaking
counterparts and school districts need to consider the unique needs of this group if
progress is to be made (Gándara, et al., 2005). The ability of the United States to
compete in the global marketplace may be compromised if this group is not
sufficiently supported (Schmidt & McKnight, 1998).
This chapter presents the findings from a mixed-method study comprised of a
quantitative survey completed by 14 superintendents and qualitative interviews
conducted with five superintendents, which aligned with the following research
questions:
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

52
1. What factors do urban superintendents consider when developing strategies
to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners?
2. Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban superintendents to assist
in improving the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners?
3. What strategies do urban superintendents execute when implementing plans
to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners?
4. What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor and evaluate the
academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to identify superintendent leadership strategies
that positively impact the academic achievement outcomes of students identified as
ELL in large, urban K-12 school districts. The study specifically considered the
approaches employed by superintendents in developing, implementing, and
monitoring improvements to ELL student academic outcomes.
Response Rate
Based upon the purposefully designed criteria for this study, 34
superintendents of large, urban K-12 school districts qualified to participate in the
quantitative survey. The criteria selected for this study required that superintendents
lead districts with a student population greater than 20,000 and that a minimum of
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

53
20% of those students be classified as ELL. Table 1 demonstrates that of the 34
potential participants, 14 elected to participate. This resulted in a response rate of
41.2% of superintendents. This response rate satisfied the goal of the researcher,
which was a rate of 40% or more based on the average return rate for a survey
conducted through email (Dillman, 2000).
Table 1
Quantitative Survey: Response Rate
Measure No. Invited to
Participate
No.
Participated
%
Participated
Superintendents 34 14 41

Of the 14 urban K-12 superintendents who chose to participate in the
quantitative survey, all 14 were also eligible to participate in the qualitative
interview. Eight indicated an interest in participating in the interview and all eight
participated in interviews. Superintendents who declined to participate in the
qualitative interview indicated the following reasons for lack of participation:
limited time, change of position or district, and retirement.
Quantitative Demographic Data
The gender of the 14 superintendents who participated in the quantitative
survey is specified in Table 2.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

54
Table 2
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Gender
Measure Male Female Total
No. of
Superintendents
9 5 14
% of
Superintendents
64.3 35.7 100

These findings demonstrate an increase in female superintendents when
compared to the research of Kowalski, McCord, Petersen, Young and Ellerson
(2010), who reported that 24.1% of the 1,867 superintendents who participated in
their nationwide survey superintendents were women. These survey results
demonstrated a significant difference of 11.6%.
Table 3 reports the ethnic backgrounds of the 14 superintendents who
completed the quantitative survey. Of the superintendents who completed the survey
7.1% identified as Asian, 7.1% as Black or African-American, 28.6% as Hispanic or
Latino, and 57.2% as White.
Table 3
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Ethnicity
Measure Asian Black/
African-
American
Hispanic
/Latino
White 2+ Other Total
No. of
Superintendents
1 1 4 8 0 0 14
% of
Superintendents
7.1 7.1 28.6 57.2 0 0 100
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

55
These values did not align with the research of Kowalski et al. (2010). These
researchers found that 94.1% of the 1,800 superintendents surveyed identified as
White. Further analysis of the work by Kowalski et al. (2010) does provide a
possible explanation for the discrepancy in the data from this research. These
researchers recognized that as the minority student population in a district increases,
so does the likelihood that that superintendent would be of a minority background.
Thus, the focus of this research on districts with at least a 20% ELL population may
have skewed the number of minority superintendents included.
Table 4 reports the distribution of superintendents by age groups. It is broken
down into bands of ten-year spans. Of the 14 superintendents who completed the
survey, 7.1% were 30-39, 35.7 were 40-49, 35.7 were 50-59, and 21.5 were 60-69
years old.
Table 4
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Age
Measure 29 and
under
30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 and
over
Total
No. of
Superintendents
0 1 5 5 3 0 14
% of
Superintendents
0 7.1 35.7 35.7 21.5 0 100

The findings in this survey question aligned with the research by Kowalski, et
al. (2010) who reported in their study that 18.1% of the 1,842 respondents in their
nationwide survey were 60 or older. The difference found in this study was 3.4%.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

56
The highest educational level attained by the 14 surveyed superintendents is
displayed in Table 5. 28.6% of the superintendents reported the completion of a
master’s degree and 71.4% reported that they had attained doctoral degrees.
Table 5
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Education
Measure Bachelor’s
Degree
Master’s
Degree
Other
Professional
Degree
Doctoral
Degree
Total
No. of
Superintendents
0 4 0 10 14
% of
Superintendents
0 28.6 0 71.4 100

Of the 1,867 superintendents surveyed nationwide by Kowalski, et al. (2010)
only 45.3% of respondents indicated that they had attained a doctoral degree. This
finding suggests the superintendents identified for this study demonstrated a 26.1%
higher rate of doctoral completion when compared to their nationwide peers. Further
analysis of the work by Kowalski, et al. (2010) indicates that the size of the districts
selected for this study may have influenced this finding. School districts had to have
student populations of greater than 20,000 to be identified for this study. Larger
school districts tended to have been lead by superintendents with higher levels of
education (Kowalski, et al., 2010).
Table 6 specifies the distributions of the years the surveyed superintendents
had spent as the leader of their current district. The respondents indicated short
tenures in their current districts with 92.9% reporting tenure of three or fewer years.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

57
Table 6
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Experience in Current District
Measure Fewer
than 2
years
2-3 4-5 6-7 7-8 9 or
more
Total
No. of
Superintendents
5 8 1 0 0 0 14
% of
Superintendents
35.7 57.2 7.1 0 0 0 100

This finding is slightly lower than the findings of Kowalski et al. (2010) who
reported that the 1,867 surveyed in that study reported an average tenure of 3.6 years
in their current districts.
Table 7 was included to demonstrate the surveyed superintendents’ overall
number of years of experience in the superintendent position. 42.8% had two or
fewer years of experience, 28.6% had 3-5 years, 14.3% had 6-8 years and 14.3% had
15 or more years of experience.
Table 7
Quantitative Survey: Overall Superintendent Experience
Measure 2 or
fewer
years
3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15 or
more
Total
No. of
Superintendents
6 4 2 0 0 2 14
% of
Superintendents
42.8 28.6 14.3 0 0 14.3 100

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

58
The information gained from this finding is significant in that 85.7% of all
the superintendents surveyed had become superintendents under the accountability
requirements of the NCLB Act of 2003. All superintendents were hired into this role
with a clear understanding of the obligation to support all student subgroups,
including ELL students.
Table 8 is included to provide background information about the students
served by the superintendents who completed the survey. The facts provided in this
table demonstrate the student population size and the percentage of students who
have been identified as ELL. The parameters of this study necessitated that surveyed
superintendents would serve a student population of 20,000 or greater and that no
fewer than 20% of those students would be classified as ELL.
Table 8
Quantitative Survey: District Characteristics
District Total Enrollment % English language
learners
1 57,250 51.3
2 56,222 29.2
3 54,378 29.2
4 53,170 20.2
5 47,999 45.9
6 40,592 34.1
7 38,810 27
8 35,690 23

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

59
Table 8 (Continued)
9 32,829 20.2
10 30,136 22.7
11 26,228 25.3
12 25,593 24.4
13 23,507 22.3
14 20,690 20
Average 38,792 28.2

Qualitative Demographic Data
All superintendents selected as eligible for the quantitative survey, based on
the size of their student population and ELL population, and were also considered for
the qualitative portion of this study. A question was included in the survey in which
respondents were asked to identify whether or not they would be inclined to
participate in the qualitative follow-up interview. Eight of the 14 superintendents
who completed the survey indicated willingness to be interviewed for this study.
Table 9 defines the demographic profile of each superintendent who
participated in the qualitative interview portion of this study. Information about their
districts’ size and ELL population is also included. This information provides
context to the findings from this study.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

60
Table 9
Qualitative Interview: Characteristics for Superintendents and Districts
Superintendent Profile District
A

Gender: Female
Ethnicity/Race: Asian
Age: 60-69
Education level: Doctorate
Years as superintendent: 2
Years in current position: 2
Enrollment: 20,690
English learner: 20%
B

Gender: Male
Ethnicity/Race: White
Age: 60-69
Education level: Doctorate
Years as superintendent: 17
Years in current position: 3
Enrollment: 53,170
English learner: 20.2%
C

Gender: Female
Ethnicity/Race: White
Age: 40-49
Education level: Masters
Years as superintendent: 5
Years in current position: 5
Enrollment: 35,690
English learner: 23%
D

Gender: Female
Ethnicity/Race: Black/African-
American
Age: 50-59
Education level: Doctorate
Years as superintendent: 3
Years in current position: 3
Enrollment: 40,592
English learner: 34.1%
E

Gender: Male
Ethnicity/Race: White
Age: 50-59
Education level: Doctorate
Years as superintendent: 8
Years in current position: 3
Enrollment: 39,829
English learner: 20.2

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

61
Table 9 (Continued)
F

Gender: Female
Ethnicity/Race:Hispanic/Latino
Age: 40-49
Education level: Doctorate
Years as superintendent: 0
Years in current position: 0
Enrollment: 47,999
English learner: 45.9
G

Gender: Male
Ethnicity/Race: White
Age: 30-39
Education level: Doctorate
Years as superintendent: 1
Years in current position: 1
Enrollment: 25,593
English learner: 24.4%
H

Gender: Male
Ethnicity/Race: White
Age: 50-59
Education level: Doctorate
Years as superintendent: 6
Years in current position: 2
Enrollment: 23,507
English learner: 22.3%

An even gender balance was represented in among the interview respondents
with four male and four female superintendents. In looking at the ethnic distribution
of the eight superintendents, five were White; the remaining respondents included
one who was Asian, one Hispanic/Latino, and one Black or African-American.
Three of the superintendents interviewed were in the age range of 50-59 years of age,
two were 40-49, two were 60-69, and one was 30-39. One superintendent had 17
years of experience in the position, three had between five and eight years of
experience, and the four remaining superintendents reported three or fewer years of
experience. They represented an average of 5.3 years of experience as
superintendents with an average of 2.4 years in their current district. Five of the eight
respondents were in the first year in the superintendent role.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

62
Research Question One
What factors do urban superintendents consider when developing strategies
to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
When considering their role in impacting student academic achievement, the
superintendents of large, urban school districts are influenced by community
pressures including: advocacy groups, parent groups, the media, and political forces
(Darling-Hammond, 2007). In addition to calls from action from these groups,
bureaucratic accountability forces continue to impel superintendents to consider the
distinct academic needs of all students, particularly ELL students if that population is
significant in their districts (Borkowski & Sneed, 2006). The publication of
aggregated district assessment results and the subsequent scrutiny by various entities
of those scores places superintendents in a unique position to be held singly
responsible for ensuring student academic success (Marzano, et al., 2005). Coupled
the layers of pressure to support all students and significant subgroups are factors
that specifically impede the growth of the ELL subgroup included low expectations,
assessment design, and limited understanding of language acquisition by education
professionals (Abeti & Gandara, 2007).
Table 10 portrays the superintendent survey responses to the question: To
what extent do you agree that the following factors influence the academic
achievement of English language learners? Superintendents were asked to determine
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

63
their level of agreement with each item using a Likert-type scale in which “1”
indicated strongly disagree, “2” indicated disagree, “3” indicated agree, and “4”
indicated strongly agree.
Table 10
Superintendent Rating of Factors that are Important in ELL Academic Achievement
Factor Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
Agree
(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Bureaucratic
accountability
2 7 3 0 2.08 12
Demands from
the community
1 7 4 1 2.38 13
Access to
highly qualified
teachers
0 1 2 8 3.64 11
Culturally
responsive
curriculum
0 2 6 4 3.17 12
Standardized
assessment
design
0 7 3 2 2.58 12
Teacher
expectations for
ELL
performance
0 0 1 10 3.91 11

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

64
Table 10 (Continued)
Data-driven
decision making
0 0 4 6 3.6 10
Instructional
leadership
0 1 3 9 3.62 13
Professional
development
focused on ELL
instruction
0 1 4 8 3.54 13

The response mean range for all categories within this item was 2.08 to 3.91.
“Teacher expectations for ELL performance” was rated most favorably (3.91)
whereas “bureaucratic accountability” received the lowest response mean (2.08).
Teacher Expectations for ELL Performance
“Teacher expectations for ELL performance” recorded the highest response
mean (3.91), with all but one superintendent rating this item with a “4” or strongly
agree. In addition to this quantitative finding, four of the eight superintendents
interviewed noted that this is a critical component to ELL student success. First, this
group of superintendents noted that teachers generally do not hold their ELL students
to the same level of academic expectations as they do for their native-English
speaking peers. The superintendents also noted limited teacher understanding that
academic goals and language goals should be addressed throughout the instructional
day.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

65
Teachers should be aware of the academic capacity of all of their students
and build from their strengths rather than focus on potential deficits. Superintendent
D stated that, “Teachers need to look at the individual needs of their ELL students
and consider how to address each student’s specific needs. Sometimes it seems like
teachers of ELL students think that they should just teach them all the same way, but
they need to know that each one is different.” ELL students cannot be lumped into
one category. These students comprise a diverse subgroup comprised of a variety of
student with a diverse set of life experiences. Along these same lines, Superintendent
A stated, “We do not have a ‘cookie cutter’ approach to supporting ELL
students…they come from very different kinds of situations and ability levels.” This
is evidence from this study that superintendents sense that teachers need to deeply
understand their individual students and their unique needs. Each student needs to be
given individualized goals and supported in their areas of need. Expectations for
student outcomes need to be appropriately high and match the next level that each
student is working to attain.
Access to Highly Qualified Teachers
“Access to highly qualified teachers” recorded the second highest response
mean (3.64) from the superintendents surveyed. Similarly, four of the eight
superintendents interviewed also identified this as an important component in
improving the academic achievement of ELL students. Reponses from three of these
superintendents highlighted the fact that some of the teachers who are currently
working with ELL students do not know how to address language acquisition in an
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

66
appropriate and meaningful way. Superintendent B stated, “We don’t spend enough
time talking about the basic instructional methodologies that need to be in place to
support ELL students. Teachers want to talk about strategies that support ‘all’
students, without really understanding what it means to give an EL student the
support he needs.”
Two of the superintendents interviewed also stated that new teachers are
coming from teacher preparation institutes unprepared to effectively support the
growing ELL population. They do indicated that many new teachers appear to lack
an understanding around both what it means to teach English Language
Development and how to differentiate that instruction for varied levels of ELL
students. Superintendent G made the statement, “ELLs are not receiving the targeted
instruction that they need. Teachers want to teach uniformly, without putting in the
effort to plan for each child.” Superintendent A targeted new teachers in his concern
in this area and stated that he “had to develop a training program to improve
instruction for English learners, particularly for new teachers who seemed to be
unprepared for this challenge.”
Instructional Leadership
“Instructional leadership” recorded the third highest response mean (3.62).
This finding was solidified by similar comments made from seven of the eight
superintendents who were interviewed. The qualitative findings from the
superintendents focused on two main themes related to instructional leadership:
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

67
providing professional development for principals, and then holding principals
accountable for providing professional development for their staff followed by
ongoing classroom observations with instructive feedback. Superintendent H
explained:
I really believe that the principals can’t lead the professional development on
things they haven’t been trained on. We use a lot of our principals’ meetings
for that professional development. They’ve all gone through the teacher
trainings first. The administrative team has to know what is supposed to
happen in classrooms so that they can follow up on it and make sure that it is
happening. They need to be effective leaders that monitor implementation.
Superintendent E concurred with this idea stating, “Teachers can’t receive a one time
training. Principals need to be there to follow up and hold teacher accountable for
putting this new learning into action.” Superintendent B shared that he models
instructional leadership by providing professional development in the area of ELL
support for all teachers. He explained that he “personally did workshops…probably
50 or 60 in three years. Anyone interested can come have a conversation with the
superintendent about support for EL students.”
Discussion
The work of superintendents has become more directly connected to the
academic achievement of students through both internal and external demands.
These forces have impelled superintendents to more closely analyze how to directly
impact student achievement quickly, with a targeted focus on student subgroups who
have been traditionally underserved (Fullan, 2004). There is limited tolerance for
failure to improve and superintendent tenure has dwindled to an average of just 2.33
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

68
years (Yee & Cuban, 1996).
The need to ensure that teachers have high expectations for ELL student
performance, that ELL students have access to highly qualified teachers, and
effective instructional leadership all distinguished themselves as major themes both
in the quantitative survey and the qualitative interviews of superintendents. In this
survey question, these themes stood out from the other items with just a few other
items recording nearly similar means. The qualitative data gleaned helped to provide
more insight into the specific nature of these needs. Superintendent D eloquently
summarized these concepts by stating, “I know the learning at my schools will only
be as good as the teaching. The teachers is where would put our efforts if we want to
see growth in our students.”
The responses made by the superintendents in relation to this research
question connect to the current transition that superintendents to a deeper connection
to the instructional practices that will best support the needs of all student subgroups.
Research Question Two
Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban superintendents to assist
in improving the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
In considering imperative to ensure the academic success of students
classified as ELL in large, urban school district, it is imperative to consider the
barriers that are faced by this group. Teachers need to be well trained in how to
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

69
service these students and need to understand that existing assessments may not
accurately gauge ELL student ability (Abedi & Gándara, 2006). District and school
level personnel also need to understand this distinct disadvantage and need to seek
out further information on how to support and assess ELL students accurately
(Genesee, 2005). It is equally important for all community stakeholders and board
members to grasp the limitations faced by ELL students so that a more accurate
understanding can guide their assessment of a superintendent’s success.
Superintendents’ tenures have been greatly shortened by the pressures placed on
them by the current system of bureaucratic accountability (Gándara, et al., 2003).
Table 11 portrays the superintendent survey responses to the question: To
what extent do you agree that the following stakeholders should be included in
decisions made to improve the academic achievement of English language learners?
Superintendents were asked to determine their level of agreement with each item
using a Likert-type scale in which “1” indicated strongly disagree, “2” indicated
disagree, “3” indicated agree, and “4” indicated strongly agree.
Table 11
Superintendent Rating of Stakeholder Importance in ELL Academic Decisions
Stakeholder Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
Agree
(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Community
members
0 3 7 1 2.82 11
District-level
personnel
0 0 3 8 3.73 11
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

70
Table 11 (continued)
Parents 0 0 7 4 3.36 11
School-level
administrators
0 0 4 8 3.67 12
Teachers 0 0 3 11 3.79 14
Unions 1 5 7 0 2.46 13
School boards 1 1 7 4 3.08 13

The response mean range for all categories within this item was 2.46 to 3.79.
“Teachers” was rated most favorably (3.79) whereas “Unions” received the lowest
response mean (2.46).
Teachers
Superintendents’ desire to include the stakeholder group of “Teachers” in
decisions relating to ELL academic achievement recorded the highest response mean
(3.79). Five of the eight superintendents discussed the integration of teacher
leadership in propelling ELL professional development forward. They used varying
terminology to name the position such as, “Teachers on Assignment”, “EL Coach”,
“Literacy Coach”, yet similarities were evident in their duties. These were the
teachers who were released from their classroom duties to serve as teacher supports.
They provided professional development, demonstration lessons, and coaching to
teacher who needed assistance in working with ELL students. Superintendent E
explained this role in her district by stating, “The Teachers on Assignment build
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

71
capacity by teaching teachers in the classroom to embed skills and lead to improved
teaching.” It was stressed that there needed to be ongoing progress monitoring of
professional development. Teachers in this role could provide constructive feedback
in a non-evaluative way to ensure that the best practices were in place.
District Level Personnel
The stakeholder group of “district level personnel” received the second
highest response mean (3.73). This is a group that includes superintendents, assistant
superintendents, directors, and coordinators based at the district office of a school
district. Six of eight superintendents interviewed stated that the role of the district
leaders is to build capacity for extended growth throughout the district. Additionally,
three of the superintendents interviewed indicated that it was their role to properly
interact with the board to make sure that this body was well informed and set the
proper policy.
The theme of capacity building was common among six of the
superintendents who were interviewed. They saw value in building capacity so that
critical messages about ELL student achievement were heard at several different
levels and from several different voices. In this vein, Superintendent D stated that
several layers of district stakeholders are included in leadership groups so that the
district is “growing new leaders and people are seeing that if they learn more about
instruction and effective leadership, they can share it with their peers to foster better
teachers and increased leadership across the district.” Capacity building was also
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

72
noted as a way to ensure legacy and ongoing district success. Superintendent A
characterized this concept by stating:
We began and aspiring administrative group, that’s how we include more
people in the process. We have monthly classes for them to help them learn
how to become effective instructional leaders. They learn more about our
system and are more prepared with administrative positions become
available.
District level leadership was cited as the critical component in ensuring that
the work of the school board properly supports the actions taking place at the school
sites. Of the three superintendents who discussed their need to help educate the
board, Superintendent D relayed the work that he had to put in to ensure that
superintendents were focused on student achievement and that they understood the
proper role of the school board. He stated, “I had to teach them that they couldn’t
micro-manage. They could set policies that helped to help students, but they needed
to allow the district leaders to make sure those policies were enacted with students.”
Superintendent B also shared that he worked with his board to ensure that one of the
district goals focused on closing the achievement gap of ELL students. As critical
stakeholders in this circumstance, district leaders play the role of ensuring that board
members do not interfere with the daily work that needs to occur for ELL success.
School Level Administrators
The stakeholder group of “school level administrators” received the third
highest response mean (3.67). This is a group comprised of principals and assistant
principals who are based at individual school campuses. Five of the eight
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

73
superintendents interviewed also stated that this level of employee should be
included in decisions made about the academic programs of ELL students. The most
noted role of school level administrators in the interview data was that of the
instructional leader and monitor of instructional practice. Superintendents stated that
site leaders must possess strong instructional knowledge that they can apply when
observing and evaluating teachers. Their involvement in the development of plans is
critical because they will be monitoring those plans. Superintendent B shared his
ELL support plan development and the importance of including site administrators:
In my first few weeks I called all of the leaders of the education division
together along with all of the site principals. We went over all of the site and
district performance levels and started our plans from there. I needed the
principals to know that we would be looking at their scores and that we
would expect them to grow. I needed to include them in the plans to improve
their sites because I would be holding them accountable for putting those
plans into place at their sites and making a difference for ELs in the process.
As noted earlier in the findings for Research Question 1, superintendents also
frequently include site leaders in the professional development provided and then ask
them to serve as presenters. This ensures their ability to understand the program and
to monitor its implementation.
Discussion
Superintendents surveyed and interviewed for this study concurred on the
need to include teachers, district level administrators, and site level administrators
into decisions relating to the academic achievement of ELL students. In particular,
this study found that capacity could be built across all levels noted here to ensure
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

74
increased communication and collaboration (Dolph & Grant, 2010; Williams, et al.,
2009; Waters & Marzano, 2006; Peterson, 1999), and program longevity and
effectiveness (Kelly & Petersen, 2011; Spannuet & Ford, 2008; Rammer, 2007;
Marzano, et al., 2005; Fullan, et al., 2004). The superintendents interviewed
provided important insight into the answers that were provided on the quantitative
survey.
It is of value to also note that six of the eight superintendents interviewed
cited “Parents” as critical stakeholders in the development of plans to support ELL
students, yet it received only the fourth highest response mean (3.36) in the survey.
They were viewed as important both as a driving point to impel teachers and leaders
to improve their practice. They also were noted as an important resource for students.
Another fact of note in this section of the data is the fact that while
“Teachers” received the highest mean response rate (3.79), “Unions” received the
lowest mean response rate (2.46). Superintendents appear to state that they
understand the value of individual teachers and the need to include their wishes in
planning for ELL support. Yet, the collective “Union” of teachers is found to be of a
drastically reduced value regarding input. This appears to demonstrate that
superintendents value individual teacher opinion, but possibly not those that have
been politicized.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

75
Research Question Three
What strategies do urban superintendents execute when implementing plans
to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
Despite being physically removed from school sites and students and house at
the district office, superintendents can implement plans that impact student
achievement (Fullan, et al., 2004). As the district leader, superintendents can make
decisions and design structures that will support student success. Practices to create a
foundation for student success can include selection of staff members who
demonstrate a high expectation for the ability of all students (August & Shanahan,
2005). Also, as the district leader, a superintendent should be responsible for
designing ELL student achievement goals that are clearly defined and articulated for
all staff members (Senge, et al., 1994; Fullan, et al., 2004). And moving forward
from those goals, superintendents need to design structures for effective teacher
collaboration. Teachers need to be able to share academic successes and plan for
refining their instructional repertoire to best support all students (Dolph & Grant,
2010; Waters & Marzano, 2006; Peterson, 1999; Senge, et al., 1994).
Table 12 portrays the superintendent survey responses to the question: To
what extent do you agree that the following are important to superintendent
implementation of plans to improve the academic achievement of English language
learners? Superintendents were asked to determine their level of agreement with
each item using a Likert-type scale in which “1” indicated strongly disagree, “2”
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

76
indicated disagree, “3” indicated agree, and “4” indicated strongly agree.
Table 12
Superintendent Rating of Factors that are Important in Implementing Plans to
Improve ELL Academic Achievement
Stakeholder Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
Agree
(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Creation of a
vision
0 0 4 8 3.67 12
High
expectations for
student
achievement
0 0 0 11 4.0 11
Analyzing
subgroup
assessment data
0 0 5 7 3.58 12
Collaboration
among
stakeholders
0 0 6 7 3.54 13
Resource
allocation
0 0 4 7 3.64 11
Clearly defined
district-wide
academic goals
for ELL
students
0 0 2 9 3.82 11
Instructional
leadership
0 0 3 8 3.73 11
Professional
development for
school-site
administrators
0 0 5 6 3.55 11

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

77
Table 12 (Continued)
Professional
development for
teachers
0 0 3 8 3.73 11
Professional
development
facilitated by
the district
office
0 1 6 4 3.27 11
Professional
development
facilitated by
the school-site
0 0 7 4 3.36 11
Two-way
communication
between district
and school-site
staff
0 0 4 7 3.64 11
Alignment
between district
vision and
school vision
0 0 4 7 3.64 11
On-site teacher
collaboration
0 0 3 9 3.75 12
Alignment of
instruction with
curricula
frameworks
0 0 5 6 3.55 11

The response mean range for all categories within this item was 3.27 to 4.0.
“High expectations” was rated most favorably (4.0) whereas “professional
development facilitated by the district office” received the lowest response mean
(3.27).
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

78
High Expectations for Student Achievement
“High expectations for student achievement” received the highest response
mean (4.0), with all superintendents indicating that they “strongly agree” that this is
an important determining factor. This result mirrors the finding of “teacher
expectations for ELL performance” found in research question 1. Half of the
superintendents interviewed identified this component as critical to student success
and explained their opinions. Superintendent F was a staunch supporter of high
expectations for ELL students in the comments that were made and stated, “we’re
not going to look at watered down programs or dumbed down programs when we
work with ELs. We are working with grade level programs and finding out how to
get them there.”
Superintendent C explained that the moral imperative of high expectations
for all students existed at the forefront of the new vision he brought to his district. He
stated, “I think the core belief that I have and I think was shared effectively and
carried into our district vision. We now all really believe in this idea of high
expectations for all.” Superintendent G verified this concept and expanded on it in
stating:
We need to be more adept at helping teachers to understand their students and
target their needs. Many students are now entering this new group called
“Long Term English Learners” and I think that’s because teachers didn’t
know exactly what it would take to reclassify that student as English
proficient. Teaching teachers how to teach ELs will be there first step in
getting them to see that these students can have success if they are supported
in the right way. Once they are successful, that will lead to teachers having a
better handle on knowing how to have high expectations for ELs.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

79
This concept of helping teachers to foster higher expectations adds insight to the
actions steps that may be taken to address this quantitative finding.
Clearly Defined District Wide Academic Goals for ELL Students
The second highest response mean (3.82) was recorded for “clearly defined
district wide academic goals for ELL students”. Six of the eight superintendents
interviewed noted that teachers struggle with understanding how to set goals for ELL
students. The qualitative interview provided details as to their concerns and their
plans.
One oft noted goal that was raised by five of the superintendents was the
California requirement that ELL students move up one level on the California
English Language Development Test (CELDT) each year. The noted this well
known requirement, but their explanations shed light on the lack of teacher
knowledge as to what it takes to move students up through each level.
Superintendent F expressed concern about the label of “English learner” and that it
encompasses such a diverse group of students. She stated, “The structures in place to
support a newcomer should not be the same as the long-term English learners.
People need to understand their unique needs.” This was a common theme and the
need to have teachers understand the steps for an ELL student to reclassify was
noted. Superintendent G stated, “We look at the number of students who have taken
longer than five years to reclassify and make plans to support them now. I think we
are doing this backwards and should do a better job in the earlier years to get them to
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

80
reclassify early, before this becomes a problem.” Reclassification rates and long-
term ELL students were common themes among all eight of the superintendents
interviewed.
On-Site Teacher Collaboration
The third highest response mean (3.75) was reported for “on-site teacher
collaboration”. This factor refers to teachers within a school site collaborating to
monitor data or plan for instruction. The concept of developing professional learning
communities among teachers was noted in four of the superintendents’ interviews. A
common theme of incremental data analysis and ELL subgroup data disaggregation
was found. Superintendent E stated that principals were responsible to “establishing
PLCs and that they should be focused on ‘outcomes based’ educational results for all
significant subgroups.” Superintendent A shared the need to embed this work into
the teachers’ regular workweek so that it occurred with regularity. She stated, “You
need to build in the time for these types of meetings so that they do not get forgotten.
They need to be scheduled and prepared for so that they can be run effectively and
efficiently. Data needs to be available and at the forefront of the discussions.”
Effective teacher collaboration as defined in the interview data from this study
includes systems that ensure it will happen and it is data-driven.
Discussion
The superintendents interviewed agreed with and expanded upon the
concepts that high expectations for ELL students (Abeli & Gándara, 2006; Gándara
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

81
& Rumberger, 2002), clearly defined goals (Gándara, et al., 2003), and teacher on-
site collaboration (Dolph & Grant, 2010; Williams, Tabernik, & Krivak, 2009;
Waters & Marzano, 2007; Fullan, Bertani, & Quinn, 2004; Peterson, 1999; Senge,
Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994) will help to ensure that plans are effectively
implemented in support of ELL academic achievement. The explanations from
superintendents regarding these needs and how they are addressing them informed
this study’s breadth and applicability for current practitioners.
It is of value to note that all characteristics surveyed for this instrument
demonstrated a small range in results (3.27 to 4.0). All items were seen as having
value and averaged a response rate that indicated that the superintendents would
“agree” that all concepts listed were important to the implementation of plans to
improve the academic achievement of ELL students.
Research Question Four
What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor and evaluate the
academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Beyond the development of plans, superintendents must then monitor these
plans to ensure that they are being implemented and determine whether or not they
are making a positive impact on ELL student academic achievement. The plans
designed need to ensure that staff members understand the fallibility of the
assessments in connection with the ELL population. Valid and reliable assessment
instruments must be made available to teachers and site leaders so that data analysis
of student outcomes provides information that is accurate and applicable (August &
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

82
Shanahan, 2005). Once precise information is gleaned regarding ELL student
performance, structures need to be in place to ensure that this subgroup data is
disaggregated and analyzed. Instructional practices and curriculum designed for ELL
students should be judged for effectiveness based on the related student outcomes
(Abedi & Gándara, 2006). Superintendents can also clearly define the efficient
instructional norms that will be expected throughout the district and ensure that site
leaders are holding teachers accountable to full implementation. Monitoring the
rigorous implementation of research-based instructional practices will result in
improved student outcomes (Fullan, 2004).
Table 13 portrays the superintendent survey responses to the question: To
what extent do you agree that the following are important in monitoring and
evaluating the academic achievement of English language learners? Superintendents
were asked to determine their level of agreement with each item using a Likert-type
scale in which “1” indicated strongly disagree, “2” indicated disagree, “3” indicated
agree, and “4” indicated strongly agree.
Table 13
Superintendent Rating of Factors that are Important in Monitoring and Evaluating
the Plans to Improve ELL Academic Achievement
Stakeholder Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
Agree
(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Valid and
reliable
assessment
instruments
0 0 4 8 3.67 12
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

83
Table 13 (Continued)
Reclassification
rates
0 1 6 5 3.33 12
Analyzing
subgroup
assessment data
0 0 5 8 3.62 13
Site
administrator
classroom
observations
0 1 6 5 3.33 12
Established
instructional
norms
0 1 5 5 3.36 11
Site
administrator
collaboration at
the district level
0 0 8 3 3.27 11
Superintendent
visibility at
school sites
0 1 9 2 3.08 12

The response mean range for all categories within this item was 3.08 to 3.67.
“Valid and reliable assessment instruments” was rated most favorably (3.67) whereas
“superintendent visibility at school sites” received the lowest response mean (3.27).
Valid and Reliable Assessment Instruments
The need for “valid and reliable assessment instruments” recorded the highest
response mean (3.67) from superintendents. Although this was the item that received
the highest quantitative response, this finding was not solidified in the qualitative
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

84
interviews. While each of the eight superintendents discussed the need to regularly
analyze and disaggregate data, they did not focus on the validity or the reliability of
the instruments that were used. Cited by all eight who talked about data were the
CELDT assessment and the battery of assessments from the STAR program. The
accurate applicability of these two data points was not a concept that could be
verified with any interpretive data from the interviews. Each superintendent cited the
bureaucratic accountability related to these two summative measures, but did not
question their accuracy.
Analysis of Subgroup Assessment Data
The survey results demonstrated that “analyzing subgroup assessment data”
was the item that received the second highest response mean (3.62). Similarly, each
of the eight superintendents interviewed stated that they used data analysis systems
that pulled specific subgroup information to monitor the progress of the ELL
students in their districts. Additionally, four of these superintendents shared that
teachers also access subgroup data and that it is a matter of discussion at
collaborative teacher meetings.
Of the eight superintendents interviewed, six were able to specifically
identify whether or not their ELL subgroup had met the AYP requirements for the
previous year. If the group had not, they were able to articulate the steps they took to
improve that outcome. For example, Superintendent A stated, “More than 54% of
our EL population was proficient on the CST. For some districts that might be
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

85
something to be happy about, but for us, they’re not at the same rate where the other
students are.” She, as well as the other five superintendents, had a very clear picture
of the data that impacts her district under the NCLB Act. This is a statement on the
impact on assessment awareness created by this legislation.
Established Instructional Norms
“Established instructional norms” recorded the third highest response mean
(3.36). This item refers to clear expectations that have been set for teachers in regard
to the expected instructional practices throughout a district and each school site. In
reference to normed instructional practices, seven of the eight superintendents noted
that these norms are set both through the professional development programs and
during collaborative meetings for teachers.
In terms of follow through on professional development, Superintendent F
stated that, encompassed in all of the trainings that are provided, she requests that
there be a section of the time devoted to the kinds of teacher and student actions that
would embody the new practice. She stated, “teachers need to know what this theory
will look like in action in their classrooms and principals need to know how to hold
them accountable for it.” Superintendent H expressed a similar philosophy with a
slightly different practice. He developed a teacher council of teacher leaders who
helped to develop a discrete set of practices that should be present in each lesson.
These practices included teacher behaviors and observable student behaviors and
outcomes. He stated, “When teachers know what will be looked for during their
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

86
observations, they will be more likely to try these practices that are the best for EL
kids.” A set of clear instructional expectations for teachers was a common theme.
Two of the superintendents discussed how instructional norms are set during
teacher PLC meetings when they look at benchmark data and share the best practices
that led to the best data outcomes for ELL students. It was explained that this is
founded in the belief that teachers will be more willing to engage in practices that are
developed collaboratively and with the guidance of their peers. Superintendent C
characterized this finding by stating:
When teachers get together, I think that is a powerful time. I require
principals to set up regular meetings when the benchmark results come
available. Teachers are becoming more open in sharing their outcomes and
we hope to get the teachers with the best results to share some practices that
all can agree to. If the principal is there, this is a great way to plan for the
kinds of instructional practices that should be seen in all classrooms.
The development of the norms may vary in the different responses, but the value of
their existence is distinct. The superintendents interviewed valued clear expectations
for the types of instructional practices that could be used to support students
classified as ELL.
Discussion
Of note in this discussion is the contrast in the quantitative response and the
qualitative responses in relation to the reliability and validity of assessments in
gauging ELL student performance. The fallibility of these assessments is noted in
extensive research (Abedi & Gándara, 2006; Genesee et al., 2005; Gándara et al.,
2003), and it was a finding in the research. Yet, this concept does not appear to be at
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

87
the forefront of superintendent platforms in discussing the needs of ELL students.
In contrast, the other two survey items that received the second and third
highest response means were solidified and explained in interview findings. The
need to analyze subgroup data at the district, site, and classroom level was a priority.
Superintendents were well versed in the current state of their ELL population.
Results measured by the NCLB Act were readily accessed and explained.
Established instructional norms were viewed as equally important and were cited as
a strategy to both share best practices and help site administrators hold teachers
accountable for implementing strategies learned through professional development.
Summary
The superintendents who were interviewed and surveyed noted a variety of
strategies they had employed to achieve success with improving the academic
achievement of ELL students. The data was analyzed in this mixed methods study to
determine significant findings. The data suggests the following findings related to
the four research questions.
Research question one asks, What factors do urban superintendents consider
when developing strategies to improve the academic achievement of students
classified as English language learners? Factors that superintendents consider are
teacher expectations for ELL performance, access to highly qualified teachers, and
the importance of instructional leadership.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

88
Research question two asks, Who are the critical stakeholders included by
urban superintendents to assist in improving the academic achievement of students
classified as English language learners? Superintendents feel that the critical
stakeholders that should be included are teachers, district level personnel, and school
level administrators.
Research question three asks, What strategies do urban superintendents
execute when implementing plans to improve the academic achievement of students
classified as English language learners? The superintendents included in this study
identified that the following strategies should be executed: ensuring high
expectations for ELL student achievement, clearly defined district wide goals for
ELL student achievement, and on-site teacher collaboration.
Research question four asks, What strategies do urban superintendents use to
monitor and evaluate the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners? The strategies that superintendents use to monitor and evaluate
ELL academic achievement include using valid and reliable assessment instruments,
analyzing subgroup assessment data, and establishing instructional norms.
Following in Chapter Five is a summary of this research study including
conclusions and implications.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

89
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
Introduction
The external demand for improved academic outcomes for all students
persists as an impetus toward refining and improving all educational practices in our
current school system. The superintendents of large, urban K-12 school districts are
charged with supporting the unique needs of ELL students, for whom an
achievement gap exists (Lauen & Gaddis, 2012). This gap demonstrates that the
current K-12 educational system is not effectively supporting ELL students to ensure
their success in both language acquisition and academic success (Gándara, et al.,
2005). Demands also exist in the practical consideration of ensuring that this
growing subgroup is provided with a quality education that will ensure that these
students are prepared to compete for jobs in the global marketplace (Schmidt &
McKnight, 1998). This is one of the many burdens faced by current superintendents
that has redefined the role and shifted the focus of leadership decisions (Kowalski,
2013; Lewis, Rice, & Rice, 2011; Bredeson & Kose, 2007; Byrd, Drews, & Johnson,
2007; Marzano, et al., 2005).
This chapter provides a summary of the study, including a statement of the
problem, purpose of the study, research questions, a review of the literature used, the
methodology used, followed by the findings related to each of the four research
questions. In closing, implications and recommendations for future study will be
outlined.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

90
Statement of the Problem
At onset of the 21
st
century, schools in the United States began to experience
a dramatic increase in the number of ELL students who were enrolling. In 2009-
2010, English language learners accounted for ten percent of public school students;
an estimated five million pupils (ARRA, 2009). California has palpably felt this shift
with as many as one in every four students being classified as an ELL (Gándara,
2003). When the assessment outcomes for this group in California are analyzed, a
distinct achievement gap exists between ELL students and their native-English
speaking peers (Gándara, et al., 2005). Consequently, California has not met the
annual yearly progress goals mandated by NCLB (ARRA, 2009). Therefore, the
rapidly increasing number of English language learners creates unique challenges for
superintendents of large urban school districts in California, who are ultimately
charged with ensuring the academic success of this significant subgroup of learners.
Coupled with this pressure, research indicates that, in response to increased
accountability measures and explicit external pressures imposed by NCLB, the role
of the superintendent has shifted from that of manager to instructional leader
(Kowalski, 2013; Lewis, Rice, & Rice, 2011; Bredeson & Kose, 2007; Byrd, Drews,
& Johnson, 2007; Marzano, et al., 2005). Despite these high stakes and shifts in job
expectations, little is known about the specific steps that the superintendents of large,
urban K-12 school districts can do to bolster the achievement of ELL students in
their districts and begin to close the achievement gap.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

91
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify superintendent leadership strategies
that positively impact the academic achievement outcomes of students identified as
ELL in large, urban K-12 school districts. The study specifically considered the
approaches employed by superintendents in developing, implementing, and
monitoring improvements to ELL student academic outcomes.
Research Questions
1. What factors do urban superintendents consider when developing strategies
to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners?
2. Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban superintendents to assist
in improving the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners?
3. What strategies do urban superintendents execute when implementing plans
to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners?
4. What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor and evaluate the
academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Review of the Literature
The review of the literature sought to identify a theoretical framework from
which the study could be analyzed. The literature analysis also provided important
information relating to the background, context, and successful strategies that had
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

92
been utilized in support of ELL students. This review gleaned three key themes that
were considered necessary to ensure academic success for K-12 ELL students in
large urban districts: (a) addressing ELL equity and access in education, (b) creating
a collaborative district and school culture, and (c) building capacity across all levels
of leadership.
As the role of the superintendents has shifted through the application of new
types of accountability demands, the position has become increasingly challenging
(Kowalski, 2013; Lewis, Rice, & Rice, 2011; Bredeson & Kose, 2007; Byrd, Drews,
& Johnson, 2007; Marzano, et al., 2005). Superintendents are expect to make
dramatic improvements to their existing student achievement results and they must
consider the needs of all significant student subgroups, including the growing ELL
student population (Lauen & Gaddis, 2012). As a result, superintendent tenure has
shortened in tandem with the greater external demands to dramatically improve
student achievement outcomes (Borkowski & Sneed, 2006).
Superintendents must ensure equity and access for all ELL students in their
district to ensure that this population has the chance to be successful. They are
charged with setting this tone for their district. Critical elements considered in this
review of the literature included resource allocation, effective teacher hiring and
training procedures, a high quality instructional program for ELL students, and
consideration for the potential lack of validity and reliability of standardized tests for
students classified as ELL (Abeli & Gándara, 2006; August & Shanahan, 2005;
Gándara, et al., 2003).
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

93
Superintendents pursuing significant academic improvement for their ELL
student populations are implored to foster a district culture that is collaborative in
nature. With the goal of improved ELL student outcomes at the forefront of a
superintendent’s job, it is critical to begin building district capacity to work toward
achieving this end.
Methodology
This study utilized a mixed-methods design consisting of 14 quantitative
surveys and eight qualitative interviews with the superintendents of large, urban, K-
12 school districts. The collaborative use of quantitative and qualitative methods
served to ensure complementarity and expansion within the study (Maxwell, 2013).
The resulting triangulation allowed for a more assured understanding of the issues
within the study. This allowed the researcher to align the data from the closed-ended
survey questions with the genuine responses provided by open-ended qualitative
interview methodology (Maxwell, 2013).
In order to create a study that best identified the superintendents of large,
urban K-12 school districts in California, a distinct set of criteria was used to select
candidates for the study. Selected superintendents had to serve school districts with
student populations in excess of 20,000 with at least 20% of those students labeled as
ELL. This set of eligibility criteria was used for both the quantitative survey and the
qualitative interview.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

94
The quantitative survey inquired about superintendents’ demographic data,
their willingness to participate in an interview and their level of agreement with 39
Likert-style survey items related to the considerations superintendents make when
determining how to support the ELL students in their district. The qualitative
interviews were conducted using an interview protocol of eleven open-ended
questions. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed for accuracy. The
instrument design was informed by the research on superintendents, superintendent
leadership and ELL student populations in the body of scholarly literature to enhance
instrument validity. The data gathered through surveys and interviews were analyzed
and used to support the significant research findings in relation to each of the four
research questions.
Findings
Research question one asks, What factors do urban superintendents consider
when developing strategies to improve academic achievement of students classified
as English language learners? Teacher expectations for ELL performance, access to
highly qualified teachers, and instructional leadership were all substantial themes
found in both the quantitative survey and qualitative interviews. Teacher
expectations for ELL performance received the highest response mean (3.91) and
four of the eight superintendents interviewed cited this as an important factor in ELL
student achievement. Access to highly qualified teachers recorded the second highest
response mean (3.64) on the quantitative survey with four of the eight
superintendents also mentioning this factor as significant. Instructional leadership
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

95
received the third highest response mean (3.62) on the quantitative survey and seven
of the eight superintendents also mentioned this as an important factor.
Importantly, superintendents focused on school site based activities with
close connection to students in both of the measures designed to query this research
question. The concept of bureaucratic accountability and external pressures were not
identified as factors that shape programs to support ELL students.
Research question two asks, Who are the critical stakeholders included by
urban superintendents to assist in improving academic achievement of students
classified as English language learners? The data from both this mixed methods
study identified that superintendents believe the critical stakeholders that should be
included in decisions about ELL academic programs are teachers, district level
personnel, and school level administrators. The stakeholder group of teachers
received the highest response mean (3.79) on the quantitative survey and this finding
was solidified by four of the eight superintendents mentioning this group as
important during their qualitative interviews. District level personnel recorded the
second highest response mean (3.73) and six of eight superintendents verified this
finding in their qualitative interviews. School level administrators recorded the third
highest response mean (3.67) with five of the eight superintendents in the qualitative
interview mentioned this stakeholder group.
With this information, it is evident that superintendents most value the input
of those with expertise and those most closely connected to students. The inclusion
of internal experts seems to outweigh the value of input from external forces.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

96
Additionally, while teachers were considered the most important stakeholder group,
the political collective of teacher unions received the lowest response mean (2.46).
Research question three asks, What strategies do urban superintendents
execute when implementing plans to improve the academic achievement of students
classified as English language learners? Findings from the quantitative survey and
qualitative interviews indicted that superintendents valued high teacher expectations
for ELL student achievement, clearly defined district wide goals for ELL student
achievement, and on-site teacher collaboration. High expectations for ELL student
achievement recorded the highest response mean (4.0) and half of the
superintendents interviewed also mentioned this factor during qualitative interviews.
Clearly defined district wide goals for ELL students recorded the next highest
response mean (3.82) with six of the eight superintendents verifying this finding
during their qualitative interviews. On-site teacher collaboration received the third
highest response mean (3.75) with four superintendents solidifying this belief during
their qualitative interviews.
Ensuring that high expectations exist for ELL students is a theme that has
crossed three of the four research questions. This is an important finding for this
study. Additionally, this research question again highlights themes that directly
connect to teachers and school sites. Superintendent influence over activities that
take place at school sites seems to be of significance here.
Research question four asks, What strategies do urban superintendents use to
monitor and evaluate the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners? This study identified the importance in monitoring and
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

97
evaluating ELL academic achievement using valid and reliable assessment
instruments, analyzing subgroup assessment data, and establishing instructional
norms. Using valid and reliable assessment instruments recorded the highest
response mean (3.67) on the quantitative survey, yet this finding was not
corroborated by the qualitative interviews. This concept was not discussed by any of
the eight superintendents. The analysis of subgroup assessment data recorded the
second highest response mean (3.62) and this finding was solidified by comments
from all eight of the superintendents interviewed. Establishing instructional norms
recorded the next highest response mean (3.36) with seven of eight superintendents
citing this as important in the evaluation of programs for ELL students.
Importantly, superintendents here note the critical component of determining
clear norms and subsequent classroom visits and data analysis to determine the
effectiveness of programs that are implemented in support of ELL students.
Although superintendents recognized in the quantitative survey that the validity and
reliability of assessments should be considered, this concept could not be validated
as a finding in this study, as it was not reinforced during the quantitative interviews.
Implications
The significant findings connected to this study contribute to the body of
scholarly literature by identifying the strategies used by superintendents of large,
urban, K-12 school districts seeking to improve the academic achievement of their
significant ELL student population. The knowledge advanced by this analysis is
useful to current superintendents with similar student demographics and to aspiring
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

98
superintendents seeking to support districts with significant ELL student populations.
These insights provide direction in focusing and directing improvements in ELL
student outcomes in an effort to close the achievement gap.
While replicating models of success in a new district may prove challenging,
this study fosters an understanding of some of the common strategies utilized by
superintendents in support of their ELL students. The documentation of shared
strategies in this study can also offer guidance to superintendent preparation program
developers as they consider how to effectively prepare new leaders to support the
growing ELL student population in California.
Additionally, the findings held in this study can be used at the school district
level to help increase awareness about strategies that most effectively ensure the
academic growth of students classified as ELL. Considerations in hiring practice, the
development of staff professional development plans, and the creation of assessment
plans can all be shaped by the findings associated with this study. School boards may
use the information herein to develop criteria by which to hire and evaluate
superintendents. The execution of the strategies found here would demonstrate a
strong connection between research-based findings and practical application.
Recommendations for Future Study
In search of improved lucidity regarding the strategies used by the
superintendents of large, urban, K-12 school districts to support ELL students, the
researcher recommends that the following concepts be taken into consideration for
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

99
future study:
1. This study suggested that the factor of teacher expectations for ELL student
academic achievement was a critical component to this student group’s
success. Inquiry around teachers and their perception of ELL student
potential coupled with an analysis of outcome data would contribute to a
deeper understanding of this important component.
2. A need exists to study the documents and programs utilized by districts in
support of ELL students. This study indicated that instructional norms,
subgroup data analysis, and site level collaboration are factors that would
improve ELL academic achievement. An analysis of the documents used in
these processes could provide a clearer view as to their usefulness.
3. This study sought to gain knowledge from all of the large, urban, K-12 school
districts in California with ELL student populations set forth by the criteria of
the study. The findings here could be refined if a set of criteria was applied to
ensure that only districts with significant success with ELL populations were
included.
4. This study grouped ELL students in one broad category, just as they are
analyzed in our current bureaucratic accountability system. This work could
be refined by considering the strategies used to support the various types of
students included in this heterogeneous subgroup including long term ELL
students, students who have reclassified, and those who are newcomers.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

100
Conclusion
The superintendents of large, urban, K-12 school districts in California face
unmatched challenges and are met with the moral imperative to support the growing
ELL student population that has been traditionally underserved. As a result, these
leaders must shift their perspectives and willingly shape their practices around the
needs of the students they serve. It is upon the shoulders of these superintendents that
the success of these students rests. The improved academic achievement of all
students, and of all significant subgroups of students, must be at the forefront of all
decisions made and strategies implemented.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

101
References

Abedi, J., & Gándara, P. (2006). Performance of English language learners as a
subgroup in large scale assessment: Interaction of research and policy.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(4), 36-46.

Applebaum, S. & Valero, M. (2007). The crucial first three months: An analysis of
leadership transition traps and successes. Journal of American Academy of
Business, 11(1).
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. (March 2009). The American Recovery
Reinvestment Act: Recommendations for addressing the needs of English
Language Learners.
August & Shanahan (2006). Developing literacy in second language learners:
Report of the national literacy panel on language minority children and
youth. Center for Applied Linguistics, 1-9.
Bjork, L., & Lindle, J. C. (2001). Superintendents and interest groups. Educational
Policy, 76-91.
Bolman, L. and Deal, T. (2008). Third Edition. Reframing organizations: artistry,
choice and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Borkowski, J. & Sneed, M. (2006). Will NCLB improve or harm public education?
Harvard Educational Reform, 503-727.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

102
Brazer, D. S., Rich, W., & Ross, S. A. (2010). Collaborative strategic decision
making in school districts. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(2),
196-217.
Bredeson, P. V., Klar, H. W., & Johansson, O. (2011). Context-responsive
leadership: Examining superintendent leadership in context. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 19(18), 28-28.
Bredeson, P. V. & Kose, B. W. (2007). Responding to the education reform
agenda: A study of school superintendents’ instructional leadership.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15(5).

Bunch, M. B. (2011). Testing English language learners under No Child Left Behind.
Language Testing, 28(3), 323-341.
Byrd, J. K., Drews, C., & Johnson, J. (2006). Factors impacting superintendent
turnover: Lessons from the field. Online Submission.

California Department of Education. (2006). Standardized Testing and Reporting:
Program Resources. Retrieved February 13, 2013, from www.cde.ca.gov.
Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy (2005). The impact of
immigration on the California Economy. A Report of the California Regional
Economies Project.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

103
Contreras, A. R. (2002). The impact of immigration policy on education reform:
Implication for the New Millennium. Education and Urban Society, Vol. 34
No. 2, February 2002, 134-155. Corwin Press 2002.
Daly, A. J., Der-Martirosian, Ong-Dean, C., Park, V., & Wishard-Guerra, A. (2011).
Leading under sanction: Principals' perceptions of threat. Leadership and
Policy in Schools, 10(2).
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Third annual Brown lecture in education research -
The flat earth and education: How America’s commitment to equity will
determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318-334.
Denning, P. J. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational
reform. Community, 26(7), 467-478. doi: 10.1145/358150.358154.
Dolph, D., & Grant, S. (2010). Practices of successful school leaders. International
Journal of Educational Reform, 19(4), 269-286.
Fullan, M., Bertani, A., & Quinn, J. (2004). New lessons for district-wide
reform. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 42.

Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of
English language learners: A Survey of California Teachers’ Challenges,
Experiences, and Professional Development Needs. Joint Publications,
University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute, UC Berkeley
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

104
Gandara, P. & Rumberger, R. (2002). The Inequitable Treatment of English Learners
in California's Public Schools. UC Los Angeles: UCLA's Institute for
Democracy, Education, and Access. Retrieved from:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/03b7k2km
Gándera, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R., (2003). English
learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(36).
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English
language learners in US schools: An overview of research findings. Journal
of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 363-385.

Glass, T. E., Bjork, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The study of the American school
superintendency, 2000. A look at the superintendent of education in the new
millennium American Association of School Administrators, 1801 N. Moore
Street, Arlington, VA 22209 (document stock number 236-021).
Harris, D. M. (2012). Postscript: Urban schools, accountability, and
equity. Education and Urban Society, 44, 203-210. doi:
10.1177/0013124511431571.
Hentschke, G., Nayfack, M. & Wohlstetter, P. (2007, April). Small urban districts on
the move: How leadership in small districts facilitates school improvement
efforts. American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

105
Kelly, V. L. & Petersen, G. J. (2011). Superintendent leadership as the catalyst for
organizational learning: Implications for closing the achievement gap. In
Alford, B. (Ed) National Council of Professors of Educational Administration
(NCPEA) 2011 Yearbook.
Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Evolution of the school superintendent as communicator.
Communication Education, 54:2, 101-117.

Kowalski, T. J., McCord, R. S., Petersen, G. J., Young, P., & Ellerson, N. M. (2010).
The American school superintendent: 2010 decennial study. Lanham, MD:
The American Association of School Administrators.
Lauen, D. L., & Gaddis, S. M. (2012). Shining a light or fumbling in the dark? The
effects of NCLB's subgroup-specific accountability on student achievement.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 185-208. doi:
10.3102/0162373711429989.
Lewis, T., Rice, M., & Rice, R. (2011). Superintendents' Beliefs And Behaviors
Regarding Instructional Leadership Standards Reform. The International
Journal of Educational Preparation, 1-13.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works,
from research to results. Association for Supervision & Curriculum
Development.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

106
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd

ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mountford, M. (2004). Motives and power of school board members: Implications
for school board-superintendent relationships. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 704-741.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The condition of education 2011.
U.S. Department of Education. 2011.
Pascopella, A. (2011). Superintendents staying power: DA editors look back over 15
years at the tenure of the men and women who have led the 10 largest
districts in the nation.
Petersen, G. (1999). Demonstrated actions of instructional leaders: An examination
of five California superintendents. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 1-24.
Rammer, R. (2007). Call to action for superintendents: Change the way you hire
principals. The Journal of Educational Research, 1-10.
Schmidt, W. H., & McKnight, C. C. (1998). What can we really learn from
TIMSS? Science, New Series, 282(5395), 1830-1831.
Schneider, M. (2009). The international PISA test: A risky investment for
states. Education Next, 9(4), 68.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

107
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1994). The fifth discipline
fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New
York: Doubleday.
Spanneut, G., & Ford, M. (2008). Guiding hand of the superintendent helps
principals flourish. Journal of Staff Development, 29(2), 28-33.

Waters, T. J., & Marzano, R. J. (2007). School district leadership that works: The
effect of superintendent leadership on student achievement. ERS
Spectrum, 25(2), 1-12.
Williams, P., Tabernik, M., & Krivak, T. (2009). The power of leadership,
collaboration, and professioanl development: The story of the SMART
consortium. Educaton and Urban Society, 437-456.
Yee, G., & Cuban, L. (1996). When is tenure long enough? A historical anaysis of
superintendent turnover and tenure in urban school districts. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 615-641.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

108
Appendix A
Research Question/Instrument Connection
Research Question 1 What factors do urban superintendents consider
when developing strategies to improve the academic
achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
Interview 1. How do you feel about the academic performance
levels of English language learners in this district?
3. What strategies have you employed in meeting the
academic needs of English language learners in your
district?
4. What factors do you consider in establishing a plan to
improve the academic achievement of English language
learners?
5. How have state and federal accountability measures
influenced your approach to English language learner
achievement?
6. What professional development opportunities related
to the academic achievement of English language
learners are offered in your district?
Survey To what extent do you agree that the following factors
influence the academic achievement of English language
learners?
1. Bureaucratic accountability
2. Demands from the community
3. Access to highly qualified teachers
4. Culturally responsive curriculum
5. Standardized assessment design
6. Teacher expectations for ELL performance
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

109
7. Data-driven decision making
8. Instructional leadership
9. Professional development focused on ELL instruction
Research Question 2 Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban
superintendents to assist in improving academic
achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
Interview 7. Who are the critical stakeholders involved in the
development of plans to improve the academic
achievement of English language learners?
8. How do you involve key stakeholders in monitoring
and evaluating plans to increase the achievement of
students classified as English language learners?
Survey To what extent do you agree that the following
stakeholders should be included in decisions made to
improve the academic improvement of students classified
as English language learners?
1. Community members
2. District-level personnel
3. Parents
4. School-level administrators
5. Teachers
6. Unions
7. School Boards

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

110
Research Question 3 What strategies do urban superintendents execute
when implementing plans to improve the academic
achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
Interview 3. What strategies have you employed in meeting the
academic needs of English language learners in your
district?
6. What professional development opportunities related
to the academic achievement of English language
learners are offered in your district?
9. How do you build the capacity of school leaders in
your district to implement plans that improve the
achievement of English language learners?
Survey To what extent do you agree that the following are
important to superintendent implementation of plans to
improve the academic achievement of students classified
as English language learners?
1. Creation of a vision
2. High expectations for student achievement
3. Analyzing subgroup assessment data
4. Collaboration among stakeholders
5. Resource allocation
6. Clearly defined district-wide academic goals for ELL
students
7. Instructional leadership
8. Professional development for school-site
administrators
9. Professional development for teachers
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

111
10. Professional development facilitated by the district
office
11. Professional development facilitated by the school
site
12. Two-way communication between district and
school-site staff
13. Alignment between district vision and school vision
14. On-site teacher collaboration
15. Alignment of instruction with curricula framework
Research Question 4 What strategies do urban superintendents use to
monitor and evaluate the academic achievement of
students classified as English language learners?
Interview 2. How does the district monitor the academic
achievement of English language learners?
8. How do you involve key stakeholders in monitoring
and evaluating plans to increase the achievement of
students classified as English language learners?
3. What strategies have you employed in meeting the
academic needs of English language learners in your
district?
6. What professional development opportunities related
to the academic achievement of English language
learners are offered in your district?
9. How do you build the capacity of school leaders in
your district to implement plans that improve the
achievement of English language learners?
10. As the district leader, how often do you access or
analyze English language learner data for the district?
11. How do you determine the effectiveness of English
language learner instruction throughout the district?
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

112
Survey To what extent do you agree that the following important
in monitoring and evaluating academic achievement of
students classified as English language learners?
1. Valid and reliable assessment instruments
2. Reclassification rates
3. Analyzing subgroup assessment data
4. Site administrator classroom observations
5. District level administrator classroom observations
6. Established instructional norms
7. Site administrator collaboration at the district-level
8. Superintendent visibility at school sites

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

113
Appendix B
Survey Instrument
Gender?
Male
Female
Ethnicity?
American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African-American, Hispanic/
Latino, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, White, Two or More, Other:
____________
Age Category?
29 and under
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70 and over
Highest Educational Attainment
Bachelor’s Degree
Master’s Degree
Other Professional Degree
Doctoral Degree
Years of experience as the superintendent of your current district: _____
Total years of experience as a superintendent: _____
Would you be willing to participate in a 45-minute follow up interview? Yes/No

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

114
Question 1: To what extent do you agree that the following factors influence the
academic achievement of English language learners?
(1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree)
1. Bureaucratic accountability 1 2 3 4
2. Demands from the community 1 2 3 4
3. Access to highly qualified teachers 1 2 3 4
4. Culturally responsive curriculum 1 2 3 4
5. Standardized assessment design 1 2 3 4
6. Teacher expectations for ELL performance 1 2 3 4
7. Data-driven decision making 1 2 3 4
8. Instructional leadership 1 2 3 4
9. Professional development focused on ELL instruction 1 2 3 4
Question 2: To what extent do you agree that the following stakeholders should be
included in decisions made to improve the academic improvement of students
classified as English language learners?
(1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree)
1. Community members 1 2 3 4
2. District-level personnel 1 2 3 4
3. Parents 1 2 3 4
4. School-level administrators 1 2 3 4
5. Teachers 1 2 3 4
6. Unions 1 2 3 4
7. School boards 1 2 3 4

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

115
Question 3: To what extent do you agree that the following are important to
superintendent implementation of plans to improve the academic achievement of
students classified as English language learners?
(1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree)
1. Creation of a vision 1 2 3 4
2. High expectations for student achievement 1 2 3 4
3. Analyzing subgroup assessment data 1 2 3 4
4. Collaboration among stakeholders 1 2 3 4
5. Resource allocation 1 2 3 4
6. Clearly defined district-wide academic goals for ELL students 1 2 3 4
7. Instructional leadership 1 2 3 4
8. Professional development for school-site administrators 1 2 3 4
9. Professional development for teachers 1 2 3 4
10. Professional development facilitated by the district office 1 2 3 4
11. Professional development facilitated by the school site 1 2 3 4
12. Two-way communication between district and school-site staff 1 2 3 4
13. Alignment between district vision and school vision 1 2 3 4
14. On-site teacher collaboration 1 2 3 4
15. Alignment of instruction with curricula framework 1 2 3 4

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

116
Question 4: To what extent do you agree that the following are important in
monitoring and evaluating academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners?
(1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree)
1. Valid and reliable assessment instruments 1 2 3 4
2. Reclassification rates 1 2 3 4
3. Analyzing subgroup assessment data 1 2 3 4
4. Site administrator classroom observations 1 2 3 4
5. District level administrator classroom observations 1 2 3 4
6. Established instructional norms 1 2 3 4
7. Site administrator collaboration at the district-level 1 2 3 4
8. Superintendent visibility at school sites 1 2 3 4

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

117
Appendix C
Interview Protocol
Leadership Strategies Employed by K-12 Urban Superintendents to Improve
the Academic Achievement of English Language Learners
1. How do you feel about the academic performance levels of English language
learners in this district?

2. How does the district monitor the academic achievement of English language
learners?

3. What strategies have you employed in meeting the academic needs of English
language learners in your district?

4. What factors do you consider in establishing a plan to improve the academic
achievement of English language learners? Follow up: How did you develop the
plans?

5. How have state and federal accountability measures influenced your approach to
English language learner achievement?

6. What professional development opportunities related to the academic
achievement of English language learners are offered in your district?

7. Who are the critical stakeholders involved in the development of plans to
improve the academic achievement of English language learners? Follow up:
How do you select these stakeholders?

8. How do you involve key stakeholders in monitoring and evaluating plans to
increase the achievement of students classified as English language learners?

9. How do you build the capacity of school leaders in your district to implement
plans that improve the achievement of English language learners?

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

118
10. As the district leader, how often do you access or analyze English language
learner data for the district?

11. How do you determine the effectiveness of English language learner instruction
throughout the district?

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

119
Appendix D

Survey Cover Letter

Date

Dear (Superintendent’s Name),

Based on your success with supporting students classified as English Language
Learners in your district, we would like to invite you to participate in our research
study. The study is being conducted under the guidance of Dr. Rudy Castruita as
part of our doctoral studies at the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California. This study seeks to identify the strategies employed by the
superintendents of large, urban school districts to improve the academic achievement
of students classified as English language learners.

We understand that your time is both extremely valuable and limited. The survey
has been piloted and will take approximately fifteen minutes to complete. Your
voluntary participation would be much appreciated. It will provide an important
contribution to the research on superintendent implementation of leadership
strategies to close the achievement gap associated with English language learners.
Your relationship with the University of Southern California and parties associated
with the study will not be affected whether you choose to participate in this study or
not. There are no known risks associated with participation in this study.

Thank you in advance for your time. Please contact any of us should you have any
questions regarding this study.

Sincerely,

Tiffani Curtis
Doctoral Candidate
tbgilmor@usc.edu
(213) 393-3777

Gretchen Janson
Doctoral Candidate
gjanson@usc.edu
(310) 863-3675
Raul Ramirez
Doctoral Candidate
rramirez@usc.edu
(213) 700-3128

Charles D. Smith
Doctoral Candidate
smithcd@usc.edu
(562) 685-6621

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

120
Appendix E

Proposed Interview Letter

Date

(Superintendent Name), Superintendent
Unified School District
1234 Main Street
Anywhere, CA 00000

Re: Request for Interview

Dear (Superintendent Name),

My name is Gretchen Janson and I am a doctoral student in the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. I am conducting a research study
as part of my dissertation, under the guidance of Dr. Rudy Castruita. My study
focuses on the leadership strategies employed by the superintendents of large, urban
school districts in an effort to support the academic achievement of English language
learners.

You have been identified as an outstanding superintendent of a large, urban school
district. The size and demographic constitution of your school district is ideal for my
study. Participation in this study would require one interview with a length of
approximately one hour.

Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity as a participant will
remain confidential during and after the study. All interviews will take place in a
private location of your choice.

Please let me know if you are willing to participate or if you have any further
questions regarding my study. I can be reached via email at gjanson@usc.edu or via
phone at (310) 863-3675.

Thank you in advance for your consideration,

Gretchen Janson
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

121
Appendix F

Information Letter

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Leadership Strategies Employed by K-12 Urban Superintendents to Improve the
Academic Achievement of English Language Learners

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study was to ascertain the superintendent leadership strategies
that positively impact the academic achievement of students identified as English
language learners in large urban K-12 school districts. Specifically, this study
considers the approaches employed by superintendents in developing, implementing,
and monitoring improvements to English language learner student outcomes.
Participation is voluntary.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete a 46-item survey (6
demographic questions, 39 questions pertinent to the literature, and 1 question
regarding availability to participate in the qualitative portion). The instrument will
take approximately 15 minutes to complete. You may also be asked to participate in
a 45 minute, 11-item interview with follow up questions. This interview will be
audio recorded with your permission.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The identity of survey participants will remain confidential and pseudonyms will be
used. All data will be secured and will be destroyed after three years.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s
Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP
reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

Tiffani Curtis: tbgilmor@usc.edu

Gretchen Janson: gjanson@usc.edu
Raul Ramirez: rramirez@usc.edu Charles D. Smith: smithcd@usc.edu

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier
Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The superintendents of large, urban K-12 school districts in California have been charged with improving academic outcomes for the growing subgroup of students classified as English language learners (ELL). Pressures from both internal and external sources have shaped this charge. The evolving role of the superintendent demands an increase in involvement with instructional programs that are implemented in support of high needs student subgroups, including ELL students. Superintendents’ focus has shifted from one of management to one of instructional leadership, as this leader is now more directly held accountable for student achievement. This shift in positional expectation has proved to be challenging for superintendents and an achievement gap persists for ELL students in California despite the effort that has been expended in support of this group of students. ❧ This study utilized a mixed-methods design to answer four research questions related to superintendent leadership and ELL academic achievement. Data was collected via a quantitative survey of 14 superintendents and qualitative interviews of eight superintendents. This data was used to support the four research findings. ❧ First, factors that superintendents consider in the development of plans to support ELL students are teacher expectations, access to highly qualified teachers, and the importance of instructional leadership. Second, superintendents believe the critical stakeholders that should be included in decisions about supporting the ELL student subgroup are teachers, district level personnel, and school level superintendents. Third, the strategies superintendents consider when executing plans to improve the academic achievement of ELL students are establishing high expectations for student achievement, developing clearly defined district wide academic goals for ELL students, and structuring on-site teacher collaboration. And fourth, the strategies that superintendents use to monitor and evaluate ELL academic achievement include using valid and reliable assessment instruments, analyzing subgroup assessment data, and establishing instructional norms.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

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

PDF

Effective strategies that urban superintendents use that improve the academic achievement for African-American males

PDF

Superintendents' viewpoint of the role stakeholders can play in improving student achievement

PDF

Strategies employed by successful superintendents and boards of education resulting in increased student achievement

PDF

The sustainability of superintendent-led reforms to improve student achievement

PDF

Effective strategies urban superintendents utilize that improve the academic achievement for African American males

PDF

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

PDF

The critical aspects of oversight that suburban superintendents, as instructional leaders, must employ to improve instruction

PDF

The role of superintendents as instructional leaders: facilitating student achievement among ESL/EL learners through school-site professional development

PDF

Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals

PDF

An examination of small, mid-sized, and large school district superintendents and the strategies they employ 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

The role of the superintendent in ensuring school board focus on student achievement

PDF

Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement

PDF

Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams

PDF

An examination of small, mid-sized, and large school district superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Strategies employed by middle school principals successful in increasing and sustaining the mathematics achievement of African American students

Asset Metadata

Creator Janson, Gretchen L. (author)

Core Title Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/18/2014

Defense Date 10/22/2013

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

Tag achievement gap,English language learner,K-12,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,superintendent,Urban

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy Max (committee chair), García, Pedro Enrique (committee member), Roach, John A. (committee member)

Creator Email gjanson@usc.edu,gljanson@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-362090

Unique identifier UC11296265

Identifier etd-JansonGret-2247.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-362090 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-JansonGret-2247.pdf

Dmrecord 362090

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Janson, Gretchen L.

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