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
Tiffani Curtis
____________________________________________________________________
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
October 2013
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 2

Dedication

To my father, Bennett A. Curtis, I dedicate this body of work as a small token of the
appreciation I have for the amazing love, friendship, and thirst for knowledge you poured into
me over the years. To complete this academic journey without my father has proven to be my
most challenging task, given he was my biggest fan.
To my sister, Nicolette Harris, thank you for always supporting every ridiculous idea I
come up with. Your constant encouragement and friendship keeps me grounded and focused.
To my mother, Barbara Marshall, thank you for being my cheerleader. I love that you
brag about me to everyone who will listen. I know this endeavor has made you proud.
Kirstin, Julian, and Kennedy McDuffie, my amazing children, you three make me proud
to be your mother. Thank you for graciously forgiving several years of my being unavailable to
attend family gatherings, special events, and vacations. Above all, thank you for loving me
unconditionally through this process. My prayer is that I have provided the three of you a bit of
insight into the commitment and passion required to work toward that one thing that speaks to
your spirit, in my case, the idea of transforming education in America.
Finally, to my incredible colleagues and true friends at Imagine School at Mountain
View-We started and finished this journey together. Jaime Adams, Randi Bostick, Carol Fabbri,
and Nichole Shaffer: We are more than a leadership team, we are family. You women are the
reason I was able to complete this journey and remain sane. Thank you from the absolute bottom
of my heart.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 3

Acknowledgments
It is with sincere appreciation that I acknowledge the individuals at the University of
Southern California, Rossier School of Education who supported me in completing this process.
My dissertation chair, Dr. Rudy Castruita, and committee members, Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr.
John Roach, provided remarkable support and encouragement through their anecdotal accounts
of professional experiences that inspired and challenged me through the entire program. Their
experience and passion for public school education is worthy of imitation.
I would like to offer a special thank you to Gretchen Janson, Raul Ramirez, and Charles
Smith, who served as my writing partners, colleagues, and friends throughout the entire
dissertation process. The knowledge I gleaned from your professional experiences made me a
better elementary school principal. I am truly encouraged by our authentic partnerships. I look
forward to our paths crossing in the future, as we continue to work relentlessly to improve access
to an equitable education for all students.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 4

Table of Contents

List of Tables 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 9
Introduction 9
Statement of the Problem 12
Purpose of the Study 12
Research Questions 13
Significance of the Study 13
Assumptions 14
Limitations 14
Delimitations 14
Definition of Terms 15
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 17
Introduction 17
The Role of the Superintendent 19
Theoretical Framework 21
Equity and Access for English Language Learners 23
Creating a Collaborative Culture 28
Building Capacity 31
Conclusion 32
Chapter Three: Methodology 33
Introduction 33
Purpose of the Study 34
Research Questions 35
Rationale for Mixed-Methods Study Design 35
Research Design 36
Sample Population 36
Instrument Validity 37
Instrumentation 37
Quantitative Instrumentation 38
Qualitative Instrumentation 38
Data Collection 39
Quantitative Data Collection 39
Qualitative Data Collection 39
Data Analysis 40
Quantitative Data Analysis 40
Qualitative Data Analysis 40
Summary 41
Chapter Four: Results 42
Introduction 42
Purpose 43
Response Rate 43
Quantitative Demographic Data 44
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 5

Qualitative Demographic Data 49
Research Question One 51
Teacher Expectations for ELL Performance 53
Access to Highly Qualified Teachers 54
Instructional Leadership 55
Discussion 55
Research Question Two 56
Teachers 57
District-Level Personnel 58
School-Level Administrators 60
Discussion 60
Research Question Three 61
High Expectations for Student Achievement 64
Clearly Defined District-Wide Academic Goals for 65
ELL Students
On-Site Teacher Collaboration 66
Discussion 67
Research Question Four 67
Valid and Reliable Assessment Instruments 69
Analysis of Subgroup Assessment Data 70
Established Instructional Norms 71
Discussion 72
Summary 72
Chapter Five: Conclusion 74
Introduction 74
Statement of the Problem 74
Purpose of the Study 75
Research Questions 75
Review of the Literature 76
Methodology 78
Findings 79
Implications 82
Recommendations for Future Study 82
Conclusion 83
References 85
Appendix A: Research Question/Instrument Connection 91
Appendix B: Survey Instrument 94
Appendix C: Interview Protocol 97
Appendix D: Survey Cover Letter 98
Appendix E: Interview Letter 99
Appendix F: Information Letter 100

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 6

List of Tables

Table 1: Characteristics and Instructional Issues of ELL Subgroups 25

Table 2: Quantitative Survey: Response Rate 44

Table 3: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Gender 44

Table 4: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Ethnicity 45

Table 5: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Age 45

Table 6: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Education 46

Table 7: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Experience in Current District 47

Table 8: Quantitative Survey: Overall Superintendent Experience 47

Table 9: Quantitative Survey: District Characteristics 49

Table 10: Qualitative Interview: Characteristics for Superintendents and Districts 50

Table 11: Superintendent Rating of Factors that are Important in ELL 52
Academic Achievement

Table 12: Superintendent Rating of Stakeholder Importance in ELL 57
Academic Decisions

Table 13: Superintendent Rating of Factors that are Important in Implementing 63
Plans to Improve ELL Academic Achievement

Table 14: Superintendent Rating of Factors that are Important in Monitoring 68
and Evaluating the Plans to Improve ELL Academic Achievement

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 7

Abstract
Superintendents of large urban school districts face the arduous task of answering to
rigorous state accountability systems while meeting a plethora of demands from No Child Left
Behind (NCLB). Moreover, the role of the superintendent has shifted from that of a district
manager to an instructional leader. Today, urban superintendents are expected to possess the
skills necessary to augment instructional methods for increased student learning. Specifically,
superintendents are charged with closing the persistent achievement gap that plagues the most at-
risk subgroup populations, including the diverse group of English Language Learners (ELL).
This study employed a mixed-method design to answer four research questions related to
leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic
achievement of ELL students. The four research findings were supported through data collection
from 14 superintendent quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews conducted with eight
superintendents.
First, teacher expectations, access to highly qualified teachers, and instructional
leadership emerged as key levers in developing strategies to improve the academic achievement
of ELL students. Second, superintendents identified teachers, district-level personnel, and
school-level administrators as critical stakeholders in the process of developing plans for
increased academic achievement for ELL students. Third, high expectations for student
achievement, clearly defined district-wide academic goals, and on-site teacher collaboration
surfaced as some of the strategies that the superintendents in this study considered when
executing plans to improve the academic achievement of ELL students. Fourth, strategies used
by superintendents to monitor and evaluate the academic achievement of ELL students included
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 8

valid and reliable assessment instruments, analyzing subgroup assessment data, and established
instructional norms.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 9

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
The United States is facing a formidable challenge: sustaining the nation’s educational
organizations in order to remain competitive in the global economy. Unlike any other time in the
country’s history, educational institutions must educate an increasingly diverse student
population. Given the structural shifts in America’s economy, education in general is a
requirement for individuals seeking to compete in today’s labor market (Contreras, 2002). Still,
current research indicates that after the completion of compulsory education, students in the
United States will not possess the high-level skills needed to compete in the global economy
(Schmidt & McKnight, 1998). Furthermore, international benchmarks show American students
underperforming in literacy, science, and mathematics compared to their peers in other
developed countries (Schneider, 2009).
A key contributor to the global achievement gap is the recent patterns of immigration.
Shifting demographics in the United States have a significant impact on America’s public
schools. Although the size of the overall student population basically remained unchanged in
2009, the nation’s English language learner (ELL) population grew by over 60% (American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA], 2009). As of 2013, the United States public school
system serves more than 5 million ELL students, a student group that accounts for 10% of
national public school enrollment (Working Group on ELL Policy, 2012). Research indicates
that Hispanics are quickly becoming the nation’s largest minority, with their education levels
strongly affecting the demand for public education and the quality of the future labor force
(Contreras, 2002).
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 10

Coupled with the necessity to produce a better-educated and globally competitive work
force, a political battle is being waged in the United States over educating the nation’s most at-
risk student populations (Jackson, 2008). With their immense concentration of minority students,
urban school districts are at the center of this controversy. The litany of urban school problems
includes low student achievement, illiteracy, substance abuse, and school violence. Deteriorating
school buildings, dwindling financial resources, and shortages of qualified teachers and
principals exacerbate the achievement gap among student groups in this country (Lunenburg,
1992).
California educates one-third of the country’s 5 million English language learners, and
40% of the state’s public school children speak a language other than English (Rumberger &
Gandara, 2004). According to the data, this subgroup of learners lags considerably behind other
student groups—specifically English background students. Nevertheless, district superintendents
are ultimately responsible for the success of this subgroup of at-risk learners. But more than ever
before, urban school district superintendents are facing rigorous state accountability standards
and abundant demands from No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
The most significant feature of NCLB is subgroup accountability. The No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 is intended to improve achievement among the lowest-achieving students in
the highest-poverty schools (Forte, 2010). NCLB requires schools to publicly report the results
of achievement tests disaggregated by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, and
English language learner status (Borkowski & Sneed, 2006). This level of public school
accountability focuses on improving students’ academic performance, and doing so for all
children of all backgrounds. To this end, NCLB mandates that by 2014 school districts
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 11

demonstrate that all subgroups make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward achieving
minimum standards (Rammer, 2007).
Imbedded in the increased bureaucratic accountability system of NCLB is the threat of
punitive sanctions when schools fail to meet annual AYP targets. Specifically, a school that fails
to meet its AYP target for two consecutive years is identified as needing improvement, and the
first mandatory remedy is public school choice (Borkowski & Sneed, 2006; Forte, 2010). Failure
to meet AYP for a third consecutive year leads to supplemental educational services (SES) and,
eventually, to corrective action and restructuring. Given that urban school districts enroll a
disproportionately higher number of diverse and at-risk students, schools in these districts are
more likely to be identified for improvement (Forte, 2010).
An additional requisite of NCLB accountability is driven by the requirement that all
schools publish an annual School Accountability Report Card (SARC). The SARC provides
parents, community members, school boards, and the media a transparent record of public school
performance. However, schools failing to meet AYP targets for successive years are required to
directly inform their community constituents and stakeholders of the school’s program
improvement status. Urban school districts are most impacted by this level of public scrutiny
given the disparate achievements gaps among their diverse population of learners.
Considering the level of state and federal accountability, as well as the disparity of
student achievement, urban school district superintendents face the difficult task of closing the
achievement gap of the most disadvantaged public school populations. The twenty-first century
superintendent must assume the role of an instructional leader while navigating the relentless
pressures of NCLB. Accordingly, the most important demand on the urban school superintendent
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 12

is student achievement; however, the increasing diversity and widening achievement gap of the
ELL subgroup present a multitude of challenges for urban district superintendent leadership.

Statement of the Problem
During the first decade of the twenty-first century, the United States experienced
extraordinary growth in the number of English language learners. In 2009–2010, English
language learners accounted for 10% of public school students—an estimated 5 million pupils.
Data suggest that English language learners lag far behind their peers in academic achievement,
both reading and math. Consequently, California has not met the annual yearly progress goals
mandated by NCLB. Therefore, the rapidly increasing number of English language learners
creates unique challenges for superintendents of large urban school districts charged with
ensuring the academic success of this subgroup of learners.
Research indicates that in response to increased accountability measures and explicit
external pressures imposed by NCLB, the role of the superintendent has shifted from manager to
instructional leader. However, little is known about the strategies used by superintendents of
large urban school districts who positively impact the academic achievement of English language
learners.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to identify superintendent leadership strategies that positively
impact the academic achievement of students identified as English language learners in large
urban K–12 school districts. Specifically, the study considered the approaches employed by
superintendents in developing, implementing, and monitoring improvements to student academic
outcomes.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 13

Research Questions
The following research 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 leadership strategies
employed by urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of students classified
as English language learners. It provides guidance for practical application and further study by
superintendents, principals, practitioners, policymakers, and researchers.
The findings have the potential to support superintendents of large urban school districts
in developing a viable approach to addressing the needs of ELL populations throughout urban
school districts. Additionally, the study identifies a theoretical framework that may serve as a
model for effective leadership practices by superintendents and principals in improving the
academic achievement of ELL students.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 14

Assumptions
The study assumed the following:
1. Superintendent leadership can impact student achievement for students classified as
English language learners.
2. Superintendents can identify and communicate strategies used to improve student
achievement.
3. The chosen procedures and methods are appropriate.
4. The information gathered sufficiently addressed 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.
4. The ability to gain access to superintendents of large urban school districts.
Delimitations
The delimitations of this study were as follows:
1. Data collection was limited to urban superintendents in California with student
populations of more than 20,000.
2. Districts had to serve populations with more than 20% ELL students.
3. Interviews were limited to 8 superintendents of urban school districts.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 15

Definition of Terms
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 (AYP): 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.
At-risk students: Minority students, students who are learning English as a second language, and
students from families with low socioeconomic status.
English language learners (ELLs): 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 (NCLB): The most recent reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that ushered in an era of federal accountability.
PISA: Program in International Student Assessment
Program Improvement (PI): 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.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 16

School Accountability Report Card (SARC): Annual public disclosure of school-level data.
School Choice: A requirement of NCLB to allow 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 (SES): Services paid for by the district to outside educational
entities.
Urban schools: Schools serving a disproportionately high number of at-risk students.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 17

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
According to international studies, high schools in the United States’s educational system
lag far behind other industrialized countries in academic achievement, and are allocated more
input while producing incommensurate output than equivalent schools in peer nations (Darling-
Hammond, 2007). The U.S. administers standards-based tests that measure what a student has
been taught, whereas the Program in International Student Assessment (PISA) anticipates
twenty-first century skills and tests students’ abilities to apply what they know in mathematics,
science, and reading (Darling-Hammond, 2007). The multiple-choice tests adopted under NCLB
discourage the kind of transfer learning that other nations emphasize in their curricula and
assessment systems (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
The United States is in the midst of a political battle over the education of the nation’s
children (Jackson, 2008). NCLB is the primary source of accountability pressure, placing an
unprecedented burden on public schools to educate all children, meet specific academic
standards, and use high-stakes standardized tests as the only assessment tool to demonstrate
student learning (Brazer, Rich, & Ross, 2010; Jackson, 2008). NCLB mandates that by 2014,
school districts are responsible for insuring all students achieve minimum standards. Districts
must also demonstrate that all subgroups of students—economically disadvantaged, students
with disabilities, and limited English proficient students—make adequate progress toward
achieving minimum standards (Brazer et al., 2010; Rammer, 2007). Urban districts enroll a large
percentage of U.S. children and are experiencing pressure in the middle of a serious fiscal crisis
(Jackson, 2008).
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 18

Urban school districts are a source of controversy and inequity (Crosby, 1999), facing
intractable fiscal problems, diverse and demanding constituencies, and demographic changes that
create conflicting and competing expectations (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Yee & Cuban, 1996).
Schools in urban districts consistently deal with issues related to race and class, the effects of
poverty, assimilating immigrants, and teaching a significant population of students whose first
language is not Standard English (Jackson, 2008). Accordingly, urban schools often lack a
challenging curriculum, have inadequate resources, are staffed with discouraged teachers, have
wary parents, and generally have low expectations for student learning (Jackson, 2008). But, in
the midst of this litany of urban school problems, public school superintendents are ultimately
responsible for the success or failure of the schools within their district (Rammer, 2007).
This review of literature focuses on key themes that provide background and context
related to leadership strategies that urban school district superintendents use to improve the
academic achievement of English language learners. The literature review begins with a
description of the role of the superintendent, including a discussion of the position’s evolution
from manager to instructional leader. The theoretical framework of Bolman and Deal (2008)
supports the perspective from which superintendents lead school districts and develop or
implement structures to increase student achievement.
Three major themes emerged from the literature review of leadership strategies employed
by K–12 superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners;
they are (a) equity and access for English language learners; (b) the role of the superintendent in
creating a collaborative culture; and (c) building capacity within the district to develop and
support instructional leaders at the individual school sites.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 19

The Role of the Superintendent
The most important job of an urban school superintendent is student achievement (Byrd,
Drews, & Johnson, 2007; Lewis, Rice, & Rice, 2011; Rammer, 2007). Rammer (2007) has
explained that public school superintendents are ultimately responsible for the success or failure
of schools within the superintendent’s district. Similarly, Byrd et al. (2007) have described the
superintendent’s role as formidable and powerful.
According to Bredeson and Kose (2007), significant changes have taken place in the role
of the superintendent over the past century. The role dates back to the 1830s, when the
superintendent was relegated to performing simple clerical and practical tasks (Kowalski,
2005a). By 1920, a role transformation occurred and the superintendent emerged as a manger,
with the expectation of improving school district operations by focusing on time and efficiency
(Kowalski, 2005a). In today’s era, Bredeson and Kose (2007) have explained, superintendents
are “savvy political actors who acknowledge educational changes swirling about them and the
new demands for accountability and student learning anchored in state and national initiatives”
(p. 18).
Superintendents are facing rigorous state accountability standards and a proliferation of
demands from NCLB (Byrd et al., 2007). Therefore, twenty-first-century superintendents must
be able to interpret assessment data, explain their district’s achievement level in comparison to
other districts in the state and nation, and possess skills to augment instructional methods for
increased student learning (Byrd et al., 2007). Indeed, according to Pascopella (2011), a district
is only as stable and grounded as its superintendent.
As a result of the current educational reform climate—and in response to the unwavering
pressures of NCLB—the superintendent role has transformed into that of an instructional leader
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 20

who must adapt quickly to a constantly changing environment in order to be successful (Lewis et
al., 2011). Therefore, superintendents of large urban school districts must focus on leading others
(Bredeson, Klar, & Johansson, 2011). Superintendents must develop key relationships with
administrative cabinets, leader teams, and other school leaders to build trust across a school
district (Bredeson et al., 2011). These relationships are necessary for accomplishing the work of
the superintendent, which includes improving the quality of teachers, managing school safety,
and developing a community of learners that includes, but is not limited to, business partners,
parents groups, and district and school site staff (Lewis et al., 2011).
Although the primary role of the superintendent is student achievement, Byrd et al.
(2007) have asserted that academic achievement does not happen by chance. The superintendent
as an instructional leader is still responsible for the overall capacity of the school system, making
this instructional leadership role different from that of a school principal (Byrd et al., 2007).
Although the role focuses on instructional leadership, superintendents must understand how to
make strategic decisions in resource allocation, engage the community, and manage human
capital (Pascopella, 2011). Therefore, the work of superintendents is often defined by their
responses to the complexities and challenges of conflicting interests (local, state, national) and
political pressures, standards-based reform, and unpredictable school finances (Bredeson &
Kose, 2007).
In light of today’s instructional leaders facing the challenges of managing the scarce
resources of people, time, and money—which are key levers in supporting school
improvement—increasing student achievement, and improving instructional practices (Lewis et
al., 2011), Kowalski (2005b) has suggested that effective communication behavior has become
increasingly important for superintendents in influencing culture and productivity. Although
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 21

communication skills have been essential since the inception of the superintendent’s role
(Kowalski, 2005b), the twenty-first-century superintendent is typically juggling various tasks
that include teacher quality issues, student equity, federal funding guidelines and programs, new
accountability demands, and student achievement (Pascopella, 2011). The work of the
superintendent has become more stressful because of increasing expectations (Bjork & Lindle,
2001), making communication skills essential for the job (Kowalski, 2005b).
Dolph and Grant (2010) have explained that superintendents must commit to significant
efforts to establish and ensure ongoing two-way communication between their districts and
communities. Good communication supports the development of positive relationships with
district constituents and helps to maintain the flow of resources to address priority issues (Dolph
& Grant, 2010). However, the job of the superintendent is so daunting that few individuals desire
to pursue the challenge (Byrd et al., 2007). According to Yee and Cuban (1996), the frequent
turnover of urban superintendents is indicative of the increasing unmanageability of large school
districts.
Theoretical Framework
This literature review will use the theoretical framework of Bolman and Deal (2008) to
describe the structures superintendents have designed to improve the academic achievement of
English language learners. The leadership framework of Bolman and Deal (2008) focuses on
four distinct frames: structual, human resource, political, and symbolic. A frame is a mental
note, or a set of ideas and assumptions that a leader carries in his or her mind to help understand
and negotiate a situation.
For a leader, framing requires matching circumstances to a mental map; however
reframing is the ability to break frames, the skill of thinking about situations in more than one
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 22

way (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Reframing allows leaders to view the same situation four different
ways. This multilens approach allows a leader to develop a better sense of what he or she is up
against and the best approach for resolution (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
The structural frame describes the formal roles and responsibilities organizations use to
allocate work and coordinate diverse efforts. According to Bolman and Deal (2008), the
structural frame is the blueprint for organizational expectations and exchanges among internal
players and external constituencies. The structural perspective emphasizes organizational
architecture and supports putting people in the correct roles and responsibilities.
The human resource frame highlights the relationship between people and organizations,
and focuses on what happens when these two intersect. The human resources frame assumes that
organizations are comprised of individuals with needs, feelings, prejudices, skills, and
limitations, and that the organization exists to serve human needs instead of humans serving the
needs of the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2008). This perspective asserts that people and
organizations need each other; organizations need ideas, energy, and talent, while people need
careers, salaries, and opportunities. When a good fit is made between the organization and its
human assets, both entities benefit; people find meaning and satisfaction in their work, and the
organization has the talent and energy it needs to prosper (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
In a world of conflicting viewpoints, scarce resources, and power struggles, the political
frame views organizations as arenas in which individuals and groups compete to gratify
individual interests (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Power is a key resource in this leadership frame;
therefore, a key perspective of the political frame is the idea of who gets what, suggesting that
important organizational decisions involve the allocation of scarce resources (Bolman & Deal,
2008). The scarcity of organizational resources and the differences in values, beliefs,
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 23

information, interests, and perception of reality situates conflict at the center of daily
organizational dynamics and makes power the most important asset (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Finally, the symbolic frame “centers on the complexity and ambiguity and emphasizes
the idea that symbols mediate the meaning of work and anchor culture” (Bolman & Deal, 2008,
p. 277). The basic symbolic elements in organizations include myths, heroes, metaphors, stories,
humor, play, rituals, and ceremonies. According to the symbolic perspective, when faced with
uncertainty and ambiguity, people create symbols to help resolve confusion and find direction.
People find purpose and passion in ceremonies, rituals, and secular myths; as such, this
leadership frame refers to the definition of organizational culture and its role in shaping
performance (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
The four leadership frames outlined by Bolman and Deal (2008) serve as the theoretical
framework in this project’s review of leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban
superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners. Specifically,
the review of literature regarding superintendent leadership strategies for increasing equity and
access for English language learners, creating a collaborative culture, and building capacity will
be woven into the four distinct leadership frames of structual, human resource, political, and
symbolic.
Equity and Access for English Language Learners
Currently, the United States public school system serves more than 5 million ELL
students (Working Group on ELL Policy, 2010). According to the Working Group on ELL
Policy (2010), ELL students account for over 10% of the national public school enrollment. The
NCLB Act of 2001 requires that ELL students demonstrate proficiency in English language arts
and mathematics by 2014 (Abedi & Dietel, 2004; Brazer et al., 2010; Rammer, 2007).
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 24

Accordingly, the NCLB mandates establishing high expectations for all students and is intended
to reduce the achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students (Abedi & Dietel,
2004). However, English language learners have historically underperformed their peers by 20 to
30 percentage points (Abedi & Dietel, 2004; Abedi & Gandara, 2006; Goldenberg, 2008), and
the literature suggests that this subgroup typically produces little improvement across numerous
years (Abedi & Dietel, 2004).
English language learners represent the fastest growing subgroup population in public
schools across the United States (Cobb, 2004). The literature indicates that the presence of ELL
students in American public schools creates important diversity challenges (Verdugo & Flores,
2007), as ELL students make up a diverse subgroup with a variety of language and academic
competencies in both English and their primary language (Abedi & Linquanti, n.d.). Although
ELL students are classified as a single subgroup, the characteristics of students in this group
differ (Cobb, 2004). Therefore, Crawford (2004) described the ELL subgroup as a problematic
construct.
The ELL population that makes up this subgroup is highly diverse in socioeconomic
status, linguistic and cultural background, amount of prior education, level of English
proficiency, and exposure to instructional programming (Cobb, 2004; Crawford, 2004; LaCelle-
Peterson & Rivera, 1994). The characteristics and instructional issues related to each group are
noted in Table 1,

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 25

Table 1
Characteristics and Instructional Issues of ELL Subgroups
Group Newly Arrived with
Adequate Schooling
Newly Arrived with
Limited Formal
Schooling
Long-Term
English Learner
Years in US Schools Less than 5 Less than 5 7 or more
Characteristics Continuous
schooling in
native country

Native school
system parallels
U.S. schools
Schooling in
native country
may be limited or
interrupted

Lacks a sense of
school culture and
routines
May have
attended multiple
schools

Experienced
multiple curricula
and methods of
English-language
instruction
Instructional Issues Makes steady
academic progress

May still have
difficulty on
standardized tests
in English
Limited literacy
and math
development,
which may lead to
poor academic
achievement in
U.S. schools
May have
unrealistic
perspective on
demands of school

Achieves
conversational
fluency, but not
academic fluency
needed for success
in school
Note. Table found in Cobb, 2004, p. 2.
According to LaCelle-Peterson and Rivera (1994), the diversity within this subgroup
must be recognized to safeguard against this population being regarded as a monolithic group
with only one defining educational characteristic: the use of a language other than English.
Although the educationally relevant variable shared among the members of this subgroup is the
need to increase their proficiency in English, the students differ in language, cultural
background, and family history (LaCelle-Peterson & Rivera, 1994). Therefore, educational
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 26

decisions must take into account the whole identity of the learner, including cultural heritage,
ethnic group affiliation, gender, and individual learning differences (LaCelle-Peterson & Rivera,
1994). However, research and information on how to make instruction more accessible and
meaningful for ELL students remains limited (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian,
2005; Verdugo & Flores, 2007).
America’s challenge is how to teach students from diverse backgrounds and cultures
(Verdugo & Flores, 2007). Specifically, school districts that serve large ELL populations are
challenged with providing this subgroup opportunities to maximize their learning (Cobb, 2004).
Research indicates that ELL students receive inadequate and incomprehensible instruction
(Gandara & Baca, 2008), and are often taught by substandard, inexperienced teachers who lack
the appropriate credentials (Abedi & Gandara, 2006; Verdugo & Flores, 2007; Working Group
on ELL Policy, 2010). Therefore, ELL students do not have access to equal opportunities to
acquire the same academic content and high-level skills that NCLB advocates for all students
(Working Group on ELL Policy, 2010).
A significant challenge for ELL students is the design of classroom instruction, which
requires this subgroup to master academic knowledge and skills while acquiring a second
language (Crawford, 2004). ELL students often participate in submersion programs in which
they receive instruction entirely in English (LaCelle-Peterson & Rivera, 1994). These students
are expected to learn academic English, the abstract, complex, and difficult language that allows
students to participate fully in mainstream classroom instruction (Goldenberg, 2008).
Consequently, Goldenberg (2008) has argued that ELL students face a double challenge:
“learning academic content and skills while learning the language in which these skills are taught
and practiced” (p. 19).
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 27

The relationship between academic achievement and language proficiency is problematic
at best, especially as there is no agreement regarding best instructional practices for ELL
students (Verdugo & Flores, 2007). However, there is consensus that it takes longer for ELL
students to acquire academic language skills. Although, for this subgroup, NCLB stresses the
acquisition of English as well as academic performance, the policy is not concerned with
developing the native language skills of the students (Verdugo & Flores, 2007). However,
research indicates that teaching students to read in their first language increases reading
achievement in English (Goldenberg, 2008). According to the literature, linguistic and academic
skills acquired in the first language are linked to the successful development of skills in a second
language (Verdugo & Flores, 2007). Although there is no “standard” learning curve for second-
language acquisition, research has shown that the time to proficiency ranges from 3 to 8 years
(Abedi & Linquanti, n.d.; Crawford, 2004; Goldenberg, 2008).
In addition to the dearth of trained teachers and inadequate instruction, assessment
practices that fail to identify the academic needs of ELL students contribute to the educational
inequities of this subgroup (LaCelle-Peterson & Rivera, 1994). For ELL students, high-stakes
tests measure both language ability and academic achievement (Abedi & Dietel, 2004).
According to Crawford (2004), existing assessment tools are unable to distinguish language
errors from academic errors; therefore, these assessment tools are not designed to measure the
academic skills and abilities of English language learners (Abedi & Gandara, 2007). Thus, the
achievement gap for this subgroup is exacerbated by consistently low test scores, which often
lead to placement in remedial and low-level instruction (Abedi & Gandara, 2007).
ELL is the only subgroup designation intended to be a temporary assignment (Abedi &
Linquanti, n.d.). As a result, this subgroup is disadvantaged by the reclassification of students
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 28

considered fully proficient in English. Reclassification leads to a constant variance in the ELL
subgroup population, with students achieving English language proficiency transferring out and
newcomers entering (Cobb, 2004; Crawford, 2004; Working Group on ELL Policy, 2010).
Therefore, the process of exiting proficient students from the subgroup systematically depresses
the performance of the ELL subgroup because the subgroup is continually made up of low-
performing students (Abedi & Dietel, 2004; Cobb, 2004; Working Group on ELL Policy, 2010).
As superintendents negotiate the terrain between internal and external accountability
systems, NCLB policy has intensified demands for district leaders to focus on assessment and
student achievement in their districts (Bredeson & Kose, 2007). Therefore, superintendents must
create and support school sites that value the linguistic and cultural background of ELL students,
while holding high expectations for the academic achievement of students in this subgroup
(Verdugo & Flores, 2007). The literature suggests that collaboration between content and
language teachers increases understanding and student achievement, and supports the transition
of ELL students into mainstream classes.
Creating a Collaborative Culture
Successful superintendents recognize the importance of setting goals, communicating a
district and personal vision, and fostering a culture of collaboration (Dolph & Grant, 2010;
Fullan & Quinn, 2004; Petersen, 1999; Waters & Marzano, 2006; Williams, Tabernik, & Krivak,
2009). In the process of developing a mission, vision, and goal setting, good superintendents
engage internal and external communities, making this process inclusive rather than exclusive of
school district constituents (Dolph & Grant, 2010). Accordingly, successful superintendents are
highly involved in creating school district cultures that support and maintain high levels of
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 29

student success, focusing on teaching and learning during the planning process (Dolph & Grant,
2010).
Dolph and Grant (2010) have asserted that effective superintendents have a positive
impact on student learning. When working with constituents to develop goals that focus on
improving teaching and learning, successful superintendents ensure that these goals stand above
all other district priorities. Although superintendents support the instructional process and
promote instruction by communicating a vision and having a sense of what can be done, vision
alone is insufficient for promoting academic success (Petersen, 1999). Superintendents must
create an organizational structure that facilitates and promotes instruction in order to
institutionalize the district’s vision (Petersen, 1999). The superintendent’s ability to successfully
integrate the district’s vision throughout the organization aligns with Bolman and Deal’s (2008)
leadership frame. According to Waters and Marzano (2006), when the superintendent effectively
addresses specific responsibilities, district leaders have a profoundly positive impact on student
achievement.
The literature recommends that superintendents support the use of data to make decisions
and monitor the progress schools and districts make toward accomplishing goals (Dolph &
Grant, 2010). The use of data allows superintendents to assess how his or her individual schools
are performing, what can be improved, and how to better accomplish the district goals (Dolph &
Grant, 2010). To this end, successful superintendents focus resources on professional
improvement and staff development programs.
According to Dolph and Grant (2010), superintendents realize that scarce resources like
money, time, and personnel must be directed toward improving teaching and learning. According
to the political frame, important organizational decisions involve the allocation of scarce
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 30

resources (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Therefore, when superintendents make conscious decisions to
allocate resources that prioritize matters related to organizational goal attainment focused on
instruction (Dolph & Grant, 2010; Waters & Marzano, 2006), these district leaders are operating
in the political frame.
The human resource frame highlights the relationship between people and organizations
(Bolman & Deal, 2008); superintendents have reported the benefits of relationship building and
in the power of people. The literature suggests that superintendents value staff members and that
building positive relationships among school staff members is critical to the success of districts
(Dolph & Grant, 2010). According to Dolph and Grant (2008), human capital manifests as
increased skills and knowledge. Therefore, superintendents increase human capital through
positive relationships, which in turn leads to increased opportunities for school improvement
(Dolph & Grant, 2010). Superintendents emphasize their ability to influence and motivate staff
members to support higher levels of success (Dolph & Grant, 2010), which is a guiding tenet of
the human resource frame.
Finally, Dolph and Grant (2010) have described skilled district leaders as having the
ability to connect people to purpose. Operating in the symbolic frame, superintendents recognize
the significance of district organizational culture (Dolph & Grant, 2010). Through induction
programs, superintendents make sure new staff members are introduced and become familiar
with the traditions, values, and customs that are important to the community and the school
(Dolph & Grant, 2010).
Successful superintendents understand that creating and sustaining a culture that supports
change in the classroom and at school sites is a must. These superintendents believe that if
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 31

constituents have a positive perception of the district, a positive perception of the entire
community emerges as well (Dolph & Grant, 2010).
Building Capacity
Superintendents believe that hiring and placing people is an essential component of the
instructional success of districts (Petersen, 1999), a notion that aligns with Bolman and Deal’s
(2008) structural leadership frame. Superintendents must hire and place highly competent
individuals who share their vision in head district departments. The instructional department is
paramount, and other departments must exist to support instruction (Petersen, 1999). Although
the most important job of an urban superintendent is student achievement (Byrd et al., 2007;
Lewis et al., 2011; Rammer, 2007), superintendents regard the principal as the instructional
leader at the school site (Petersen, 1999). According to district leaders, principals play a critical
role in the successful campaign for an instructional vision (Petersen, 1999).
According to Miller (2004), principal leadership correlates with student achievement.
Principal and teacher leaders also lead teams that drive the school’s professional goals (Fullan &
Quinn, 2004). Therefore, effective superintendents provide principals with defined autonomy; in
other words, superintendents set clear non-negotiable goals for instruction and learning while
providing school leadership teams with authority and accountability for determining how to meet
those goals (Waters & Marzano, 2006). However, the district must create an infrastructure that
allows principals access to the data needed to effectively monitor and evaluate curriculum,
instruction, and assessment (Miller, 2004).
In building capacity, superintendents communicate their beliefs about what is important
and the roles they expect the principal to fill (Spanneut & Ford, 2008)—a tenet of the structural
frame of leadership. Spanneut and Ford (2008) asserted that superintendents who support the
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 32

development of principals as instructional leaders begin by establishing a shared understanding
with them about why the principal as an instructional leader is necessary for school success. To
reinforce this role, superintendents provide ongoing support to develop and refine the principal’s
effectiveness as an instructional leader (Spanneut & Ford, 2008).
Principals successfully promote instruction within a district by crafting school site
instructional plans that incorporate district goals and objectives, observation and evaluation of
classroom teachers, and professional development (Petersen, 1999). Therefore, the district’s role
is to shape the conditions under which principals can perform their most productive work
(Miller, 2004). Given the significance of the role of the principal, Fullan and Quinn (2004) have
suggested that the mark of successful superintendents is not their impact on student achievement
at the end of their tenure, but rather the number of great leaders the superintendent leaves behind
who can continue to lead the district.
Conclusion
Public school superintendents are ultimately responsible for the success or failure of
schools in their district (Rammer, 2007). Although NCLB is designed to close the achievement
gap between English language learners and their peers, the law does little to address the most
formidable obstacles to their achievement: substandard teachers, poorly designed instructional
programs, and resource inequity (Crawford, 2004). With high concentrations of ELL students in
urban school districts, this subgroup faces a range of urban school challenges. However,
according to the literature, in addressing the needs of their districts, urban superintendents use a
multilens approach to district leadership that includes navigating among the political, structural,
human resource, and symbolic frames.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 33

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
1

Introduction
Expectations for improving student academic achievement continue to introduce new
challenges to school leaders (Borkowski & Sneed, 2006). Researchers have posited 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). Among concerns for student
academic achievement in the United States, students designated as ELL represent a significant
population whose needs must be addressed. This subgroup has seen significant population
growth over the past ten years, and continues to grow (ARRA, 2009). Increases in the ELL
population have brought with them a distinct academic achievement gap relating to this group of
students (Gandara Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 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.
Although these leaders may be logistically distanced from classrooms, their actions still have a
direct impact on student achievement (Marzano, Water, & McNulty, 2005). The superintendent
role has evolved into that of definitive instructional leader of the 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 (Fullan,
& Quinn, 2004; Gandara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly, & Callahan, 2003; Waters & Marzano,
2006). In addition to these major themes, superintendent actions in this study were analyzed

1
This chapter was jointly written by Tiffani Curtis, Gretchen Janson, Raul Ramirez, and Charles D. Smith.
The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work conducted by all who are listed.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 34

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 therein. It details the purpose of the study, research design, sample
population, data collection protocols, and the data analysis process.
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 achievement. The media,
politicians, community members, school boards, and parents are calling for increases in high-
stakes assessment results (Borkowski & Sneed, 2006). Superintendents must navigate these
demands and ensure that they meet the needed improvements to student achievement.
Accountability demands create a critical contextual lens for this challenge. Superintendents are
required to ensure that all student groups acquire the knowledge needed to pass high-stakes
standardized exams and, ultimately, become educated and employable members of their
communities. Much of the extant literature points superintendents in the right direction for
improving overall student achievement, but information on this leadership role’s impact on ELL
students specifically is still lacking. This study aimed to identify tangible strategies that
superintendents can employ to support this subgroup.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 35

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?
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 of identifying the strategies urban superintendents in large districts have
employed to improve the academic achievement of English language learners. This data set
allowed 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 compiled qualitative data offered 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, allowing the
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 36

researcher to understand the underlying elements of superintendent responses to the demand for
increased achievement for students classified as English language learners. The joint use of
quantitative and qualitative methods served to ensure complementarity and expansion within the
study (Maxwell, 2013). Triangulation allowed a more secure understanding of the issues within
the investigation by enabling the researcher to align the data from the closed-ended survey
questions to the authentic responses provided by the open-ended qualitative interview
methodology (Maxwell, 2013).
Research Design
Identifying the leadership strategies urban superintendents have employed to increase the
academic achievement of English language learners is a complex enterprise. As a result, a
mixed-methods study design was deemed appropriate for thoroughly addressing the research
questions. The study began with a quantitative survey of selected superintendents based on the
study criteria. Following the quantitative survey, select superintendents were engaged in
qualitative interviews.
Sample Population
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
student populations with a significant subgroup of students classified as English language
learners. 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 English language learner population equal to or greater than
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 37

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 to do so on the quantitative survey.
Data used for the purpose of sampling were restricted to information reported by the
California Department of Education for 2012. School districts throughout the state of California
were included in the examination; 34 districts met the aforementioned study criteria. 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 used to monitor the
achievement of students classified as English language learners. Consequently, determining
equivalent performance levels of student achievement for comparative purposes would have
extended 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 English language
learner populations in the body of scholarly literature. The study instruments were gender neutral
and were field tested on education professionals at the district-office level and above to ensure
that the questions were presented in a cogent and concise manner, while 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 the inquiry process. The
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 38

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 English language learners; (b) creating a collaborative culture; and (c) building
capacity. The theoretical framework of Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frame, multilens
leadership approach of symbolic, human resource, structural, and political frames 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 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 disagree, 2 representing disagree, 3 representing agree, and 4 representing
strongly agree. The Likert-style format allowed the researcher to measure the level of support for
each survey item.
Qualitative Instrumentation
The qualitative interview protocol consisted of 11 open-ended questions that reflected the
research questions and body of scholarly literature relevant to the topic (Appendix C). The
protocol was consistently implemented among interview participants but was not limited to these
questions. 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
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 39

or sentiments. The questions were designed to allow opportunities for the superintendents to
share strategies they had engaged 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 were protected from access beyond this study, and the
participant’s identities remain confidential. Participation in the study was voluntary.
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 had not responded to the initial survey request.
Qualitative Data Collection
The researcher conducted interviews with 8 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.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 40

The interview was conducted by the interviewer using the previously designed interview
protocol (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 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.
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. To further validate the significance of the study, research
findings were compared to the body of literature.
Quantitative Data Analysis
The researcher collected surveys from 34 participants. Data from each survey were
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 outlined by Merriam (2009). The data analysis process
included:
1. Data Management: Data were coded by assigning a designation that made it easy to
retrieve specific pieces of data.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 41

2. Category Construction: Categories were used to assign data to specific categories to
compare codes from the data and to identify similar themes and recurring patterns.
3. Categories Sorted: Data were sorted into categories and subcategories based on
themes; thus conclusions were drawn.
4. Theorizing: The researcher was able to derive meaning by making inferences and
theorizing the data to draw conclusions based on the data collected.
Summary
This 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 through purposeful criterion sampling. The
researcher strove to be transparent in the process so as to limit the appearance of impropriety
(Merriam, 2009). Chapter Four offers analysis of the data collected and of the major findings.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 42

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Introduction
The most important job of an urban school superintendent is student achievement (Byrd
et al., 2007; Lewis et al., 2011; Rammer, 2007). Therefore, twenty-first-century superintendents
must assume the role of instructional leader while navigating the unwavering pressures of
NCLB. However, urban school districts that serve large ELL populations are challenged with
providing this subgroup with opportunities to maximize their learning (Cobb, 2004). Research
indicates that ELL students receive inadequate and incomprehensible instruction (Gandara &
Baca, 2008), and are often taught by substandard, inexperienced teachers who lack the
appropriate credentials (Abedi & Gandara, 2007; Verdugo & Flores, 2007; Working Group on
ELL Policy, 2010). Therefore, ELL students do not have access to equal opportunities to acquire
the same academic content and high-level skills that NCLB mandates for all students (Working
Group on ELL Policy, 2010). Considering the urgent need for the nation to produce a better-
educated and globally competitive work force, this study looked specifically at the subgroup of
students identified as English language learners and the strategies employed by urban
superintendents to support this increasing student population.
This chapter presents the findings from a mixed-method study that consisted of a
quantitative survey completed by 14 superintendents and qualitative interviews conducted with 8
superintendents, which aligned with the following research questions:
1. What factors do urban superintendents consider when developing strategies to
improve the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 43

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
This study sought to identify superintendent leadership strategies that positively impacted
the academic achievement of students identified as English language learners in large urban K–
12 school districts. Specifically, the study considered the approaches employed by
superintendents in developing, implementing, and monitoring improvements to student academic
outcomes.
Response Rate
According to the purposefully designed criteria for this study, 34 superintendents of large
urban K–12 school districts qualified to participate in the quantitative survey. Table 2 indicates
that, of the 34 potential participants, 14 elected to participate. This number represented a
response rate of 41% of superintendents, satisfying the goal of the researcher, which was a
response rate of 40% or more based on the average return rate for a survey conducted through
email (Dillman, 2000).

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 44

Table 2
Quantitative Survey: Response Rate
Measure No. Invited to
Participate
No.
Participated
%
Participated
Superintendents 34 14 41

Of the 14 superintendents who elected to participate in the quantitative survey, 8 agreed
to participate in a qualitative interview. Reasons reported by superintendents for declining
participation included lack of time, having left the school district, and lack of interest.
Quantitative Demographic Data
Table 3 specifies the gender of the 14 superintendents who participated in the quantitative
survey.
Table 3
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Gender
Measure Male Female Total
No. of
Superintendents
9 5 14
% of
Superintendents
64.3 35.7 100

In a national survey conducted by Kowalski, McCord, Peterson, Young, and Ellerson
(2010), 24.1% of the 1,867 superintendents who participated were women. The variance between
this study and the national survey is 11.6%.
Table 4 reports the ethnic breakdown of the 14 superintendents who participated in the
quantitative survey.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 45

Table 4
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Ethnicity
Measure Asian Black/
African
American
Hispanic/
Latino
White Two
or
More
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

Kowalski et al. (2010) reported that 94.1% of the 1,800 respondents in the national
superintendent survey were White; however, when the percentage of minority students served
increased, the number of minority superintendents also increased (Kowalski et al., 2010). The
present study focused on large urban school districts with an ELL population of at least 20%,
which may have influenced the ethnic distribution of superintendents and skewed the number of
non-White superintendents in the sample upward from the overall national trend.
Table 5 details the distribution of superintendents by age, broken down into bands of 10
years.
Table 5
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Age
Measure 29 and
under
30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70+ 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 number of superintendents over 60 in this study did not align with the research
conducted by Kowalski et al. (2010), who reported that only 18.1% of the 1,842 superintendent
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 46

respondents in their nationwide survey were older than 60. The superintendents in this study
were 3.4% more likely to be over 60.
Table 6 represents the highest level of education attained by the 14 superintendents who
participated in the quantitative survey.
Table 6
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

Kowalski et al. (2010) reported that of the 1,867 superintendents who participated in their
nationwide survey, 45.3% had earned doctoral degrees. This finding indicates that the
superintendents identified for the present study had earned doctoral degrees at a rate of 26.1%
above projected national rates.
Table 7 indicates the distribution of years of experience as a superintendent in their
current districts, respectively, as reported by the 14 respondents. Interestingly, 100% of
superintendents had an experience level of five years or fewer.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 47

Table 7
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

On average, superintendents reported 3 years of tenure in their current district. This value
aligned with the research of Kowalski et al. (2010), which indicated that the 1,867
superintendents who participated in a nationwide survey had an average of 3.6 years.
Table 8 indicates the distribution of years of experience as a superintendent, reported by
the 14 respondents. Similar to the results around experience in their current district,
superintendent tenure skewed heavily toward the lower range, with 71.4% of respondents having
had experience of five years or fewer.
Table 8
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

Kowalski et al. (2010) found that superintendents had an average of 8.75 years of overall
experience after having worked in an average of 1.75 districts. Superintendents participating in

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 48

this study had an overall experience in the superintendency of 6.1 years, resulting in a variance
of 2.65 years compared to the participants of the nationwide survey.
Table 9 provides the total enrollment and percentage of English language learners for
each district whose superintendent participated in the quantitative survey.
Table 9
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
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

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 49

Qualitative Demographic Data
For this study, 14 superintendents of large urban K–12 school districts elected to
participate in the quantitative survey. During the completion of the quantitative survey, each of
the 14 was provided with the option to participate in a qualitative interview; eight
superintendents opted to participate. Moreover, no additional considerations were given in the
selection of superintendents for participation in the qualitative interview as they all satisfied the
criteria of the study.
Table 10 details the demographic profile of each superintendent who participated in a
qualitative interview along with the characteristics of the district he or she led. This information
provides a snapshot of the leaders interviewed and provides context to the responses provided.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 50

Table 10
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
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%
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 51

Research Question One
What factors do urban superintendents consider when developing strategies to improve
the academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Although ELL students are classified as a single subgroup, the characteristics of students
in this group differ widely (Cobb, 2004) and are therefore described as a problematic construct
(Crawford, 2004). Specifically, the population that makes up this subgroup is highly diverse in
socioeconomic status, linguistic and cultural background, amount of prior education, level of
English proficiency, and exposure to instructional programming (Cobb, 2004; Crawford, 2004;
LaCelle-Peterson & Rivera, 1994). Although the educationally relevant variable shared by
members of this subgroup was the need to increase their proficiency in English, the students
differed in language, cultural background, and family history (LaCelle-Peterson & Rivera, 1994).
Therefore, educational decisions must take into account the whole identity of the learner,
including cultural heritage, ethnic group affiliation, gender, and individual learning differences
(LaCelle-Peterson & Rivera, 1994).
Table 11 depicts superintendent 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 indicate level of agreement using a Likert Scale, in which 1
indicates strongly disagree, 2 indicates disagree, 3 indicates agree, and 4 indicates strongly
agree.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 52

Table 11
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
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 is 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).

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 53

Teacher Expectations for ELL Performance
Teacher expectations for ELL performance recorded the highest response mean (3.91)
from superintendents. Although NCLB establishes high expectations for all students and is
intended to reduce the achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students (Abedi
& Dietel, 2004), ELL students historically underperform their peers by 20–30 percentage points
(Abedi & Dietel, 2004; Abedi & Gandara, 2007; Goldenberg, 2008). However, six of the eight
superintendents interviewed referenced teacher expectations as a key lever for student success in
this subgroup of learners.
Superintendent F mentioned that NCLB accountability measures moved the district from
compliance to commitment, suggesting that NCLB compliance is the minimum of what a district
should be doing. “If all you do is what the state and federal government tells you to do, then
you’re not doing anything at all,” according to Superintendent F. However, to move beyond
compliance to commitment requires the instructional talent and high student expectations of
teachers who believe the “English learner group is not a monolithic group,” as Superintendent F
explained. Accordingly, Superintendent G echoed the idea of teacher expectations influencing
the academic achievement of English language learners. In reference to teaching in this district,
Superintendent G suggested, “This is not an easy district to teach in because we do expect a lot.
We have incredibly good teachers who work very, very, very hard and luckily, we can be really
selective about who comes here to teach.” Superintendent comments regarding teacher
expectations indicate district leadership‘s belief in an expectation of teachers for ELL
performance that goes beyond the basic mandates of NCLB.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 54

Access to Highly Qualified Teachers
Access to highly qualified teachers recorded the second highest response mean (3.64)
from superintendents. When considering the factors that influence the academic achievement of
English language learners, each of the superintendent interviewees referred to highly qualified
teachers as necessary to increasing the achievement level of this subgroup. In developing highly
qualified teachers, two relevant themes emerged from superintendent interviews: modeling and
coaching.
Superintendent H referred to a systematic ELL training program in the district that
included identified trainers and five district coaches that were sent to training programs over the
summer. Theses trainers and coaches, according to Superintendent H, provided afterschool
professional development to assigned schools. The district also provided release days that
allowed trainers and coaches to observe teachers, deliver onsite coaching, and provide immediate
feedback to teachers. Superintendent H deliberately mentioned that the district not only trained
teachers, but also provided a specific coaching element that followed training.
Based on test scores, the most at-risk schools got a full time, on-site coach who provides
daily classroom instructional support in the district of Superintendent D. These coaches not only
visited classrooms, but also provided feedback and performed demonstration lessons as well. As
Superintendent D explained, “Some of our schools actually have a Language Arts coach in
addition to the district person. Then they’re there every day on the ground, in the classrooms,
coaching and providing support.” Such statements affirm that these superintendents believed that
highly qualified teachers must have access to modeling and coaching in order to improve the
academic achievement of English language learners.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 55

Instructional Leadership
Instructional leadership recorded the third highest response mean (3.62) from
superintendents. When considering strategies to improve the academic achievement of English
language learners, superintendents interviewed showed a consensus that instructional
leadership—at all levels—is an integral factor for student success. Superintendent H provided a
brief statement highlighting this need, “The school board has it as a goal or priority to close the
achievement gap of ELLs. Then the principals write the objectives for how they can impact
ELLs and teachers write objectives for what they will do.” Similarly, Superintendent D
commented that instructional leadership rests with the principal; therefore the district held the
principals in this district accountable. According to Superintendent D:
What we’ve asked the principals to do is to make sure that they know who are the
English language learners in their school and so they know there’s a target that’s set and
that we want students to progress at that and use the targets. Then, if the students don’t,
we make sure that they write out a plan on what are they doing to alleviate. What are you
doing to improve?

Accordingly, the Superintendent in District E created a Principal’s Leadership Group that had
representatives from each of the district’s high school attendance areas. The district gathered the
members of the group as a think tank for sound instructional leadership practices. The district
also used this group as an instructional leadership pipeline for the district and area schools.
Superintendent comments relative to instructional leadership provided insight into the district’s
need to include all levels of district engagement when developing strategies to improve the
academic achievement of students classified as English language learners.
Discussion
The twenty-first-century superintendent is considered an instructional leader and is
expected to improve the academic achievement of all students in the district. However, the
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 56

relationship between academic achievement and language proficiency is problematic at best,
especially because no agreement exists regarding best instructional practices for ELL students
(Verdugo & Flores, 2007). Teacher expectations for ELL performance, access to highly qualified
teachers, and instructional leadership emerged as major themes in both the quantitative survey
and qualitative interviews of superintendents. Although these superintendents generally regarded
all the survey items as important, the qualitative interviews provided clarity about the factors that
these urban superintendents considered when developing strategies to improve the academic
achievement of students classified as English language learners. Additionally, these themes
aligned with Bolman and Deal’s (2008) human resource frame, which suggests when the
organization and its human assets have a good fit both benefit, and the organization has the talent
and energy it needs to prosper.
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?
Although the role of the superintendent focuses on instructional leadership,
superintendents must also understand how to make strategic decisions in resource allocation,
engaging the community and human capital (Pascopella, 2011). Therefore, superintendents must
develop key relationships with administrative cabinets, leader teams, and other school leaders to
build trust across a school district (Bredeson et al., 2011). These relationships are necessary to
accomplishing the work of the superintendent, which includes developing a community of
learners composed of—but not limited to—business partners, parent groups, and district and
school site staff (Lewis et al., 2011).

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 57

Table 12 shows superintendent 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 students classified as English language learners? Superintendents were asked to
indicate level of agreement using a Likert Scale in which 1 indicates strongly disagree, 2
indicates disagree, 3 indicates agree, and 4 indicates strongly agree.
Table 12
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
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

Teachers
Teachers recorded the highest response mean (3.79) from superintendents surveyed. In
addition, superintendent interviewees indicated a vigorous support of teachers having significant
involvement in the decision-making process to improve the academic achievement of students
classified as English language learners. Specifically, 4 of the 8 superintendents referred to
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 58

teachers as critical stakeholders in developing plans to improve the academic performance of the
ELL subgroup.
Superintendent B aligned the importance of the teacher stakeholder group with
instructional methodology:
[When I think about the critical stakeholders] . . . Then, the next group obviously is the
teachers that are delivering the methodology. Imbedded in all of this is that we don’t
spend enough time talking about basic instructional methodology. We will do, a lot of us,
looking at the data and saying the kids aren’t achieving, but what specific methodology
am I to implement as a teacher, what will change that picture.

Superintendent A spoke of a belief in bottom-up initiatives driven by teachers in the district
schools. A simple idea like thinking maps was shared by teachers from one school and adopted
by teachers from another school. Superintendent A confided that his/her district did not say no to
teachers who wanted to share ideas and experiment with new concepts:
We really need to have the ownership of the teachers wanting to do it. Over the years,
this all bubbled up. Then now we have more than one school doing it because of that very
way that we do things here.

The district of Superintendent H identified high-performing teachers and approached them to
offer an evaluation of what is going well. As indicated in all three of these district superintendent
comments, teachers were regarded as essential stakeholders in supporting decisions designed to
improve the academic achievement of English language learners.
District-Level Personnel
District-level personnel recorded the second highest response mean (3.73) from
superintendents. The majority of the superintendents spoke intensively about the importance of
district-level personnel serving as a critical stakeholder group in driving increased academic
achievement in the ELL subgroup population. In describing the role of district-level

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 59

personnel, Superintendent E provided a clear explanation of how district leaders worked to
improve the academic performance of ELL students:
Our assistant superintendent and I really begun a focused professional development
program. Number one, we did something about the suspension data to really look at the
suspension and expulsion data. To teach administrators and teachers about ways to work
with students to do a better job of keeping them in school, so that was one of our original
focus areas, keeping kids through school. Secondly, instructional strategies that are more
culturally appropriate or culturally responsive and really understanding. We’ve done a lot
to help the staff understand the population and then some of the issues that students bring
with them, how to begin to build that sensitivity . . . and third, I think the big thing is
we’re going to be relentless in talking about it, in telling the community that’s very
reluctant to admit we have a problem. We have a huge achievement gap guys. Here is
what it looks like. Here is what causes it.

Superintendent A regarded the cabinet in his/her district as dynamic. The cabinet included
representatives from curriculum instruction, EL students, and ELD instruction, and provided the
district’s academic services. According to Superintendent A, all cabinet meetings focused on a
particular area of the district’s strategic plan. Included in the cabinet meetings were individuals
who were responsible for specific areas of the plan; for example, ELD in the case of discussing
the ELL subgroup population. Superintendent B spoke passionately about leading with
intentionality:
You don’t just operate off the cuff. You really think about how you’re going to do things,
how you’re going to conduct yourself. I emphasize strategic planning and preparation,
following the rules. I say that the rules have their foundation in good practice;
maintaining an instructional focus and holding people accountable to specific objectives

The role of the superintendent is a formidable job given the size of the urban districts identified
in this survey. Therefore, superintendents cannot operate alone but must rely on district-level
personnel to provide valuable input, oversight, and planning in order to carry out the work of the
district.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 60

School-Level Administrators
School-level administrators recorded the third highest response mean (3.67) from
superintendents. Moreover, every superintendent interviewed mentioned principals or school-
level administrators as vital to setting the vision and goals of the school as well as to
implementing the vision of the district. Superintendent F mentioned that even though the district
was centralized, school leaders must be actively involved, and that principals understand why
they are involved:
Why are we doing this? What does it look like? How did we come up with this? It’s not
just something, “Thou shalt.” It’s actually a discussion. It’s actually a discussion of why
we’re doing this, why this is a good approach and also getting feedback from folks. I
want to think that our site-level folks are involved to the extent that they provide
feedback and the input in the funding process.

Similarly, Superintendent D expected principals to be able to look at data over three years and
make comparisons in student movement. Principals must know how many students have moved
in proficiency levels, and how many students have remained stagnant. When no movement in
proficiency has occurred, principals must be able to explain the reasons behind the data.
According to Superintendent D, “Once you provide principals and school leaders with the
foundation, they’re able to carry out the work.”
Superintendent comments regarding school-level leadership confirmed principals as
critical stakeholders in improving the academic achievement of English language learners.
Although the superintendent set the vision for the district, the school-site administrator had the
capacity to bring the district’s vision of student success to fruition.
Discussion
According to Bolman and Deal’s (2008) theoretical framework, the structural frame
describes the formal roles and responsibilities organizations use to allocate work and coordinate
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 61

diverse efforts. The structural frame is the blueprint for organizational expectations and
exchanges between internal players and external constituencies. The structural perspective
emphasizes organizational architecture and supports placing people in the correct roles and
responsibilities.
Superintendents surveyed and interviewed recognized the invaluable input of critical
stakeholders within the district who assisted in improving the academic achievement of English
language learners. Teachers, district-level personnel, and school-level administrators provided
the greatest support in terms of both the quantitative and qualitative tools used to determine the
stakeholder groups that urban superintendents relied on to provide the support necessary to
increasing academic achievement of the ELL population. This level of intentional engagement
on the part of superintendents in including critical stakeholders aligned with Bolman and Deal’s
(2008) structural frame.
Research Question Three
What strategies do urban superintendents execute when implementing plans to improve
the academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Urban schools often lack a challenging curriculum, have inadequate resources, are staffed
with discouraged teachers, have wary parents, and generally have low expectations for student
learning (Jackson, 2008). However, the superintendent’s role is to mitigate these factors by
developing a clear district vision and strategies to implement the plan of the district with fidelity.
Therefore, successful superintendents recognize the importance of setting goals, communicating
a district vision, and fostering a culture of collaboration (Dolph & Grant, 2010; Fullan & Quinn,
2004; Petersen, 1999; Waters & Marzano, 2006; Williams et al., 2009).

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 62

Table 13 depicts superintendent 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 students classified as English language learners? Superintendents
were asked to indicate level of agreement using a Likert Scale in which 1 indicates strongly
disagree, 2 indicates disagree, 3 indicates agree, and 4 indicates strongly agree.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 63

Table 13
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
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

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 64

The response mean range for all categories within this item was 3.27 to 4.0. High
expectations for student achievement rated the highest (4.0), with professional development
receiving the lowest response mean (3.27).
High Expectations for Student Achievement
High expectations for student achievement recorded the highest response mean (4.0) from
superintendents surveyed. As with the unanimous response of superintendents to this survey
item, the qualitative data yielded a similar response. The majority of superintendents interviewed
recognized that requiring high expectations for student achievement is necessary when
implementing plans to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners.
According to Superintendent E, the entire district shared a core belief: “We really believe
in this idea of high expectations for all.” The superintendent stated further:
In the state of California, a lot has been done historically, and this is just my opinion, that
gives permission for dumbed down curriculum for English learners and make all kinds of
excuses about why they can’t achieve that level and I think that’s kind of a lens or a
factor that we use in everything we’re doing. The state comes up with these ELD
standards, which are English language arts standards dumbed down for English learners. I
don’t really follow that. We really say that our expectations are going to perform at grade
level, and I think that’s probably been a foundational belief. It’s just to say, no, we’re not
going to look at watered down programs or dumbed down programs when we do
intervention programs after school.

Superintendent A offered a similar sentiment that reflected the incredible diversity of the district:
That diversity can be a strength, and it can also be a challenge. For us, we know that for
example, in some pockets of our district where we have English learners who are for
example from Asia there, we reclassified after three years. Then that’s different than
some of our EL students who maybe are from Latin America or Mexico. Some of them
often times appear as if they’re lifelong EL students. We have to constantly take a look at
that, and wonder what else can we be doing that would strengthen that population.

Superintendent comments regarding holding high expectations for student achievement focused
on the disparity in the achievement results of this subgroup compared to their English-speaking
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 65

peers. Creating high expectations for student achievement at the district level allowed
superintendents to drill down the expectations to the school and community level of execution.
Clearly Defined District-Wide Academic Goals for ELL Students
Clearly defined district-wide goals for ELL students recorded the second highest response
mean (3.82) from superintendents surveyed. As with the strong support for this survey item, all
superintendents interviewed mentioned clearly defined district goals as a key strategy in
implementing plans to improve the academic achievement of ELL students. Specifically,
superintendents mentioned establishing goals as outlined in the district master plan for English
learners and the Local Education Agency Plan (LEAP) designed to provide clarity for all
stakeholder groups.
District goals communicated by Superintendent F included student growth in their
academic areas and student growth as English learners. Superintendent B shared district goals
that included focusing on achievement, developing strong relationships, and enhancing, creating,
and improving all systems in the district. Although Superintendent G cited seven district goals,
increasing the reclassification rate of English language learners was the most salient to this
discussion.
Superintendent G described the strategic process of district goal setting as integrating the
master plan as much as possible with the LEAP, and thinking ahead in terms of integrating the
local accountability plan into plans that already guided the work of the district. Instead of having
several plans that met compliance requirements, Superintendent G believed that a plan must have
multiple layers that capture all of the systems working in the district.
Superintendents must solicit feedback on district plans and allow critical stakeholders to
offer recommendations regarding the needs of English language learners. Superintendents
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 66

interviewed cited the District English Learner Advisory Council (DELAC) as a significant
contributor to district-wide goal setting. Superintendent D summarized their involvement with
the process by stating:
The DELAC, our district advisory council for English learners assist in looking at the
school districts plan and they also look at the individual school plans. This gives us an
opportunity to educate our parent stakeholders on the entire process and they understand
how we create goals for student achievement and get the necessary expected results.

Although setting goals maintained regulatory compliance in a school district, clearly defined
district-wide goals for ELL students allowed for the relevant input of critical stakeholder groups
that supported the increased academic achievement of this subgroups of learners. Superintendent
comments reflected the importance of this discourse and showed awareness of what the goals
brought to this disadvantaged demographic.
On-Site Teacher Collaboration
On-site teacher collaboration recorded the third highest response mean (3.75) from
superintendents surveyed. Superintendent interviews also regarded on-site teacher collaboration
as a viable strategy for implementing plans to improve the academic achievement of English
language learners. Although superintendents spoke extensively about professional development,
on-site teacher collaboration was meant to drive the specific instructional needs of the ELL
students at each district school.
Superintendent D explained the process his/her district employed to facilitate on-site
communication among teachers:
We have a professional development team in our district that's an office and each one of
the professional development directors are assigned to a school. There's 12 people that
are assigned to the 37 schools, so you might have each with three schools. They're
responsible for providing professional development for each one of our sub-groups in
English language learning. When they actually provide the on-site professional
development, they will look at the leading research to deal with English language and
then talk about what are some of the strategies to help with the English learner
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 67

population. Not only do they provide the professional development, but they go out to
the schools and do demonstration reference and the culture on campus.
Providing professional development directed toward campus-specific needs allowed
superintendents to allocate resources that provided explicit support to ELL students.
Furthermore, on-site teacher collaboration not only addressed the academic and linguistic needs
of students, but also afforded teachers the opportunity to consider the cultural perspective of
student learning on the school campus.
Discussion
When considering the strategies that this study’s urban superintendents enlisted when
implementing plans to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners, the researcher identified some common themes: high expectations for student
achievement, clearly defined district-wide academic goals for ELL students, and on-site teacher
collaboration. These three important themes are supported by Bolman and Deal’s (2008)
symbolic frame, which refers to the definition of organizational culture and its role in shaping
performance.
Research Question Four
What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor and evaluate the academic
achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Urban superintendents are ultimately responsible for the success or failure of schools
within their respective districts (Rammer, 2007). Therefore, superintendents must be able to
interpret data and explain their district’s achievement level in comparison to other districts in the
state and nation (Byrd et al., 2007). Thus, superintendents must continually monitor and evaluate
district progress toward the achievement of district targets and goals.
Table 14 depicts superintendent responses to the questions: To what extent do you agree
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 68

that the following are important in monitoring and evaluating academic achievement of students
classified as English language learners? Superintendents were asked to indicate level of
agreement using a Likert Scale in which 1 indicates strongly disagree, 2 indicates disagree, 3
indicates agree, and 4 indicates strongly agree.
Table 14
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
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 sited
0 1 9 2 3.08 12

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 69

Valid and Reliable Assessment Instruments
Valid and reliable assessment instruments recorded the highest response mean (3.67)
from superintendents. With regard to the strategies superintendents used to monitor and evaluate
the academic achievement of English language learners, every superintendent interviewee
referenced various assessment instruments.
Superintendent A spoke about the California Standard Test and the Secure English
Learner Test (SELT), whereas Superintendent F described how formative assessments were used
to monitor student progress in this district. Irrespective of the assessment instrument used,
superintendents responded unanimously about the need to collect assessment data specific to this
subgroup.
According to Superintendent F, high stakes assessment instruments like yearly state
proficiency tests were only one source of data; however, formative assessments provided
ongoing progress monitoring of student achievement:
One of the things that we have done and used pretty effectively is ORS, which is Online
Reporting System. That for example, in English Language Arts, rather than waiting for
one major test or to find out who failed at the end, we have these periodic benchmark
assessments across all subjects and across all grade levels. We’ve done a lot of training
with teachers and staff about how you look at that data and sitting down in collaborative
groups at the school to interpret what that data means and then what are you going to do
about it. You can actually see it happen pretty effectively. Interestingly enough, not just
in the elementary schools, but also in the secondary schools and the high schools that
they really sit down and they look at the data and have a conversation and say, “Okay,
here’s something we see with our English learners. What are we gonna do over the next
eight weeks?”

Superintendent comments regarding strategies used to evaluate student progress offer insight into
the various tools required to address the achievement gap of this subgroup population. However,
the superintendent responses also evidence that no one assessment tool can provide the
comprehensive data required to address the instructional needs of English language learners.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 70

Analyzing Subgroup Assessment Data
Analyzing subgroup assessment data recorded the second highest response mean (3.62)
from superintendents. Superintendents responded unanimously about the need to analyze
subgroups data as a means to monitor and evaluate the academic achievement of ELL students.
Superintendent E reported reviewing subgroup data thusly:
At least four times a year, I’ll have them go through with me school-by-school periodic
assessment group. Then of course, in addition to that obviously, we connect the
classification rates and that I think for the most important piece of data is for periodic
assessments and how kids are doing on those periodic assessments. We do a public board
report on the inclusive about what’s happening with English learners.

The superintendent also suggested that data analysis was the key lever to driving student success:
Our district and probably our school, everyone in our school get bombarded with vendors
who everybody has the magic beans to sell and the have the answer. Our approach to
intervention has really been - we use the data that we get from the classroom instruction.
We identify these students this week and on somebody’s magic intervention program and
they’re going to come in and do the fix. We have RtI teachers who serve 15, 16 of our
elementary schools. Their job really is to look at the student’s assessment results at grade
level curriculum and provide the support to have those students at grade level.

Superintendent C mentioned how the district looked closely at middle school data, particularly at
reclassifications rates. Looking at this particular data in this district informed the work of
elementary schools and high schools. According to Superintendent C, “Elementary schools had
to review student data because of the number of long-term ELLs that were seen in the middle
school. High schools needed to see how to support incoming ELLs.” Whether the subgroup
assessment data being analyzed were used for reclassification, proficiency, or refining
instructional practices to meet the needs of students identified as English language learners,
superintendents agreed that they must look at the data personally in order to evaluate and
monitor the progress of this subgroup population.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 71

Established Instructional Norms
Established instructional norms recorded the third highest response mean (3.36) from
superintendents. Given the absence of agreed-upon instructional practices that best meet the
needs of English language learners, superintendents interviewed agreed that establishing
instructional norms in district schools was important. According to Superintendent G, English
language learners were not receiving targeted ELD instruction for a number of different reasons.
Moreover, the superintendent contended:
Sometimes it’s that they’re on that cusp of reclassification and then instructional teams
feel like they don’t need ELD anymore, but other times it’s an oversight. Other times it’s
in an elementary self-contained class where the teacher says that they’re doing ELD, but
when you dig into it, you find that the materials are still in the shrink wrap and the
instruction is not observed, so there’s no evidence that it’s occurring.

Although Superintendent G confirmed that an imbedded challenge existed in ELL instruction,
the superintendent believed that establishing instructional norms across the district for this
subgroup was necessary to monitoring and evaluating the progress of these students. The
superintendent suggested:
Knowing what you want that instruction to look like, is there a program that you're using,
are there key strategies that you ought to see in every setting. So to that end, we have
identified different curriculum resources that we expect to see in different settings,
elementary, middle school and high school, and then with different proficiency levels as
well. Then there are some strategies . . . we've used Kate Kinsella as a consultant quite a
bit, so the use of modeling academic vocabulary, for example, that we ought to see at
every level.

Similarly, Superintendent F admitted to ongoing challenges in the district with differentiating
and scaffolding instruction for ELLs. To mitigate some of the instructional frustration, the
district provided significant training to help teachers understand how to support English language
learners in acquiring content information.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 72

Overall, superintendents recognized the need to employ specific strategies to monitor and
evaluate the academic achievement of English language learners. Additionally, when gaps in
instruction were identified, superintendents found ways to mitigate these gaps by creating
instructional norms that pushed teachers to instruct using strategies supported by the district and
designed to improve English language learning.
Discussion
Superintendents surveyed and interviewed expressed a consensus with regard to
collecting and analyzing data to monitor and evaluate the academic achievement of English
language learners. The prevalent themes that emerged included using valid and reliable
assessment instruments, analyzing subgroup data, and establishing instructional norms. Although
no one data set provided a comprehensive delineation of the needs of ELL students, using
multiple assessment tools, analyzing the derived data over multiple periods of time, and
requiring teachers to instruct with fidelity were all strategies the superintendents employed to
increase the academic achievement of ELL students.
Summary
The superintendents who were interviewed and surveyed noted a variety of strategies
they had employed to achieve success in improving the academic achievement of ELL students.
The data suggest the following findings related to the four research questions.
Research question one asked, What factors do urban superintendents consider when
developing strategies to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners? Teacher expectations, access to highly qualified teachers, and instructional
leadership were factors these urban superintendents considered when developing strategies to
improve the academic achievement of ELL students.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 73

Research question two asked, Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban
superintendents to assist in improving the academic achievement of students classified as
English language learners? Teachers, district-level personnel, and school-level administrators
were stakeholder groups that assisted these urban superintendents in improving the academic
achievement of ELL students.
Research question three asked, What strategies do urban superintendents execute when
implementing plans to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners? High expectations for student achievement, clearly defined district-wide
academic goals for ELL students, and on-site teacher collaboration were strategies applied by
urban superintendents to implement plans to improve the academic achievement of students
classified as ELL.
Research question four asked, What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor
and evaluate the academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Valid and reliable assessment instruments, analyzing subgroup assessment data, and establishing
instructional norms were strategies used by urban superintendents to monitor and evaluate the
academic achievement of ELL students.
Chapter Five presents a summary of this research study including conclusions and
implications.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 74

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
Introduction
California educates one-third of the country’s 5 million English language learners, and
40% of the state’s public school children speak a language other than English (Rumberger &
Gandara, 2004). This subgroup of learners lags considerably behind other student groups,
specifically English background students. Nevertheless, district superintendents are responsible
for the success of this subgroup of at-risk learners. However, more than ever before, urban
school district superintendents are facing rigorous state accountability standards and a plethora of
demands from NCLB.
In the midst of unyielding NCLB accountability and imminent sanctions, the expectations
to improve student academic achievement continue to heap new challenges upon school leaders
(Borkowski & Sneed, 2006). As a result, the superintendents of large urban school districts are
impelled to ensure the academic success of their student bodies, with specific consideration for
the ELL subgroup. Although these leaders may be logistically distanced from classrooms, their
actions still have a direct impact on student achievement (Marzano et al., 2005).
This chapter provides a summary of the study, a statement of the problem, the purpose of
the study, research questions, a review of the literature, the methodology used, and the findings
related to the four research questions. The chapter concludes with implications and
recommendations for future study
Statement of the Problem
The United States is in the midst of a political battle over the education of the nation’s
children (Jackson, 2008). NCLB is the primary source of accountability pressure, placing an
unprecedented burden on public schools to educate all children, including the most at-risk
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 75

populations. Included in this population is the historically disadvantaged English language
learner subgroup. Currently, English language learners account for 10% of public school
students—an estimated 5 million pupils. Data suggest that this subgroup of learners lags far
behind its peers in academic achievement, both reading and math (Abedi & Dietel, 2004; Abedi
& Gandara, 2007; Goldenberg, 2008).
Research indicates that in response to increased accountability measures and explicit
external pressures imposed by NCLB, the role of the superintendent has shifted from manager to
instructional leader. Therefore, as the instructional leader of the district, the superintendent must
mitigate the learning gaps that persist with English language learners. However, little is known
about the strategies used by superintendents of large urban school districts who have positively
impacted the academic achievement of English language learners.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify superintendent leadership strategies that
positively impacted the academic achievement of students identified as English language
learners in large urban K–12 school districts. Specifically, the study considered the approaches
employed by superintendents in developing, implementing, and monitoring improvements to
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?
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 76

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 pursued relevant knowledge related to the background,
context, and strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents in improving the academic
achievement of English language learners. Three major themes emerged from the literature: (a)
equity and access for English language learners; (b) the role of the superintendent in creating a
collaborative culture; and (c) building capacity within the district to develop and support
instructional leaders at the individual school sites.
Today, urban school superintendents face rigorous state accountability standards and
extensive demands from NCLB (Byrd et al., 2007). Nevertheless, the most important role of the
superintendent remains rooted in student achievement (Byrd et al., 2007; Lewis et al., 2011;
Rammer, 2007). However, as a result of the current educational reform climate, and in response
to the unwavering pressure of NCLB, the superintendent role has transformed into that of an
instructional leader who must adapt quickly to a constantly changing environment in order to
successfully lead large urban school districts (Lewis et al., 2011).
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 77

As superintendents negotiate the terrain between internal and external accountability
systems, they must ensure that English language learners are provided equity and access to a
culturally sensitive and linguistically relevant educational experience. Therefore, attention must
be paid to the diversity of the subgroup (Abedi & Linquanti, n.d.), English proficiency and
exposure to previous instructional programming (Cobb, 2004; Crawford, 2004; LaCelle-Peterson
& Rivera, 1994), germane classroom instruction (Crawford, 2004), and acquiring highly trained
teachers who are qualified and capable of teaching academic content to this subgroup population
with fidelity (LaCelle-Peterson & Rivera, 1994).
Successful superintendents also recognize the importance of fostering a culture of
collaboration (Dolph & Grant, 2010; Fullan & Quinn, 2004; Petersen, 1999; Waters & Marzano,
2006; Williams et al., 2009). Essential elements that emerged from the literature included the
process of developing a district mission, vision and goal setting that engages critical internal and
external stakeholders, and making the process inclusive rather than exclusive of school district
constituents (Dolph & Grant, 2010). Accordingly, successful superintendents are highly involved
in the process of creating school district cultures that support and maintain high levels of student
success, focusing on teaching and learning during the planning process (Dolph & Grant, 2010).
Moreover, superintendents must build capacity in their districts by communicating their
beliefs about what is important and about what roles they expect instructional leaders to fill
(Spanneut & Ford, 2008). Superintendents regard hiring and placing people as an essential
component to the instructional success of districts (Petersen, 1999). Therefore, superintendents
must hire and place highly competent individuals—who share their vision—to lead district
departments. In addressing the needs of districts, the literature explains, urban superintendents
have used a multilens approach to district leadership that includes navigating among the political,
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 78

structural, human resource, and symbolic frames, which aligns with the theoretical framework of
Bolman and Deal (2008).
Methodology
This study employed a mixed-methods design consisting of 14 quantitative surveys and
eight qualitative interviews completed by superintendents of large K–12 urban school districts.
The joint use of quantitative and qualitative methods served to ensure complementary and
expansion within the study (Maxwell, 2013). Triangulation afforded a deeper 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).
To identify superintendents for both quantitative and qualitative inquiry, the study used
purposeful criterion sampling (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Selected superintendents for the
quantitative survey and the qualitative interview were 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 English language
learner population equal to or greater than 20%. Superintendents who agreed to participate in the
qualitative interview were selected from participants who indicated their willingness on the
quantitative survey.
The quantitative survey questioned demographic data, willingness to be interviewed, and
level of agreement with 39 Likert-style survey items related to (a) equity and access for English
language learners; (b) creating a collaborative culture; and (c) building capacity. The researcher
conducted qualitative interviews using an interview protocol consisting of 11 open-ended
questions. All interviews were recorded and transcribed for accuracy.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 79

To enhance validity, the instrument designed was aligned with the research questions and
informed by the body of scholarly literature relevant to this topic. Survey and interview data
were analyzed and used to support the significant research findings as they related to each of the
four research questions.
Findings
Research question one asked, What factors do urban superintendents consider when
developing strategies to improve academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners? Teacher expectation for ELL performance, access to highly qualified
teachers, and instructional leadership emerged as significant themes in both the quantitative
survey and qualitative interview of superintendents participating in this study. Teacher
expectations for ELL performance recorded the highest response mean (3.91) on the qualitative
survey and six of eight superintendents interviewed referenced teacher expectations as a key
lever for student success in this subgroup of learners. Access to highly qualified teachers
recorded the second highest mean (3.64), with superintendents identifying modeling and
coaching as strategies for increasing access to highly qualified teachers. Instructional leadership
recorded the third highest response mean (3.62) and was considered by superintendents as an
integral factor for student success. Whereas factors such as professional development focused on
ELL instruction, data-driven decision-making also received high response means; bureaucratic
accountability received the lowest response mean (2.08) from superintendents.
Research question two asked, Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban
superintendents to assist in improving academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners? Superintendents surveyed and interviewed identified the following
stakeholder groups as critical to improving the academic achievement of student classified as
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 80

English language learners: teachers, district-level personnel, and school-level administrators.
Teachers recorded the highest response mean (3.79) on the quantitative survey, and four of the
eight superintendents interviewed identified teachers as critical stakeholders in the development
of plans to improve academic performance. District-level personnel recorded the second highest
response mean (3.73) on the qualitative survey, and the majority of superintendents interviewed
recognized the importance of district-level personnel as a critical stakeholder group in driving
increased academic achievement in the ELL subgroup population. School-level administrators
recorded the third highest response mean (3.67), with superintendent interview responses
affirming that school-level administrators have a vital position in setting the vision and goals of
the school as well as implementing the vision of the district. Although superintendents identified
parents, community members, and unions as important stakeholder groups in the discourse
around improving academic achievement, the aforementioned stakeholder groups surfaced as the
most significant for assisting in improving the academic achievement of English language
learners.
Research question three asked, What strategies do urban superintendents execute when
implementing plans to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners? High expectations for student achievement, clearly defined district-wide
academic goals for ELL students, and on-site teacher collaboration surfaced as viable strategies
that superintendents have used in implementing plans to improve the academic achievement of
students classified as English language learners. High expectations for student achievement
recorded the highest response mean (4.0) on the qualitative survey and proved a similar
qualitative response, with a unanimous response from superintendents to this interview item. The
majority of superintendent interviewees recognized that holding high expectations for student
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 81

achievement is necessary when implementing plans to improve the academic achievement of
students classified as English language learners. Clearly defined district-wide academic goals for
ELL students recorded the second highest response mean (3.82), with every superintendent
interviewed mentioning clearly defined district goals as a key strategy in implementing plans to
improve the academic achievement of ELL students. On-site teacher collaboration recorded the
third highest response mean (3.75). Although the study’s superintendents spoke extensively
about the importance of professional development, on-site teacher collaboration was meant to
drive the specific instructional needs of ELL students at each district school.
Research question four asked, What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor
and evaluate the academic achievement of students classified as English Language Learners?
Superintendents interviewed supported the following measures to monitor and evaluate the
academic achievement of English language learners: valid and reliable assessment instruments,
analyzing subgroup assessment data, and establishing instructional norms. Valid and reliable
assessment instruments received the highest response mean (3.67) on the qualitative survey, and
every superintendent interviewed referenced various assessment instruments as vital in
monitoring and evaluating academic achievement. Analyzing subgroup assessment data received
the second highest response mean (3.62), with superintendent interviewees responding
unanimously about the need to analyze subgroups data as a means to monitor and evaluate the
academic achievement of ELL students. Establishing instructional norms received the third
highest response mean (3.36). Although no agreed upon instructional practices were identified
that best met the needs of English language learners, superintendent interviewees concurred
about the need to establish instructional norms in district schools.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 82

Implications
The significant findings from this study contribute to the body of scholarly literature by
identifying leadership strategies employed by urban superintendents to improve the academic
achievement of students classified as English language learners. The insights herein are useful to
current or aspiring superintendents in districts that serve the historically disadvantaged English
language learner population, providing as they do a viable approach to addressing the existing
needs of ELL populations throughout urban school districts.
Although replicating successful models can prove difficult, this study recommends that
superintendents consider adopting similar strategies in developing, implementing, and
monitoring improvements to the student academic outcomes of English language learners. The
strategies identified in this study should serve as a framework for addressing the multilayered
needs of this subgroup population.
Additionally, the findings of the study indicate that having access to highly qualified
teachers influences the academic achievement of English language learners. Therefore, district-
level personnel can use this research to develop teacher training and recruitment programs
designed to address the specific human asset needs in the district, as related to the direct
instruction of English language learners.
Recommendations for Future Study
In pursuit of greater clarity regarding leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban
superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners, the
researcher recommends that the following ideas be considered for future study:
1. The study used purposeful criterion sampling, allowing the researcher to consider the
academic achievement of English language learners in large urban school districts
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 83

with student populations of 20,000 or larger serving an ELL population of at least
20%. Based on the results of the study, a comparison should be made of districts with
different sizes and structures to better understand the scale of effective district
leadership in addressing the academic needs of ELL students.
2. The study suggested that the ELL subgroup is not a monolithic group, but rather is
highly diverse in socioeconomic status, cultural background, and exposure to
instructional programming. Analyzing the different strategies used in support of the
different classifications of ELL students would further deduce what strategies
leveraged increased academic achievement.
3. Researchers must analyze how districts develop plans that promote high expectations
and teacher collaboration. The study indicated that these high-yield strategies
improve the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners.
Conclusion
Superintendents of large urban school districts face an arduous task—ensuring access to a
quality education for all students in the district, including the most disadvantaged subgroup
populations. This challenging student population includes English language learners, who
represent the most diverse group of public school pupils. With the concentration of ELL students
in urban school districts, this subgroup faces the litany of urban school challenges. As a result,
urban superintendents must proactively confront current practices to create fundamental and
permanent change within their districts to improve the academic achievement of English
language learners. Ultimately, the intentional strategies employed and implemented by
superintendents in addressing the specific needs of English language learners forms the very
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 84

multilens approach that is required to support the diverse academic and cultural needs of these
students.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 85

References
Abedi, J., & Dietel, R. (2004). Challenges in the No Child Left Behind Act for English-
Language Learners. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(10), 782–785.
Abedi, J., & Gandara, P. (2006). Performance of English language learners as a subgroup:
Interaction of research and policy. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(4),
36–46.
Abedi, J., & Linquanti, R. (n.d.). Issues and opportunities in improving the quality of large
scale assessment systems for English language learners. Understanding Language.
Retrieved from http://gse.uci.edu/brownbags/Abedi_linquanti_Stanford.pdf.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). (2009, March). The American Recovery
Reinvestment Act: Recommendations for addressing the needs of English Language
Learners. Washington, DC: Authors.
Bjork, L., & Lindle, J. (2001). Superintendents and interest groups. Educational Policy, 15(1),
76–91.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Borkowski, J. & Sneed, M. (2006). Will NCLBimprove or harm public education? Harvard
Educational Reform, 76(4), 503–727.
Brazer, S., Rich, W., & Ross, S. (2010). Collaborative strategic decison making in school
districts. Journal of Educational Adminsitration, 48(2), 196–217.
Bredeson, P., Klar, H., & Johansson, O. (2011). Context-responsive leadership: Examining
superintendent leadership in context. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(8), 1–23.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 86

Bredeson, P., & Kose, B. (2007). Responding to the education reform agenda: A study of school
superintendents' instructional leadership. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15(5), 1–
25.
Byrd, J., Drews, C., & Johnson, J. (2007). Factors impacting superintendent turnover: Lessons
from the field. National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, 7(2), 1–
11.
Cobb, C. (2004). Improving Adequate Yearly Progress for English language learners.
Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates, 1-7.
Contreras, A. R. (2002). The impact of immigration policy on education reform: Implications for
the new millennium. Education and Urban Society, 34(2), 134–155.
Crawford, J. (2004, September). No Child Left Behind: Misguided approach to school
accountability for English language learners. In Center on Educational Policy's Forum on
Ideas to Improve the NCLB Accountability Provisions for Students with Disabilities and
English Language Learners. Retrieved August (Vol. 8, p. 2005).
Crosby, E. (1999). Urban schools: Forced to fail. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(4), 298–303.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America's commitment to
equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318–334.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The total design method (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Wiley.
Dolph, D., & Grant, S. (2010). Practices of succesful school leaders. International Journal of
Educational Reform, 19(4), 269–286.
Forte, E. (2010). Examining the assumptions underlying the NCLB federal accountability policy
on school improvement. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 76-88.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 87

Fullan, M. B., & Quinn, J. (2004). New lessons for districtwide reform. Educational Leadership,
61(7), 42–46.
Gandara, P., & Baca, G. (2008). NCLB and California's English language leaners: The perfect
storm. Language Policy, 7(3), 201-216.
Gandara, 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. UC Berkeley: Joint Publications, University of California Linguistic
Minority Research Institute.
Gandara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English Learners in
California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 11(36), 1–54.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English language
learners in U.S. 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.
Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators (document stock number
236-021)
Goldenberg. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does-and does
not-say. American Educator, 32(2), 8–44.
Jackson, J. (2008). Leadership for urban public schools. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 192–
202.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 88

Kowalski, T. (2005a). Evolution of the school distict superintendent position. In L. Bjork & T.
Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and
development (pp. 1–18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kowalski, T. (2005b). 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.
LaCelle-Peterson, M., & Rivera, C. (1994). Is it real for all kids? A framework for equitable
assessment policies for English language learners. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1),
55–75.
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(2), 185–208.
Lewis, T., Rice, M., & Rice, R. (2011). Superintendents' beliefs and behaviors regarding
instructional leadership standards reform. The International Journal of Educational
Preparation, 6(1), 1–13.
Lunenburg, F. (1992). The urban superintendent's role in school reform. Education and Urban
Society, 25(1), 30–44.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Los
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 89

Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, K. (2004). Creating conditions for leadership effectiveness: The distict's role. Noteworthy
Perspective: School Improvement, 12–15.
Pascopella, A. (2011). Superintendents staying power. District Administration, 47(4), 31-36.
Petersen, G. (1999). Demonstrated actions of instructional leaders: An examination of five
California superintendents. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(18), 1–24.
Rammer, R. (2007). Call to action for superintendents: Change the way you hire principals. The
Journal of Educational Research, 100(2), 1–10.
Rumberger, R., & Gandara, P. (2004). Seeking equity in the education of California’s English

learners. The Teachers College Record, 106(10), 2032-2056.

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.
Spanneut, G., & Ford, M. (2008). Guiding hand of the superintendent helps principals flourish.
National Staff Development Council, 29(2), 28–33.
Verdugo, R., & Flores, B. (2007). English-language learners: Key issues. Education and Urban
Society, 39(2), 167–193.
Waters, J., & Marzano, R. (2006, September). School distict leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. Retrieved from www.mcrel.org.
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 90

Working Group on ELL Policy. (2010, March 26). Improving educational outcomes for English
language leaners: Recommendations for the reauthorization of the elementary and
secondary education act. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/topics/ell/ELL-Working-
Group-ESEA.pdf
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, 41(4), 437–456.
Yee, G., & Cuban, L. (1996). When is tenure long enough? A historical analysis of
superintendent turnover and tenure in urban school districts. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 32(1), 615–641.

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 91

APPENDIX A: RESEARCH QUESTION/INSTRUMENT CONNECTION

Research Question 1 What factors do urban superintendents consider when developing
strategies to improve 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 for the community
3. Access to highly qualified teachers
4. Culturally responsive curriculum
5. Standardized assessment design
6. Teacher expectations for ELL performance
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?
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 92

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

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
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
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 93

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?

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?

Survey 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. 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 94

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

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
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 95

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

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

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
SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 96

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 97

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?

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 98

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 99

APPENDIX E: 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 Tiffani Curtis 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 tbgilmor@usc.edu or via phone at (213) 393-
3777.

Thank you in advance for your consideration,

Tiffani Curtis
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES 100

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 kept in a secure location 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 Superintendents of large urban school districts face the arduous task of answering to rigorous state accountability systems while meeting a plethora of demands from No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Moreover, the role of the superintendent has shifted from that of a district manager to an instructional leader. Today, urban superintendents are expected to possess the skills necessary to augment instructional methods for increased student learning. Specifically, superintendents are charged with closing the persistent achievement gap that plagues the most at‐risk subgroup populations, including the diverse group of English Language Learners (ELL). ❧ This study employed a mixed‐method design to answer four research questions related to leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of ELL students. The four research findings were supported through data collection from 14 superintendent quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews conducted with eight superintendents. ❧ First, teacher expectations, access to highly qualified teachers, and instructional leadership emerged as key levers in developing strategies to improve the academic achievement of ELL students. Second, superintendents identified teachers, district‐level personnel, and school‐level administrators as critical stakeholders in the process of developing plans for increased academic achievement for ELL students. Third, high expectations for student achievement, clearly defined district‐wide academic goals, and on‐site teacher collaboration surfaced as some of the strategies that the superintendents in this study considered when executing plans to improve the academic achievement of ELL students. Fourth, strategies used by superintendents to monitor and evaluate the academic achievement of ELL students included valid and reliable assessment instruments, analyzing subgroup assessment data, and established 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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Successful communication strategies used by urban school district superintendents to build consensus in raising student achievement

PDF

Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals

PDF

A case study of promising leadership practices employed by principals of Knowledge Is Power Program Los Angeles (KIPP LA) charter school to improve student achievement

PDF

Effective leadership practices of principals of low socioeconomic status high schools consisting of predominantly African-American and Latino students showing sustained academic improvement

PDF

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

PDF

English language learners meeting the Common Core: do principals make a difference?

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

The sustainability of superintendent-led reforms to improve student achievement

PDF

Strategies California superintendents use to implement 21st century skills programs

PDF

Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams

Asset Metadata

Creator Curtis, Tiffani B. (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 04/14/2014

Defense Date 10/22/2013

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

Tag Education,ELL,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,superintendent,Urban Education

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 tbgilmor@usc.edu,tiffani@academy4kids.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-377483

Unique identifier UC11295330

Identifier etd-CurtisTiff-2349.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-377483 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CurtisTiff-2349.pdf

Dmrecord 377483

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Curtis, Tiffani B.

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