University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: central office leadership factors

(USC Thesis Other)

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: central office leadership factors

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running
head:
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS
1

AN EXAMINATION OF TRI-LEVEL COLLABORATION AROUND STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT USING THE GAP ANALYSIS APPROACH:
CENTRAL OFFICE LEADERSHIP FACTORS

by

Sonia Rodarte Llamas

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2013

Copyright 2013 Sonia Rodarte Llamas
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

2
Epigraph

"Individually, we are one drop. Together, we are an ocean." (Ryunosuke Satoro, n.d.)
A clear depiction that each individual brings unique characteristics, skills and knowledge, but
when everyone is grouped together, all of those characteristics add up and together become
something greater. If you look at the collaborative team as a whole, rather than an mélange of
individuals, the collaboration will run more smoothly and powerfully.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

3
Dedication
Any educational endeavor, and particularly doctoral work, cannot be accomplished
without the hard work and support of many individuals dedicated to your success.
First and foremost at the top of this list is my husband, Rene. His constant and
unwavering support—from letting me vent my frustrations to being present every time I just
needed an “I love you,”—thank you. I can only hope to provide you the same level of love and
support without complaint. I do not believe you truly realize whom you marry until life
challenges present themselves. You have carried me many a mile and for that I am endlessly
grateful and love you dearly sweetie. I thank God everyday for placing you in my path.
To my boys, Pablo, Santiago and Baby Boy #3, thank you for your continued patience
when mom had to do homework and be away from home. May nothing stand in the way of your
dreams and aspirations. The three of you have served as my motivation in life. Always remember
that mommy loves you and that everyday I thank God for my “three little miracles”.
Early on my parents instilled in me the importance of education, family, will and the
value of hard work. I watched adamantly year after year the sacrifices they made for our family.
Thank you for your continued support and encouragement. You have been the best role models
on how to be loving and supportive parents and how to survive life challenges.
An additional thanks goes to my brothers, Joseph and Ruben, my mother-in law Malena,
sister-in laws, Ana, Esther, Anji, Alicia, my nephews and nieces, my compadres: Christine, Eric,
Gerard, and the Garibays, thank you for supporting my family during this time and stepping in
when I was limited on time. To all, thank you for loving my family in the manner that you do.
My friends at USC who challenged and pushed me and to my professional compatriots in
the districts in which I have worked, who have all played a role in completing this, thank you.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

4
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank my doctoral committee: Dr. Robert Rueda and Dr. Brian McDonald for
their mentorship and guidance. To Dr. Kenneth Yates, my advisor, committee chair and mentor:
Thank you for your tireless efforts in ensuring the success of our team. Your high standards,
thoroughness, and commitment to our success, speak volumes about your character and inspires
us to model to others what you have modeled to us. Thank you for your critical feedback and
insight into making this project meaningful in supporting student achievement.
A special appreciation to the PUSD teachers, administrators, Instructional Leadership
Team, Chief Academic Officer, and Superintendent for allowing our team to conduct this
dissertation of practice in their backyard. Ultimately, the hopes of this dissertation are to assist in
providing the solutions to move our district forward toward excellence, equity and access for all
students within the PUSD. Thank you for this opportunity, your honesty and for the courageous
conversations that took place during our interviews.
To the professors in the Ed.D. program, may I emulate in my practice what you have
taught us in the classroom. May I serve as an agent of change in urban education, to ensure that
equity and access is provided to all that I serve. Your tutelage has set my trajectory for success in
achieving this goal. To the team in the Rossier School of Education, thank you for the continual
support and guidance these past three years. To Dr. Aime Black, thank you for your commitment
and dedication to my dissertation. Thank you for your patience and eye to detail.
Lastly, but not least, I would like to thank the other two members of my dissertation trio,
Dr. Anthony Carruthers and Dr. Esther Salinas. We truly lived our dissertation and survived the
tides. We collectively accomplished this task utilizing each of our individual skill sets–true
collaboration. I look forward to watching where this path leads us.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

5
Table of Contents
Epigraph 2
Dedication 3
Acknowledgements 4
List of Tables 10
List of Figures 11
Abbreviations 12
Abstract 13
Preface 14
Chapter One: Introduction 15
Introduction of the Problem 15
Context of the Problem 15
Organizational Problem 18
Organizational Goal 20
Stakeholders 20
Stakeholders for the Study 20
Background of the Problem 20
Importance of the Problem 22
Purpose of the Study and Questions 22
Definitions 23
Organization of the Study 23
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 24
Organizational Capacity and Internal Accountability 25
Isolation 27
Isolation Within the Central Office 27
Principal Isolation 28
Teacher Isolation 29
Models of Collaboration in Educational Settings 30
Communities of Commitment 31
Communities of Practice 32
Critical Friends Group 32
Coalition of Essential Schools 33
Professional Learning Communities According to Hord 34
Professional Learning Communities According to DuFour and Eaker 35
Purposeful Community 36
Leadership 37
Magnitude of Change 37
Purposeful Community 38
Common Characteristics of Collaboration 38
Knowledge Requirements for Effective Collaboration 41
Factual Knowledge 41
Conceptual Knowledge 43
Procedural Knowledge 44
Metacognitive Knowledge 45
Motivation Requirements for Effective Collaboration 47
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

6
Capability Beliefs 47
Self-Efficacy 47
Self-Efficacy and Teacher Efficacy 49
Bandura’s Four Sources of Efficacy 49
Collective Teacher Efficacy 51
Affective Factors 52
Task Value 52
Organizational Requirements for Effective Collaboration 53
Trust 53
Leadership 55
Resources and Reciprocal Accountability 56
Quality Assurance and Monitoring 57
Tri-Level Considerations for Leadership and Organizational Change 60
Central Office Leadership and Organizational Change 60
School Site Leadership and Organizational Change 62
Teacher Leadership and Organizational Change 68
Chapter Three: Methodology 73
Purpose of the Inquiry and Inquiry Questions 73
Methodology Framework 74
Step 1: Identify the Organizational Goal 76
Step 2: Current Achievement 77
Step 3: Gaps 78
Step 4: Causes 78
Causes Informed by Informal Interviews 79
Informal Interviews with Central Office Administrators 79
Informal Interviews with Site-Level Administrators 80
Informal Interviews with Teachers 80
Causes Informed by Learning, Motivation, and Organizational
Theories 81
Knowledge Theory 81
Motivation Theory 82
Organization Theory 82
Causes Informed by the Literature 83
Step 5: Validated Causes 84
Population and Sample 85
Instrumentation and Data Collection 85
Surveys 85
Interviews 86
Data Analysis 87
Chapter Four: Results 89
Purpose of Study 89
Overview of Data Collection 89
District Survey 89
District Interviews 90
Demographic Data 91
Validation of the Causes of the Perceived Performance Gap 93
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

7

Knowledge Results 93
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Causes 93
Knowledge Survey Results 94
Knowledge Gap #1 97
Survey Results 97
Interview Results 97
Tri-Level Results 98
Knowledge Gap #2 99
Survey Results 99
Interview Results 100
Tri-Level Results 100
Summary of the Strengths and Challenges of Central Office Administrators 101
Motivation Results 102
Summary of Assumed Motivation Causes 103
Collective Efficacy 103
Value 103
Affective Factors 103
Motivation Survey Results 104
Motivation Gap #1 106
Survey Results 106
Interview Results 107
Tri-Level Results 108
Motivation Gap #2 108
Survey Results 108
Interview Results 109
Tri-Level Results 110
Summary of Strengths and Challenges of Central Office Administrators 110
Organization Results 112
Summary of Assumed Organizational Causes 112
Organization Survey Results 113
Organizational Gap #1 116
Survey Results 116
Interview Results 116
Tri-Level Results 117
Organizational Gap #2 118
Survey Results 118
Interview Results 118
Tri-Level Results 119
Organizational Gap #3 119
Survey Results 119
Interview Results 119
Tri-Level Results 121
Organizational Cause #4 121
Survey Results 121
Interview Results 122
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

8
Tri-Level Results 122
Summary of the Strengths and Challenges for Central
Office Administrators 123
Chapter Five: Recommended Research-Based Solutions and Implementations 126
Solutions 127
Knowledge and Skill 127
Create High Quality Assessments 129
Use of Data Management Systems 134
Motivation 135
Collective Efficacy in Providing Students With
Enrichment Opportunities When There is a Demonstrated Need 136
Collective Efficacy in Identifying Deficits Inhibiting
Essential Learning Outcomes 136
Organizational Barriers/Culture 139
Resources to Learn and Grow 139
Develop Collaboration Capacity 139
Resources and Time to Clarify Outcomes for Students 141
Intentional Communication 141
Chapter Six: Discussion 150
Synthesis of the Results 150
Knowledge and Skills 151
Motivation 151
Organization and Culture 152
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 153
Recommendations and Implications 154
Evaluation 157
Level 1: Central Office Administration Reaction During Implementation 157
Methods 157
Level 2: Change, Learning, and Motivation During Implementation 157
Methods 158
Level 3: Transfer of Learning and Motivation to Learning Experiences 158
Methods 158
Level 4: Impact of Collaboration Around Student Achievement 158
Methods 159
Limitations 159
Future Research 160
Conclusion 161
References 164
Appendices
Appendix A: Definition of Key Terms 184
Appendix B: Concepts and Characteristics of Model Communities of
Collaboration in Education Settings 187
Appendix C: Common Characteristics of Collaboration Around Student
Achievement 189
Appendix D: CASA Team Characteristics and Competencies 197
Appendix E: The 21 Responsibilities of the School Leader 203
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

9
Appendix F: CASA Team Competency Survey Protocol 204
Appendix G: CASA Interview Protocol 213
Appendix H: Tri-Level Data (n=281) 216
Appendix I: Central Office Data (n=18) 234
Appendix J: Tri-Level Competency Means: District Administrators,
Site Administrators, and Teachers 244
Appendix K: Common Tri-Level Causes 245
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

10
List of Tables
Table 1: Common Characteristics and Competencies of Collaboration Around
Student Achievement (CASA) Synthesized from Literature Reviewed 40
Table 2: Comparison of First-Order Change and Second-Order Change 66
Table 3: Possible Causes of Knowledge Performance Gaps 82
Table 4: Summary of Assumed Causes for Knowledge, Motivation and
Organization 84
Table 5: Knowledge Item Results in Ascending Order by Means (n=18) 96
Table 6: Motivation Item Results in Ascending Order by Means (n=18) 105
Table 7: Organization Item Results in Ascending Order by Means (n=18) 115
Table 8: Summary of Causes, Solutions, and Implementation of the Solutions 143
Table 9: Summary of Organizations Main Goal, Short-Term Goals, Cascading
Goals, and Performance Goals 146
Table 10: Summary of Performance Goals, Timelines, and Measurement of Goals 147
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

11
List of Figures
Figure 1: Gap Analysis Process 75

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

12
Abbreviations
4Cs Communication, Collaboration, Creativity and Critical Thinking
API Academic Performance Index
AYP Annual Yearly Progress
CAHSEE California High School Exit Exam
CANE Commitment And Necessary Effort
CASA Collaboration Around Student Achievement
CC Culture of Collaboration
CE Collective Efficacy
CEIS Coordinated Early Intervening Services
CEP Center on Educational Policy
CES Coalition of Essential Schools
CFG Critical Friends Group
CLC Collaborative Learning Community
COA Central Office Administrators
CoP Communities of Practice
CRW Curriculum Revision Workshop
CST California Standardized Test
CTA Cognitive Task Analysis
CTE Collective Teacher Efficacy
ECED Every Classroom Every Day
EDI Explicit Direct Instruction
FR Focus on Results
GAP Gap Analysis Process
ILT Instructional Leadership Team
K,M,O Knowledge, Motivation, Organizational factors
LFP Learning as the Fundamental Purpose
M Mean
McREL Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning
NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress
NCES National Center for Education Statistics
NCLB No Child Left Behind
PLC Professional Learning Community
PUSD Pasadena Unified School District
SBAC Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
SD Standard Deviation
SEIS Special Education Information System
SME Subject Matter Experts
SSA School Site Administrator
SSL Supportive and Shared Leadership
STEAM Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics
STEM Science Technology Engineering Math
TCAR Teacher Collaboration Assessment Rubric
TCIF Teacher Collaboration Improvement Framework
WASC Western Association of School and College
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

13
Abstract
Using the Gap Analysis problem-solving framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), this study examined
collaboration around student achievement at the central office leadership level in the Pasadena
Unified School District (PUSD). This study is one of three concurrent studies focused on
collaboration around student achievement in the PUSD that include the teacher level conducted
by Carruthers (2013) and the site administrator level conducted by Salinas (2013). The purpose
of this study was to identify the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization challenges
that contribute to PUSD’s gap in accomplishing its organizational goal for collaboration around
student achievement from the perspective of the central office leadership. Mixed methods were
used to collect survey data from 18 participants and interview data for 4 participants to identify
and validate the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization root causes that may
contribute to the PUSD’s central office role in achieving the District’s goal. Findings show that
in general central office administrators are highly motivated and have the necessary knowledge
and skills to meet the goals of the district but are impeded by issues related to resources
specifically the to time for professional development, creation of job aides, structures and
processes to encourage and implement collaboration across the district. Based on the findings,
solutions drawn from the research literature are offered to address these challenges. This study is
part of a larger study, in which two concurrent studies related to site leaders and teacher leaders,
demonstrates how various stakeholders can systematically apply the Gap Analysis framework to
address performance issues when implementing district-wide collaboration around student
academic achievement.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

14
Preface
Some of the chapters in this dissertation were coauthored and have been identified as
such. While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm for most doctoral programs, team
inquiry and collaborative authorship are quite common in the research community. It is in
keeping with the Ed.D. program’s objective to develop highly skilled practitioners equipped to
take on authentic problems of practice, then, that the USC Graduate School and the Rossier
School of Education have permitted our inquiry team to use this collaborative approach.
This dissertation is the result of a collaborative effort between the author and two other
doctoral candidates, Anthony Carruthers and Esther Salinas. These three doctoral students
consulted with the Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) with the aim of helping the district
to solve an authentic problem of practice. PUSD proposed a problem whose breadth was beyond
the scope of a single dissertation. It was therefore determined that the inquiry team would
produce three articulating dissertations to collectively address the proposed problem. This
resulted in the current dissertation and the works of Carruthers (2013) and Salinas (2013).

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

15
Chapter One: Introduction
Authors: Anthony Carruthers, Sonia Llamas, Esther Salinas
1

Introduction of the Problem
Educational institutions in the United States have historically been loosely coupled, low-
reliability organizations (Weick, as cited in Marzano & Waters, 2009). These institutions have
been marked by isolation, lack of coordination, and extreme variance in the quality of education
provided. Increasingly, educators have come to grips with the reality that their institutions must
undergo transformations in organizational structure and culture. Educators and scholars have
written extensively on how principles of learning organizations (Senge, 1990) can be applied in
education to produce the results that the stakeholders within these institutions truly desire. In
practice, however, transforming educational institutions into learning organizations has presented
a complex set of challenges with which practitioners continue to grapple.
Context of the Problem
Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) serves a diverse urban community located in
Los Angeles County, California. It includes the communities of Altadena, Pasadena and Sierra
Madre. Long associated with images of prosperity evoked by the Rose Parade on New Year’s
Day, Pasadena’s public school district serves a different population than might be expected.
PUSD serves 18,652 K-12 students. Of these students, 60.6% are Hispanic, 16.9% are African
American, 13.7% are White, 5.6 % identify as other, and 3.2 % are Asian. Over 68% of students
qualify for the federal free and reduced lunch program for low-income families, 20.6% are
English learners, and 11.7% receive Special Education services.

1
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed reflecting the team approach to this
project. These authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

16
While academic achievement has risen steadily throughout PUSD for the past five years,
the district struggles with lower performing secondary schools, high truancy rates and high
dropout rates. In 2009, 84% of seniors and 74% of juniors passed the California High School
Exit Exam (CAHSEE). For the 2009-2010 school year, PUSD’s graduation rate per NCES
definition was 75.2%. That same year, 427 students in grades 9-12 dropped out of school for a
rate of 6.7%, higher than county (5.4%) and state (4.9%) rates.
PUSD has a vision to prepare all students for success in college and career. Its stated
mission is to provide a caring, engaging, challenging educational experience for every student
every day. The district’s guiding principle is: Our students come first. Our decisions are driven
by what is best for them. PUSD’s core values are Integrity and Respect, Transparency,
Accountability, Equity, Collaboration, and Fiscal Responsibility.
PUSD has launched three core initiatives that signal the direction in which the
organization is headed. First is the College and Career Pathways initiative, which is sponsored by
the James Irvine Foundation. The objective of this initiative is to prepare all students for post-
secondary education and careers. Eight small learning communities (called pathways), housed
within three of PUSD’s four comprehensive high schools, are at the heart of the initiative.
These pathways offer (a) a strong academic foundation, (b) technical education related to
a particular industry sector, (c) personalized student support services, and (d) work-based
learning opportunities. Pathway teachers who share a cohort of students have collaboration time
built into their schedules. Of the 5500 students enrolled in grades nine through twelve,
approximately 1670 (30%) are enrolled in a pathway. Recently the pathway initiative was
extended to the middle school level with the creation of the Science, Technology, Engineering,
Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) magnet at Washington Middle School. This magnet school is
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

17
intended to serve as a pipeline to the Engineering and Environmental Science Pathway at John
Muir High School.
The second major initiative under way in PUSD is the Curriculum Revision Workshop
(CRW). Beginning in the spring of 2012, the CRW has been convening teachers and coaches
from the core disciplines to revise the district’s curriculum to align with the Common Core
Standards. Participating teachers have received an in depth orientation to the Common Core
Standards, Backward Design, and the Understanding By Design process for designing curricular
units (Wiggins & McTighe, 2011). Teachers have also received training, provided by Envision
Learning Partners, on Project Based Learning and Performance Assessment. Grade-level,
subject-specific teacher teams have been developing curricular units and performance
assessments. In the fall of 2012, CRW teachers began piloting the units they had developed.
Teams will continue to pilot and revise curriculum until the 2014-2015 school year when
students will be expected to demonstrate their attainment of CRW learning outcomes on
common performance assessments and national Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
(SBAC) exams.
Finally, PUSD has joined EdLeader21, a self-described professional learning community
(PLC) for district leaders to come together around their commitment to 21
st
Century learning.
More specifically, EdLeader21 districts are committed to integrating communication,
collaboration, critical thinking and creativity (the 4Cs) into all areas of students’ educational
experiences. EdLeader21 provides a 7-step framework for districts to use as they implement the
4Cs. According to their website at http://www.EdLeader21.com/index.php?pg=11, the steps
include:

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

18
1. Adopt a vision.
2. Develop Consensus.
3. Align the system.
4. Build professional capacity (primarily through PLC formation; this is identified as the
key step in the framework).
5. Focus curriculum and assessment.
6. Support Teachers.
7. Improve and Innovate.
Organizational Problem
One of the biggest impediments to school success is an overwhelming number of district
initiatives (Olson, as cited in DuFour & Marzano, 2011). When districts have their attention and
resources dispersed to multiple initiatives, it leads to poor implementation of all initiatives. As
Reeves (2011) explains, sustained effort on a limited number of goals improves academic
success. In addition, even when the number of initiatives is manageable, there is often a lack of
effort to ensure that all initiatives are in alignment with one another.
In addition to the initiatives discussed in the previous section, Pasadena Unified School
District has launched several other initiatives ranging in focus from academic achievement to
social emotional development. The PUSD Strategic Plan, Excellent Middle Schools, Linked
Learning, Center X, Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) and Behavior Response to
Intervention (RtI) are examples of initiatives that have been undertaken simultaneously. Each of
these initiatives has an aim to increase student academic performance. Unfortunately, the
initiatives have not been implemented in alignment with one another, and this has resulted in
sporadic success instead of districtwide implementation. One problem, for example, has been a
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

19
lack of clarity with respect to the district’s overall vision, its strategy for attaining the vision, and
the roles that individuals throughout the organization are to play in the strategy. According to
DuFour and Marzano (2011) it is difficult to implement a substantive process in any organization
when people have a deep understanding of the process and its implications for specific action; it
is impossible however, to do so when there is ambiguity or only a superficial understanding of
what must be done (Clark & Estes, 2008; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000).
PUSD’s vision, mission, values, and initiatives reveal PUSD’s commitment, in principle,
to becoming a high-reliability learning organization that is coherently organized to produce the
student achievement outcomes its stakeholders truly desire.
While commitment on this level is necessary, it is not sufficient. What lies ahead for
PUSD as it attempts to become a 21
st
century learning organization is a complex problem that
will test PUSD’s collective commitment and will. Adapting to the new Common Core Standards,
developing and implementing a new curriculum districtwide, and incorporating the 4Cs into all
classrooms will be no small feat. Factor in the need to expand teachers’ instructional repertoires
to include more systematic formative assessment, project-based learning, and performance
assessment, and one begins to appreciate the magnitude of change that is being undertaken. All
of these reforms require organizational coherence and a culture of collaboration, both of which
are in the emerging stages in PUSD. Adding to the complexity is the fact that all of this is
occurring in an era of limited funding. In short, PUSD faces an organizational problem that will
require all stakeholders to replace old paradigms with new ones in order to solve never before
seen problems, the solutions of which are not yet known. In other words, PUSD stakeholders will
have to engage in transformational learning (Mezirow, 1997) and adaptive change (Heifetz &
Laurie, 1997).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

20
Organizational Goal
While PUSD cannot predict the challenges it will face in the future, developing the
capacity of all stakeholders to consistently and effectively collaborate will increase the
organization’s capacity to meet these challenges. Based on this rationale, PUSD’s superintendent
of schools and chief academic officer identified the improvement and scaling up of collaboration
as the highest priority goal for PUSD. As such, the organizational goal for PUSD is to
institutionalize effective collaboration around student achievement.
Stakeholders. To support student achievement, it is important to strengthen coherence
between actions at the central office, school site, and classroom levels (Childress, Elmore,
Grossman, & King, 2007). As such, the rationale for this study is the need for collaboration on
and between all three levels of PUSD. This study is part of a tri-level districtwide study (See
Carruthers, 2013; Salinas, 2013) examining collaboration around student achievement from the
central office administrator, school site administrator, and classroom teacher perspectives.
Stakeholder for the study. The stakeholder focus for the current project was central
office administrators. The investigator is a central office administrator in PUSD.
Background of the Problem
Lyndon B. Johnson remarked, “The answer for all of our national problems, the answer
for all the problems of the world, comes down, when you really analyze it, to a single word:
education” (Johnson, 1964, p. 1). This statement embodies the dream of educating every child.
However, moving into the 21
st
Century, American public educators strain under the growing
burden of public expectations along with state and federal policies that dim this dream. There is
no clearer example of this than the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

21
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 gave birth to the era of standards-
based reform that has continued to grow in complexity and gravity. Responding to concerns of a
weak educational system that were brought to national attention by A Nation at Risk (1983), No
Child Left Behind (2001) ushered in the era of standards and high stakes accountability. As a
result, public schools today are under increasing pressure to demonstrate program effectiveness
through student achievement as measured by federal Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) and the
state Academic Performance Index (API).
While policy changes outside of the schoolhouse were unfolding, internal changes were
occurring as well. The landscape of American schools was becoming increasingly
heterogeneous. Classrooms were growing more diverse with respect to race, ethnicity, language
and socioeconomic status. Since the 1990s, the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) has shed light on achievement differences between Black and Hispanic students and
their White and Asian counterparts. Differential expectations and outcomes compel educators to
close this achievement gap (Rueda, 2011). Moreover, an increasingly competitive and
unpredictable global economy has made it a moral imperative to close the achievement gap and
prepare all students for post-secondary education and the workplace.
In sum, these pressures require school districts to identify and implement systemic
reforms that have been demonstrated to improve student achievement. One such promising
reform has centered on the role community plays in schools (Louis & Marks, 1998; Vescio,
Ross, & Adams, 2008). Louis and Marks (1998), in their examination of 24 elementary, middle,
and secondary schools, found that the strength of professional community in these schools
predicted quality of teaching practice, support for student achievement, and quality of student
learning. Offering further evidence, Vescio et al. (2008) reviewed eight studies that had
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

22
established direct links between collaborative learning communities and student achievement
gains. There are a variety of models of collaborative learning communities including
Professional Learning Communities (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Hord, 1997), Communities of
Practice (Wenger & Snyder, 2002) and Purposeful Learning Communities (Marzano et al., 2005)
whose key components include shared goals and collaboration. These models provide a structure
for leadership and a process for purposeful interaction (DuFour & Marzano, 2011).
Importance of the Problem
Institutionalizing effective collaboration around student achievement is important
because it develops and makes available the collective capacity of all stakeholders so that this
capacity can be applied to pursue the goals that matter most to stakeholders. In addition,
institutionalizing collaboration promotes innovation, the spreading of best practices, and the
curtailment of ineffective practices. In the absence of collaboration, valuable human capital is
left untapped and faulty practice is allowed to persist. As stated previously, with the moral
imperative to close the achievement gap and prepare all students to be viable in the 21
st
century
global economy, institutionalizing effective collaboration around student achievement is critical.
Purpose of the Study and Questions
The overall purpose of this inquiry project was to assist PUSD with its organizational goal
to institutionalize effective collaboration around student achievement. The project was driven by
two inquiry questions:
1. What are the challenges for PUSD central office administrators, in knowledge and skills,
motivation, and the organizational dimension, that may impede the achievement of
PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student
achievement?
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

23
2. What are the potential solutions to address PUSD central office administrators’
challenges in knowledge and skills, motivation, and the organizational dimension, and
thereby support PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration
around student achievement?
Definitions
Definitions of key terms can be found in Appendix A.

Organization of the Study
This chapter presented the background and the importance of the inquiry team’s focus on
collaboration around student achievement. It also provided a brief overview of the scope of the
project. Chapter Two will provide a review of the literature related to collaboration around
student achievement. Chapter Three provides the methodology used by the inquiry team and an
analysis of assumed causes of the performance gaps. In Chapter Four the results of the data
collection will be discussed. In Chapter Five, solutions will be proposed along with
recommendations for implementing these solutions. Finally, Chapter Six will provide a
discussion of project limitations and propose an evaluation plan for the project.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

24
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Authors: Anthony Carruthers, Sonia Llamas, Esther Salinas
2

Public education in the United States has been the object of reform efforts for the past
thirty years. Recently federal, state, and local agencies have implemented accountability
measures that focus on student achievement. The federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB),
state-level end-of-course and high school exit exams, and value-added teacher evaluations are
but a few examples of these achievement-centered accountability systems. Meeting the demands
of these accountability systems requires central office leaders, school site administrators, and
classroom teachers (tri-level) to work collaboratively to develop the environments and practices
that optimize achievement for all students.
It is widely accepted and empirically supported that collaboration capacity predicts
student achievement and can determine the success or failure of any school reform effort (Gajda
& Koliba, 2007, 2008; Goddard, Goddard, & Tschannen-Moran, 2007; Hord, 1986; Lawson,
2004; Welch, 1998). Efforts to build collaboration capacity within schools, which have taken on
a multitude of names, have many common characteristics. These efforts have generally sought to
provide structures for distributed leadership and processes for purposeful collaboration to
ultimately promote student achievement.
This literature review will examine various topics related to collaboration around student
achievement and will be organized as follows:
1. Organizational capacity and internal accountability
2. Forms of isolation in educational organizations
3. Models of collaboration in educational organizations

2
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed reflecting the team approach to this
project. These authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

25
4. Common characteristics of collaboration
5. Knowledge requirements for successful collaborations
6. Motivational requirements for successful collaboration
7. Organizational requirements for successful collaboration
8. Tri-level considerations for leadership and organizational change
Organizational Capacity and Internal Accountability
This section of the literature review begins with an examination of the characteristics and
dynamics associated with external accountability systems. Then it examines on the need to
develop organizational capacity and internal accountability in order to meet the demands of these
high-stakes external accountability systems.
Researchers (Center on Educational Policy (CEP), 2007; Dee & Jacob, 2009) have noted
gains on standardized tests under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). This suggests that
external accountability systems promote student achievement. However gains have been modest
and have not been consistent across grade levels or content areas (Sahlberg, 2010). Moreover, it
is difficult to attribute increased test scores to NCLB because multiple reforms were being
implemented concurrently with NCLB (CEP, 2007).
External accountability systems also neglect important aspects of student achievement
not measured on standardized tests. For example, while strong state accountability systems have
been associated with higher average scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP), educational attainment and ninth grade retention, for example, were not significantly
affected by these accountability systems (Carnoy & Loeb, 2002).
External accountability systems also produce unintended negative effects. For example,
external accountability systems create tensions that contribute to teacher burnout (Berryhill,
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

26
Linney, & Fromewick, 2009). Schoen and Fusarelli (2008) argue that schools have responded to
the pressures of NCLB in ways that have diminished their capacity to provide a 21
st
century
education. Similarly, Sahlberg (2010) suggests that external accountability systems have stunted
the development of 21
st
century skills such as critical thinking and creativity.
Responding to external accountability pressures, and mitigating their harmful effects,
requires organizational capacity building. As Elmore (2002) explains, “Schools do not ‘succeed’
in responding to external cues or pressures unless they have their own internal system for
reaching agreement on good practice and for making that agreement evident in organization and
pedagogy” (p. 20). In order to create these conditions, the central office must perform the
strategic function (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006). That is, it must develop a strategy for
improving teaching and learning and align all organizational components with the strategy.
Additionally, norms of reciprocal accountability must be established (Elmore, 2002). According
to Elmore (2002), if leaders want increases in student achievement, “the quid pro quo is
investing in the knowledge and skill necessary to produce it” (p. 5). Similarly, “If educators want
legitimacy, purpose and credibility for their work, the quid pro quo is learning to do their work
differently and accepting a new model of accountability”(p. 5).
Hall (2010) describes this new model of accountability as internal accountability. It
requires educators to (a) modify content and practice, (b) monitor progress toward specific goals,
and (c) institute a system of rewards and sanctions (Hall, 2010, p. 10).
Citing Newmann et al. (1997), Hall (2010) reports that strong internal accountability
reflects the capacity of a school to collectively organize the following four dimensions: (a)
effective leadership, (b) teachers’ professional knowledge and skills, (c) technical and financial
resources, and (d) autonomy to act according to the demands of local contexts (p. 10). School
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

27
districts with strong internal accountability systems have (a) shared expectations among
stakeholders at all levels about what constitutes quality work and (b) processes for monitoring
whether these expectations are being met (Elmore, 2002).
This section established a vision of organizational capacity building and internal
accountability. The current state of affairs in educational institutions stands in stark contrast to
this vision of internal accountability and coherence. The next section examines the
organizational forms and culture typically found in educational institutions.
Isolation
School districts typically reflect a culture of isolation (Flinders, 1988; Gratch, 2000; Tye
& Tye, 1984). This section reviews literature on isolation within the central office, principal
isolation, and teacher isolation. Literature identifying strategies that institutions have employed
to address the isolation problem at all three levels is also discussed.
Isolation within the Central Office
Central offices have historically been organized as silos (Fullan, as cited in Borman,
Carter, Aladjem, Kerstin, & Carlson LeFloch, 2004). The silo organizational structure is
problematic (Waite, 2010). For example, the inherent insularity of silo organizations makes it
difficult for innovations that occur in one silo to spread throughout the organization. Silos also
create inefficiency due to duplication of efforts. Silo structures tend to leave critical
organizational functions not accounted for through a phenomenon called “responsibility floating”
(Bauman, as cited in Waite, 2010). Responsibility floating occurs when each silo is aware of the
failures that are resulting from particular organizational functions falling through the cracks, but
because these functions do not fall within the purview of any particular silo, no one takes
responsibility.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

28
School districts that have successfully addressed the problematic nature of silo
organizations without undergoing wholesale central office restructuring have (a) taken a systems
approach to reform, (b) created a learning community at the central office, (c) focused intently
on teaching and learning, (d) supported professional learning and instructional improvement, and
(e) used data to support accountability (Borman et al., 2004, p. 116). Borman et al. (2004) also
highlight the importance of all central office administrators being knowledgeable about district
reforms so that their resource allocation decisions are coherently aligned with district reform
efforts.
Principal Isolation
Principal isolation stems from the following variables: (a) role ambiguity, (b) role
overload, and (c) lack of social support (Stephenson & Bauer, 2010). Stephenson and Bauer
(2010) surveyed 196 first- and second-year elementary, middle, high, and alternative school
principals from across the state of Louisiana in order to examine the relationships between
various factors and principal burnout. The authors found that principal isolation mediated the
relationship between the above-mentioned variables and physical and emotional burnout.
Ironically, individual coaching provided to principals increased role overload and thereby
exacerbated principal isolation and burnout.
In a study of five high-poverty districts making strides in improving student achievement
system-wide, Togneri and Anderson (2003) reported that these districts countered principal
isolation by (a) forming networks of high-performing principals to increase leadership capacity,
(b) convening principals to share challenges and strategies and develop common understanding
on emerging issues, and (c) incorporating tools for improving collaboration.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

29
Teacher Isolation
Teacher isolation impedes school reform. Schmoker (2006) implicates the buffer as “a
protective barrier that discourages and even punishes close, constructive scrutiny of instruction
and the supervision of instruction” (p. 13). He argues that shielding instruction and
supervision—the heart of schooling—from external criticism prevents school improvement.
In order for schools to improve, teachers must be connected to external knowledge, and
conditions within the school must promote the sharing of knowledge (Tye & Tye, 1984).
Historically, teachers have been disconnected from external sources of new knowledge and have
not shared knowledge with each other (Goodlad, as cited in Tye & Tye, 1984). “New ideas in
education travel rather randomly through the system, from school to school and person to person;
they tend to be pursued individually, if at all—not in concert” (Goodlad, 1983, p. 555). Goodlad
(1983) asserts, “The culture of the school must operate in such a way as to encourage and give
legitimacy to alternative ideas, if such ideas are to take root and grow” (p. 555).
Teacher isolation also threatens human capital. For example, teacher isolation is a risk
factor for alienation and burnout (Brooks, Hughes & Brooks, 2008; Schlicte, Yssel, & Merbler,
2005). Flinders (1988) offers an alternate view of teacher isolation as an adaptive strategy that
teachers use to protect themselves psychologically. Flinders reasons that the inherent stresses of
collaboration pose a psychological threat to teachers who are already overwhelmed. Flinders
advises administrators and policy-makers to use a two-pronged approach that (a) removes
antecedents of isolation and (b) supports teachers in order to lower psychological barriers to
collaboration.
While isolation is clearly problematic, there are also intermediate states between isolation
and collaboration that can pose problems. For example, in a culture of contrived collegiality
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

30
(Hargreaves & Dawe, 1990) administrators contrive interactions between teachers in order to
engineer predetermined outcomes. In balkanized cultures (Hargreaves & Macmillan, 1992),
small groups of educators (e.g., departments) isolate themselves from the rest of the staff. These
groups typically adopt partisan stances and put their own interests above the collective interests
of the school community.
Fallon and Barnett (2009) found in a case study of an elementary school that restructuring
to foster collegiality and collaboration addressed the challenge of teacher isolation. Restructuring
schools as learning communities, in particular, holds hope for facilitating the transition from
isolation to a culture of collaboration (Rasberry & Mahajan, 2008).
In this section, the case was made for moving away from a culture of isolation toward a culture
of collaboration. The next section examines models that have been conceived to facilitate this
transition.
Models of Collaboration in Educational Settings
Although learning communities hold great promise for improving education, as Rasberry
and Mahajan (2008) explain:
Many schools across the country are currently using the term “professional learning
community” to loosely describe groups of teachers that work together at specified times
in their buildings. Unfortunately, a great majority of these schools falter in their efforts to
truly create PLCs because they are not implementing them appropriately or they do not
provide them with proper support (p. 3).
Collaboration within educational settings has come to be defined by a number of different
models and conceptions—not just PLCs—referred to generally herein as collaborative learning
communities (CLCs). It is important for practitioners to have an intimate knowledge of the
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

31
unifying and distinguishing features of the various models in order to avoid faltering in their
efforts to create CLCs. The models that will be reviewed here include Communities of
Commitment (Kofman & Senge, 1993), Communities of Practice (Wenger, 1998), Critical
Friends Groups (Costa & Kallick, 1993), Coalition Of Essential Schools (Sizer, 1986),
Professional Learning Communities (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, &
Karhanek, 2010; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2010; Hord, 1997), and Purposeful
Communities (Waters & Cameron, 2007).
Many case studies have examined the impact of CLC implementation on student
achievement outcomes (Hughes & Kritsonis, 2007; Taylor, Pressley, & Pearson, 2000; Vescio et
al., 2008). When implemented correctly, CLCs have been found to foster collective
accountability and coherence and in doing so raise student achievement. This section examines
the various models of collaboration that have been implemented within educational settings.
Communities of Commitment

‘Learning organization’ is a linguistic representation used to articulate a vision for
creating “a type of organization we would truly like to work within and which can thrive in a
world of increasing interdependency and change” (Kofman & Senge, 2003, p. 20). The learning
organization vision is grounded in (a) a culture based on values of love, humility, wonder,
empathy, and compassion; (b) a set of practices for generative conversation and coordinated
action; and (c) a capacity to see and work with the flow of life as a system (p. 20). Kofman and
Senge (2003) explain how pursuing one’s vision of a learning organization requires patience,
courage, and servant leadership. It requires community and commitment to building learning
environments that support individual transformation and collective agency. Communities of
commitment are at the heart of learning organizations and represent a frame of reference that is
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

32
countercultural to the fragmentation, competition, and reactiveness reflected in society. This
frame of reference promotes systems thinking, team building, and preemptive strikes of proactive
leadership.
Communities of Practice
Communities of Practice (CoP) evolved from a study of apprenticeship (Lave & Wenger,
1991). The study revealed that apprenticeship involves a set of complex social interactions
through which all involved participants learn—not just the apprentices. As a result, new
professional behaviors are collectively created, practiced, and refined (Harris & Jones, 2010).
CoPs are comprised of “groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they
do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (Wenger, 2009, p. 1). A CoP is
defined by three factors: (a) the domain, (b) the community, and (c) the practice.
The domain is the field of shared interest that unites the CoP members. The domain
ultimately derives value from the CoP’s collective enterprise. The community is built upon
relationships that enable its members to engage in common activities, help one another, and learn
from one another. The practice is the common repertoire of resources including experiences,
stories, tools, and problem solving strategies. Its improvement is the object of CoP interactions.
As co-participants, members engage in meaningful activity through which identity and practices
develop (Handley, Sturdy, Fincham & Clark, 2006; Wenger, 1998, 2009). These elements, when
developed, constitute a community of practice.
Critical Friends Group

Critical Friends Group (CFG) is a model developed by National School Reform Faculty.
CFGs usually consist of a small group who are committed to improving their practice and
increasing student achievement. CFGs are characterized by mutual trust and inquiry. They invite
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

33
reflection, public practice, meaningful questions, and substantive feedback that challenge
assumptions, habits, and practices. A critical friend is “a trusted person who asks provocative
questions, provides data to be examined through another lens, and offers critiques of a person’s
work as a friend” (Costa & Kallick, 1993, p. 49). A critical friend takes time to fully understand
the context of the work presented and the desired outcomes toward which the person and group
are working. The friend essentially becomes an advocate for the success of that work.
CFG participants use processes and protocols to promote meaningful interaction, learning,
and problem solving. The term “critical” distinguishes that which is important, key, essential, or
urgent (National School Reform Faculty, 2012). CFGs meet at least once per month for about
two hours. Four design features characterize CFGs: (a) a diverse menu of protocol choices, (b)
decentralized structure, (c) interdisciplinary membership, and (d) protocol reliance.
Coalition of Essential Schools

Theodore Sizer founded The Coalition of Essential School (CES) in 1984 in response to
the Carnegie Task Force’s insistence that schools should not continue to accept existing school
design, but should rather rebuild schools for better student performance (Muncey & McQuillan,
1993; Sizer, 1986). The Coalition of Essential Schools, originally sponsored by the National
Association of Secondary School Principals (Sizer, 1986), is a group of autonomous schools
united by a set of ten common principles for school-wide reform: (a) intellectual focus that helps
students use their minds well; (b) simple goals that value depth and mastery over breadth of
content covered; (c) universal goals that apply to all students; (d) personalization of teaching and
learning; (e) transition from student-as-worker and teacher-as-coach to teaching students how to
learn, then teach themselves; (f) student exhibitions of content mastery; (g) tone of decency,
portraying high expectations, trust and values of fairness, generosity and tolerance; (h) staff are
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

34
first generalists, then specialists; (i) budget or resources dedicated to teaching and learning; and
(j) democracy and equity (MacMullen, 1996).
Instructional Improvement Through Inquiry and Collaboration was a later project of the
Coalition of Essential Schools. It integrated the ten principles with elements of critical friends
groups and the cycle of inquiry to examine student work as a resource to improve instruction and
increase student achievement (Little, Gearhart, Curry, & Kafka, 2003).
Professional Learning Communities According to Hord
Professional learning communities have been the result of school reform efforts (Hord,
1997) through a process of continuous development of individuals who effect organizational
change (Fullan, 1993). The professional learning community has evolved over time. Hord (1998)
described five attributes that define a professional learning community of continuous inquiry and
improvement: (a) shared leadership, (b) collective creativity, (c) shared vision and values, (d)
supportive conditions, and (e) shared practice.
Supportive and shared leadership is collegial and facilitates staff input (Hord, 1997). The
site principal, for example, shares authority, facilitates the work of staff members, and
participates as a peer and colleague without dominating (Louis & Kruse, 1995; Prestine, 1993).
Collective creativity occurs when people work collaboratively and engage in inquiry activities
and reflective dialogue around teaching and learning (Hord, 1997; Sergiovanni, 1994). Shared
vision and values involve all staff in the development of a shared vision that guides decisions
about teaching and learning. Supportive conditions determine when, where, and how people
collaborate (Hord, 1997; Louis & Kruse, 1995). Physical supportive conditions include
allocation of time and space to meet and structures for communication. Human capacities
conditions include willingness to visit and review teachers’ classrooms, engage in inquiry, accept
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

35
feedback, and demonstrate collegial respect and trust (Hord, 1997). Shared practice is the
process of routinely observing and learning from the behaviors of colleagues (Hord, 1997; Louis
& Kruse, 1995). Together, these attributes nurture a community of continuous learning.
Professional Learning Communities According to DuFour and Eaker

DuFour and Eaker (1998) describe six characteristics of professional learning
communities: (a) shared mission, vision, and values; (b) collective inquiry; (c) collaborative
teams; (d) action orientation and experimentation; (e) continuous improvement; and (f) results
orientation. Each characteristic addresses a specific question that is posed to PLC members.

An organization’s shared vision and mission, for example, answers the questions, “Why
do we exist?” and “What do we hope to become?” How a school chooses to answer these
questions reveals the organization’s underlying assumptions, beliefs and values (DuFour &
Eaker, 1998). Collective inquiry (Ross, Smith, & Roberts, 1994) occurs when team members (a)
participate in public reflection, (b) arrive at shared meaning and common understanding of
assumptions and beliefs, (c) engage in joint planning to test their shared insights, and (d)
implement the action plans they develop (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
Teams are “a critical component of every enterprise – the predominant unit for decision
making and getting things done” (Senge, Ross, Smith, Roberts, & Kleiner, 1994, p. 354). Action
orientation and experimentation turn vision into reality when team members test their ideas,
evaluate their theories, reflect on the outcome of those experiments and develop new theories.
Failures are integral to the experimentation process and provide opportunities for team learning
(DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Continuous improvement requires a never-ending commitment to
innovation and experimentation that define the daily habits of the organization. This occurs when
members engage in answering key questions such as: (a) “What is our fundamental purpose?” (b)
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

36
“What do we hope to achieve?” (c) “What are our strategies?” and (d) “What criteria will we use
to assess our improvement efforts?” (DuFour & Eaker, 1998, p. 28). All efforts of the
organization must come under the scrutiny of assessed results, not intentions. Furthermore, the
extent to which the PLC is developing a shared mission, vision and values, engaging in
collective inquiry, building collaborative teams, taking action, and focusing on continuous
improvement must be subject to ongoing assessment (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
DuFour et al. (2010) present three big ideas of PLC:
1. The purpose of school is to ensure that all students learn.
2. Ensuring that all students learn requires a culture of collaboration.
3. Ensuring that all students learn requires a focus on results.
PLCs require an ongoing cycle of inquiry and dialogue (DuFour, 2004). DuFour et al. (2010)
identify four core questions PLCs must address:
1. What are the essential learning outcomes that all students must reach?
2. How will we know whether or not students have reached the essential learning
outcomes?
3. How will we respond when students do not reach the essential learning outcomes?
4. How will we respond when students demonstrate the need for enrichment?
Purposeful Community
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) conducted a meta-analysis
of the effect of school leadership on student achievement and found a significant correlation. The
researchers identified 21 leadership responsibilities and 66 corresponding practices that have
empirically been shown to raise student achievement (Marzano et al., 2005). McREL also
conducted three studies on the effects of classroom, school, and leadership practices on student
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

37
achievement (Waters & Cameron, 2006). From their analyses, Waters and Cameron (2006)
developed the Balanced Leadership Framework, which organized the 21 responsibilities into a
structure comprised of (a) leadership, (b) focus, (c) magnitude of change, and (d) purposeful
community.
Leadership. Leadership is the foundational component within the balanced leadership
framework because of how it permeates the other three components of focus, magnitude of
change, and purposeful community (Waters & Cameron, 2006). The 21 identified leadership
responsibilities are distributed among these three components and are designed to “help
principals balance their time and efforts in fulfilling important and essential responsibilities
[related to student achievement]” (Waters & Cameron, 2006, p. 18). Among the essential
responsibilities found to support student achievement are (a) providing resources in the form of
materials and professional development, (b) involvement in curriculum, instruction, and
assessment; (c) focusing on establishing clear and challenging goals for students and teachers,
(d) outreaching to all school stakeholders, (e) establishing an orderly environment, (f) providing
protection from instructional distractors, and (g) recognizing and rewarding accomplishments
(Waters & Cameron, 2006).
Magnitude of change. The magnitude of change is based on the nature of change, the
implications of change, the change process, and the skill required to lead change. Distinctions are
made between first-order change and second-order change. First-order change, perceived as an
extension of past practice, is contrasted with second-order change, which is perceived as a break
from past practice. Not all stakeholders will share the same perception of change so educational
leaders must be knowledgeable of the four phases of the change process which include (a)
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

38
creating demand, (b) implementation, (c) managing personal transitions, and (d) monitoring and
evaluating the effectiveness of the initiative on student learning.
Purposeful community. School community engagement comes from the intentional
creation of voluntary communities that focus on student and adult learning (Wagner, 2003).
Purposeful communities are ones “with the collective efficacy and capability to use all available
assets to accomplish purposes and produce outcomes that matter to all community members
through agreed-upon processes” (Waters & Cameron, 2006, p. 46). This definition is made up of
four interconnected characteristics (italicized). A purposeful community develops collective
vision around purposes that can only be accomplished through community. All available assets,
tangible and intangible, are developed and utilized to accomplish these purposes (Waters &
Cameron, 2006). Agreed-upon processes are organizing principles that establish order and
discipline. They influence patterns of interaction, relationships among community members,
connections between the school and other critical institutions, and shared leadership
opportunities (Waters & Cameron, 2006). Collective efficacy is the shared conviction that the
purposeful community can organize and implement a specific course of action. It is the shared
belief that together the community can positively impact student achievement.
The literature reviewed in this section explored the characteristics that define the various
individual models and conceptions of collaboration in educational settings. The next section
identifies the common characteristics shared by these various models and conceptions.
Common Characteristics of Collaboration
In the previous section, various collaborative models were examined (see Appendix B for
a table summarizing the models). Regardless of the particular model, there are core
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

39
characteristics and competencies related to effective collaboration around student achievement.
This section of the literature review identifies these core characteristics and competencies.
The following five common characteristics of collaboration around student achievement were
identified from the literature: (a) supportive and shared leadership, (b) learning as the
fundamental purpose, (c) culture of collaboration, (d), focus on results, and (e) collective
efficacy. Table 1 displays the five common characteristics and 12 associated competencies along
with the seminal works from which they were identified (see Appendix C for a detailed
explanation of the five characteristics and the associated competencies).

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

40
Table 1
Common Characteristics and Competencies of Collaboration Around Student Achievement (CASA)
Synthesized From Literature Reviewed
Common Characteristics and Competencies Literature Reviewed
Supportive and Shared Leadership
1. Building capacity
2. Defining autonomy
3. Allocating resources
Costa and Kallick (1993)
DuFour and Eaker (1998)
DuFour and Marzano (2011)
Hord (1997, 1998)
Kofman and Senge (1993)
Marzano et al. (2005)
Wenger and Snyder (2000)
Learning as the Fundamental Purpose
4. Building collective knowledge regarding essential
learning outcomes
5. Developing and deploying an assessment and
monitoring system
6. Developing timely, directive, systematic
interventions and enrichment opportunities
7. Evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in
producing the essential learning outcomes
DuFour et al. (2010)
DuFour and Marzano (2011)
Hord (1997, 1998)
Kofman and Senge (1993)
Marzano et al. (2005)
Sizer (1986)

Culture of Collaboration
8. Allocating time to meet
9. Working interdependently to gather, analyze and
determine best practices and transfer best practices
across all team members
Costa and Kallick (1993)
DuFour et al. (2010)
DuFour and Eaker (1998)
DuFour and Marzano (2011)
Hord (1997, 1998)
Kofman and Senge (1993)
Marzano et al. (2005)
Wenger and Snyder (2000)
Focus on Results
10. Using common assessment data to identify needs for
intervention and enrichment
11. Using assessment data to identify strengths and
weaknesses in individual and collective teaching as
part of a continuous improvement cycle
DuFour et al. (2010)
DuFour and Eaker (1998)
DuFour and Marzano (2011)
Hord (1997, 1998)
Sizer (1986)
Marzano et al. (2005)
Wenger and Snyder (2000)
Collective Efficacy
12. Sharing the belief that the team can organize and
execute a course of action that positively impacts
student achievement
DuFour and Marzano (2011)
Marzano et al. (2005)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

41
This section of the literature review narrowed the discussion of collaboration around
student achievement to five common characteristics and 12 associated competencies. Each of
these characteristics and competencies requires adequate levels of knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational support (see Appendix D for the 12 competencies parsed into
their knowledge, motivation, and organizational components). As such, there are knowledge,
motivation, and organizational requirements for effective collaboration around student
achievement. The next section discusses the knowledge requirements.
Knowledge Requirements for Effective Collaboration
It is important for all stakeholders to possess the factual, procedural, conceptual, and
metacognitive knowledge required to participate in effective collaboration around student
achievement. Asking uninformed people to make decisions will likely result in a group of people
making uninformed decisions (DuFour et al., 2010). The essence of collaboration around student
achievement is building the shared knowledge needed to make informed decisions (DuFour et
al., 2010). Ensuring that all team members have access to the same quality of information and
knowledge increases the likelihood that the members will arrive at conclusions that are of
similar, if not the same, quality (DuFour et al., 2010).
Factual Knowledge
Factual knowledge is fundamental because it forms the building blocks for higher levels
of knowledge construction. Knowledge of terminology is one of the major divisions of factual
knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). At a basic level, then, effective school districts
establish a shared understanding of common terminology embodying professional practice
(Marzano & Waters, 2009).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

42
Practitioners in less effective districts use established vocabulary loosely or fail to
establish a common vocabulary at all (Marzano & Waters, 2009). For example, terms such as
PLC, formative assessment, project-based learning, differentiated instruction, remediation, and
enrichment are used commonly. However, people’s usage of these terms often reveals that they
have incomplete understanding, or else complete misunderstanding of these terms. For example,
Fullan (2010) reports that the term PLC has traveled faster than the concept itself. Consequently,
many schools have implemented what they believe is a professional learning community
superficially and can show only minimal effects on student achievement. Districts that produce
notable effect sizes on student achievement develop a common “language of instruction” and
work to ensure that all stakeholders know this language (Marzano & Waters, 2009).
Teaching learners the meaning of important terms they will encounter in their routine
operations through direct instruction facilitates factual knowledge acquisition (Marzano, 2004).
An effective sequence for teaching essential vocabulary is (a) identifying a list of critical terms,
(b) providing a description, explanation, and example for each, and (c) providing opportunities
for groups to collaboratively develop accurate, learner-friendly definitions (Marzano & Waters,
2009). To ensure success throughout the organization, district leaders must identify the key
vocabulary needed for effective collaboration around student achievement and employ strategies
to ensure that all teams develop a common working knowledge of this vocabulary.
Based on the five common characteristics of collaboration around student achievement,
educators must have factual knowledge that the fundamental purpose of school is to ensure that
all students learn at high levels (DuFour et al., 2010). Acknowledging this as a fact initiates a
process of higher knowledge construction that ultimately results in practitioners identifying the
implications this fact has for their practice. Educators at all levels must also have factual
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

43
knowledge of the essential learning outcomes that all students must achieve (Marzano & Waters,
2009). These include outcomes specified by content and process standards as well as dispositions
and habits of mind that students are expected to acquire by the end of a particular learning
progression (Marzano & Waters, 2009). In addition, all stakeholders must agree on
operationalized definitions of key CLC elements. For example, there should be common
understanding of terms such as “action research” (Marzano & Waters, 2009) and “collaborative
analysis of student learning” (Langer, Colton, & Goff, 2003)
Conceptual Knowledge
Conceptual knowledge is related to factual knowledge. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001)
give a rationale for distinguishing conceptual knowledge from factual knowledge. Conceptual
knowledge is characterized by the connections that are made between discrete pieces of
knowledge in order to form an organized body of knowledge that is greater than the sum of its
parts. The authors associate conceptual knowledge with mental models, schema, and explicit and
implicit theories from cognitive psychology. The hallmark of conceptual knowledge, according
to Anderson and Krathwohl, is that it enables transfer of knowledge across domains and to novel
contexts.
In their revised taxonomy, Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) divide conceptual knowledge
into three categories. The first is Knowledge of Classifications and Categories. The second
category is Knowledge of Principles and Generalizations, and has to do with the deep
abstractions that can be made from the knowledge in a subject. Finally, conceptual knowledge
includes Knowledge of Theories, Models and Structures. This category, according to Anderson
and Krathwohl (2001), is distinct from the previous category because it relates to how groups of
principles and generalizations coalesce into larger theories, models, and structures.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

44
Working collaboratively to ensure that all students learn requires conceptual knowledge
of all three types described above. Having the ability to classify and categorize, for example, is
required when making distinctions between formative assessment and summative assessment.
This is an important distinction as it affects the mode of assessment, nature of feedback, and
impact on grades. With respect to principles and generalizations, it is important for educators to
understand, for example, core principles such as “Learning is the constant; time and support are
variables” (DuFour et al., 2010), and the implications this principle holds for all aspects of the
educational program. Finally, regarding theories, models, and structures, it is important for
educators at all levels to internalize (a) the cycle of continuous improvement and (b) the concept
of reciprocity of accountability for capacity building (Elmore, 2002) so that these mental models
shape every aspect of their practice.
Procedural Knowledge
Procedural knowledge is the knowledge of skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods—
the steps to be taken in a sequence or series. Aside from knowing the steps to take, procedural
knowledge also includes the knowledge of the criteria and conditions under which the
procedures should be followed (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Procedural knowledge is specific
to particular subjects and disciplines. For example, in math there are algorithms for solving
quadratic equations, and in science there is the scientific method of conducting experiments.
When following the steps of the procedure, the outcome or product is generally a predetermined
or fixed result. The emphasis of procedural knowledge is not the ability to use the procedure, but
rather the knowledge about the procedure (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Procedural knowledge
also includes the disciplinary norms that are subject-specific. This is the knowledge of the
heuristics used to solve problems within a particular discipline, and not necessarily the solutions
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

45
to the problems, themselves. Procedural knowledge is what one knows of the various methods
and techniques of a specific subject (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Procedural knowledge also
includes the knowledge of when and where to use the appropriate procedures. This knowledge is
often historical because it involves knowing the ways in which the procedures have been applied
in the past. Experts in their particular fields will know when and how to use the appropriate
procedures based on subject-specific criteria that will help them determine which method,
technique or procedure to apply (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
Collaboration around student achievement requires significant amounts of procedural
knowledge. For example, to enact the cycle of continuous improvement, educators must know
procedures for (a) identifying learning outcomes; (b) creating assessments, monitoring and
feedback systems; (c) planning instructional activities; (d) generating and analyzing assessment
data; (e) creating action plans based on assessment data; (f) executing action plans; and (g)
evaluating the impact of the actions taken. Additionally educators must know how to collaborate.
For example, they must know how to plan and conduct meetings, work interdependently, and
navigate interpersonal dynamics.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Metacognitive knowledge is knowledge about cognition in general, as well as knowledge
about one’s own cognitive processes and the cognitive strategies that are required for particular
tasks (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Metacognitive awareness allows, for example, teams to
gauge their progress through the stages of team development (Tuckman, as cited in Tuckman &
Jensen, 1977).
Tuckman (as cited in Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) identified stages through which
collaborative groups typically progress. With regard to the internal dynamics of the teams,
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

46
themselves, Tuckman (as cited in Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) proposed the following
developmental trajectory. In the first stage, team members are oriented with each other and begin
to test the boundaries of their interpersonal relations. They also start to develop dependency
relationships with one another. In the second stage, interpersonal conflict and resistance to group
conformity begin to surface. The third stage is marked by the lowering of resistance to group
identity formation and by the development of group cohesion. In this third stage, roles are
defined, standards of performance are developed, and modes of operation are established. In the
final stage, the group begins to function as a unit with interdependent roles flexibly assigned to
accomplish tasks with maximum effectiveness and efficiency.
With regard to a team’s engagement with a particular task, Tuckman (as cited in
Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) proposed the following trajectory:
1. The team gets oriented to the task.
2. The team has emotional responses to the demands of the task.
3. The team has an open exchange of relevant interpretations of the task.
4. Solutions begin to emerge.

The parallels between the trajectories of interpersonal dynamics and engagement with a
new task led Tuckman (as cited in Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) to organize the stages of
development, generally, into the four stages of forming, storming, norming and performing. It is
expected that all collaborative teams will progress through these stages. It is therefore important
for team members, first, to know that there is a developmental progression that plays out when a
new team is formed or when an existing team is presented with a new task. Secondly, it is
important for team members to use metacognition to locate themselves on the developmental
continuum so that they choose appropriate strategies to continue progressing along the
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

47
continuum rather than stagnating. Miller (2003) proposes an instrument for measuring the
constructs in Tuckman’s model (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977), which can be used by teams to
assess their own progress along the developmental continuum.
Dooner, Mandzuk, and Clifton (2008) similarly addressed the issue of stages of team
development as it relates specifically to PLCs. The authors asserted that a significant pitfall
involved in PLC implementation is prospective members’ ignorance of the inherent conflict that
PLCs involve. This ignorance, which can be seen as a lack of metacognitive knowledge, leads to
maladaptive responses to the conflicts that inevitably occur. As the authors explain, the inquiry
process that is part and parcel of learning communities is characterized by interpersonal tension
and teachers often view tension as a problem rather than an opportunity.
This section provided information on factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge. Additionally, the synergistic roles that these knowledge types play in promoting
effective collaboration around student achievement were discussed. The next section reviews
literature on motivational requirements for effective collaboration.
Motivation Requirements for Effective Collaboration
Knowledge alone is useless if people are not motivated. Motivation determines the extent
to which people choose to exert mental effort and persist in the face of difficulties. This section
reviews literature on constructs related to motivation. More specifically, in keeping with Clark’s
(1998) Commitment And Necessary Effort (CANE) model, this section reviews literature on the
effects of capability beliefs, affective factors, and task value on motivation.
Capability Beliefs
Self-efficacy. Clark (1998) postulated that capability beliefs are shaped by external and
internal factors. External sources that impact capability beliefs about collaboration include, for
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

48
example, organizational impediments like (a) inadequate time and resources or (b) conflicting
schedules. Organizational requirements of effective collaboration will be discussed in the next
section. Suffice it to say for the time being, though, that capability beliefs play a mediating role
between organizational factors and motivational variables.
Self-efficacy is an internal source of capability beliefs. Proposed and studied by Bandura
in the late 1970s and early 80s, self-efficacy relates to the perceived capabilities of an individual.
As a psychological construct, self-efficacy has been applied broadly in contexts from inquiries
about clinical phobias, depression, and recovery from heart attack to the study of smoking
cessation. This widespread applicability of the construct has created some ambiguity regarding
its meaning. This literature review aims to clarify the role of self-efficacy in the context of
collaboration around student achievement. While this study will ultimately consider perceived
collective teacher efficacy (CTE), the discussion begins with an articulation of Bandura’s (1977)
seminal theory of self-efficacy. Following this critical examination of self-efficacy, a discussion
of how the construct has been applied in educational research will be provided.
Bandura (1977) defines efficacy as the belief a person holds regarding his or her ability to
accomplish a given task (1977). Stated another way, Bandura (1977) defined perceived self-
efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capacity to organize and execute the courses of action required to
manage prospective situations” (p. 2). Self-efficacy has to do with a person’s perception of
competence rather than their actual level of competence (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).
Self-efficacy beliefs influence emotions and thoughts, thereby determining the extent to which
individuals exert the necessary effort to (a) initially pursue goals, (b) persist when tasks become
difficult, and (c) recover from failures and setbacks (Bandura, 1977).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

49
Self-efficacy and teacher efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief about his or
her capabilities to control his or her own level of functioning in response to events (Bandura,
1977). Related to self-efficacy beliefs, teacher efficacy beliefs refer to teachers’ judgments of
their ability to produce desired student outcomes, particularly with unmotivated or challenging
students (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Perceived teacher efficacy is essentially a teacher’s
perception of the extent to which they can impact student achievement (Tschannen-Moran et al.,
1998).
Bandura’s four sources of efficacy. Having established the importance of self-efficacy,
sources of efficacy will now be discussed. Bandura (1977, 1997) identified four sources of self-
efficacy beliefs: (a) performance accomplishments (also known as mastery experiences), (b)
vicarious experience, (c) physiological and emotional states, and (d) verbal-social persuasion. Of
the four sources, this review will focus primarily on mastery experiences, as these are the most
influential of the four sources (Bandura, 1997).
Mastery experiences relate to how an individual has performed a specific task in the past
and the outcomes they have experienced as a result. The perception by an individual that they
have been successful in the past with a particular task raises their efficacy related to that task.
Conversely, past experiences of failure with a task make it more likely that a person will expect
to perform the task poorly in the future.
In a quantitative study of 37 urban elementary schools conducted by Hoy and Woolfolk
(1993), it was found that teachers who had more teaching experience and higher levels of
education had higher levels of teaching efficacy. This is likely due, at least in part, to the fact that
the more seasoned teachers had more mastery experiences than less experienced teachers.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

50
Bandura’s (1997) second source of efficacy-shaping information is vicarious experiences.
Vicarious experiences occur by witnessing someone else model the skill desired. The person
modeling the skill must be perceived as reasonably similar to the observer. In other words, the
observer must identify with the model. If this condition is satisfied and the model executes the
skill successfully, the efficacy of the observer increases. One example of a vicarious experience
in the educational arena is peer observation of teaching (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). To the
extent that educators at all levels have opportunities to witness their peers having success with
students similar to the ones they serve, efficacy related to impacting student achievement will
increase.
Bandura’s (1997) third source of efficacy-shaping information are emotional and
physiological states, which can enhance or diminish one’s sense of efficacy. The level of anxiety
or excitement one experiences while performing a task determines whether they judge the
experience as a mastery experience or a failure (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). More
specifically, if someone experiences high levels of arousal, they perceive that they must not be
good at the task and his or her level of efficacy decreases. According to Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy
(2004), this can greatly impact individuals’ and organizations’ ability to respond to stressful
challenges that are bound to arise.
The fourth source of efficacy-shaping information is verbal-social persuasion. Verbal-
social persuasion is most influential in increasing teachers’ perceived efficacy when combined
with vicarious experiences and mastery experiences. As the name implies, verbal-social
persuasion involves colleagues or supervisors persuading teachers to feel efficacious through
encouragement, timely, task-specific feedback, or informal conversations about instances of
teachers raising student achievement.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

51
Collective teacher efficacy. Collective efficacy is a new construct that builds on
Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy formulation and Tschannen-Moran et al.’s (1998) model of
teacher efficacy (Goddard et al., 2004). Collective efficacy refers to the beliefs that the members
of a team hold about their team’s capability to interdependently produce desired results
(Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). In other words, it is the team’s belief in the collective power of
the interactive, synergistic dynamics of the group.
Within education, collective efficacy is a measure of teachers’ perceptions that the entire
faculty can organize and execute a plan of action necessary to produce desired student outcomes
(Goddard et al., 2004). Goddard et al. (2004) suggests that collective efficacy beliefs impact
student achievement by influencing teachers’ self-efficacy. According to Goddard and Skrla
(2006), the stronger an organization’s collective efficacy beliefs, the more its members will put
forth the sustained effort necessary to achieve organizational goals. Hence, teams’ sense of
collective efficacy plays a key role in determining whether individual educators will do what is
required to raise student achievement.
Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2000) proposed that two additional factors contribute to
teachers’ sense of collective efficacy: (a) analysis of the teaching task and (b) assessment of
teaching competence. The analysis of teaching task is related to teachers’ appraisals of the
complexity of the instructional tasks that are required to raise student achievement. Assessment
of teaching competence describes the internal process whereby individual teachers assess the
competency of their peers in order to judge whether or not the group has the collective skills to
successfully complete the task.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

52
Affective Factors
The CANE model (Clark, 1998) proposes that people’s affective states impact
motivation. To the extent that people experience positive emotions they will be more motivated.
When a person’s basic psychological needs are met, they tend to experience positive emotions.
When these needs are not met, negative emotions are likely to be the result. According to Deci
and Ryan’s (1987) Self-Determination Theory, people have three basic, non-hierarchical needs:
(a) autonomy, (b) competence, and (c) relatedness. Therefore, motivation is enhanced when
people feel that they have control over their actions, have a high sense of efficacy, and find
themselves in environments that allow them to connect with other human beings. Properly
functioning CLCs satisfy all three of these basic psychological needs, which suggest that CLCs
are highly motivating work structures.
Task Value
Task value relates to the perceived benefits that are associated with performing a
particular task. With regard to collaboration around student achievement, these benefits might be
internal or external. Internal benefits would include the satisfaction of working autonomously
and creatively to achieve a goal, raising one’s own sense of teaching efficacy, or the social
benefits of working closely with others on a team. External benefits might include student
achievement outcomes and positive recognition by other stakeholders. Conversely, when teams
experience dysfunction, task value decreases and motivation erodes.
This section discussed the integral role that motivation plays in determining the
effectiveness of collaboration. The next section reviews literature on the organizational
requirements. Because organizational factors influence how knowledge is developed and the
extent to which conditions are motivating, the organizational dimension is critically important.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

53
Organizational Requirements for Effective Collaboration
Although individuals within an organization may possess the knowledge, skills, and
motivation required to accomplish a given organizational goal, inadequate resources, structures,
and processes may prevent goal achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008). Furthermore, problems in
the organizational dimension can create problems with knowledge, skills, and motivation
(Rueda, 2011). Organizational culture is arguably the most important factor determining
performance in organizations because it dictates how people work together to complete a job
(Clark & Estes, 2008). In this section literature on critical organizational factors is reviewed.
Trust
Lack of trust can be a serious impediment to school reform efforts (Tschannen-Moran &
Hoy, 2000). Trust is a multifaceted construct as evidenced by its many connotations. Words used
to describe trust include willing vulnerability, benevolence, reliability, competence, honesty and
openness (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). Trust “reduces the complexities of transactions and
exchanges far more quickly and economically that other means of managing organizational life”
(Powell, as cited by Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000, p. 549). Trust is also a critical component
of shared leadership. Leaders must have faith in the people they lead in order to trust them with
decision-making authority (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000).
From an organizational standpoint, trust is often a collective judgment that another
individual or group will not take advantage, will be honest, and will follow through on their
commitments (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). Lencioni (2002) suggests that teams that lack
trust are unwilling to be vulnerable with each other and therefore avoid conflict. Further,
Lencioni asserts, lack of trust drains teams of their energy and diverts their attention away from
important tasks. Teams that lack trust are characterized by lack of commitment, deception, and
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

54
sabotaging tactics (Lencioni, 2002). Trust is the confidence among team members that their
peers’ intentions are good. This makes team members comfortable being vulnerable with one
another (Lencioni, 2002).
Trust brings with it the willingness to be vulnerable in times of risk and interdependence.
Interdependence engenders trust. Interdependence is the understanding that one individual or
department cannot do their job without the rest of the team (Rousseau, 1998 as cited in
Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). Multiple experiences of interdependence over time builds
confidence that goals, which have garnered collective commitment, will be brought to fruition
through interdependent efforts (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000).
If organizations are to create positive, trusting work environments, it is incumbent upon
the leaders of the organization to initiate trusting relationships by modeling trustworthy behavior.
For example, leaders should facilitate open communication without risk of reprisal (Tschannen-
Moran & Hoy, 2000). In addition, trust is built when leaders share decision-making authority
(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). In education, this type of shared leadership empowers
teachers to be responsive to student needs and communicates high levels of trust and respect
(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). Trust, therefore, contributes to an environment that is
conducive to student achievement.
Tan and Lim (2009) found a positive correlation between trust in coworkers and trust in
the organization. For the purposes of the study, coworkers included supervisors or colleagues.
This suggests that informal interactions among coworkers provide a context in which employees
obtain information about organizational norms and formulate their perceptions of the
organization. If employees do not have trust in their colleagues or supervisors, they may be less
likely to have trust in the organization they belong to. Coupled with past research on the
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

55
relationship between trust in supervisor and trust in organization (Tan & Tan, 2000), this
research highlights the important role that all employees play in shaping perceptions of
organizational integrity.
Leadership
Today’s American educational system calls for instructional leaders who can create and
sustain both student and adult learning and include all stakeholders in leadership responsibilities
(Thompson, Gregg, & Niska, 2004). Hence, a key focus of creating a collaborative environment
must be the development of leadership skills and capacities in the entire staff (Fullan, 2004).
Leaders, then, must have the inventory of skills required to build capacity in this way (Murphy,
Smylie, Mayrowetz, & Louis, 2009). Specifically, leaders must have knowledge of structures,
systems, and processes for distributing leadership throughout the staff, and then they must work
successfully through those structures, systems, and processes (Marzano et al., 2005).
Building capacity is about seeking answers and asking questions, as opposed to simply
giving directives. Leadership is about aiding learning and seeking out flexible solutions to
flexible problems (Marzano et al., 2005). This requires humility in the leader’s approach, and a
determination to improve (Fullan, 2001). For example, in conducting staff meetings, the focus
should be on learning (Schmoker, 2006). Reflecting on current practice, the center of attention
should be on improvement (Fullan, 2001). In considering changes to instruction, adult learning
should be central (Guskey, 2003).
Leadership is about learning (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998). Leadership is about finding and
meeting the needs of everyone in the system (Deming, 1986). Leadership aims to modify the
organization, itself, through continuous improvement. This perspective distinguishes leadership
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

56
from management (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998). In other words, leadership works on the system
rather than being confined to working in the system.
Resources and Reciprocal Accountability
According to Deering, Dilts, and Russell (2003), resources that are aligned at all levels of
an organization are necessary to analyze, plan, and take action in response to current and
potential problems. When administrators are able to anticipate potential issues, the organization
as a whole, is better positioned to overcome these issues and sustain its level of functioning
(Deering et al, 2003). Fullan (2001) expanded on this, stating that in order to improve
instruction, it requires additional resources in the form of space, time, and access to new ideas
and expertise. In other words, the responsibility of an instructional leader is providing the
necessary resources beyond basic equipment and supplies, and into the realm of resources such
as professional development and coaching to develop capacity within the organization. This
includes creating an environment and culture where collaboration for the improvement of student
learning is the norm and expectation.
According to Marzano et al. (2005), an abundance of professional learning opportunities
for teachers is a hallmark of schools that perform at high levels. In a review of existing literature
on professional development, Guskey (2003) concurs that ongoing teams meeting on a regular
basis engaged in learning, curriculum development, joint lesson planning, and problem solving
coupled with teaching observations is the most powerful form of professional development.
Further, Newmann and Wehlage (1995) highlighted the principal’s role in establishing a
collegial atmosphere conducive to professional learning not only for teachers, but for the
organization as a whole. For example, principals who had established collaborative cultures did
not merely encourage collaboration; they created structures and expectations to ensure that
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

57
teachers worked together purposefully in teams. When teachers were provided adequate time and
support to work collaboratively, they reported that collaboration was beneficial, motivating, and
valuable. In addition, providing opportunities for teachers to network with colleagues with whom
they wouldn’t normally collaborate provided even more momentum for collaborative culture.
These findings suggest that teachers value opportunities to collaborate. However, they
need more than simple encouragement. In order to facilitate collaboration, teachers need to be
provided the processes, structures, and impetus to collaborate (Easton, 2008). Fullan (2010)
cautions school districts not to neglect the need for a systemic strategy for institutionalizing
collaborative learning communities. Otherwise, Fullan (2010) warns, CLC implementation is
typically sporadic and doesn’t lead to systemic change. DuFour and Marzano (2009) suggest that
administrators are obligated to create the structures that facilitate job-embedded professional
learning and make collaboration meaningful.
As Elmore (2002) eloquently states,
Accountability must be a reciprocal process. For every increment of performance I
demand from you, I have an equal responsibility to provide you with the capacity to meet
that expectation. Likewise, for every investment you make in my skill and knowledge, I
have a reciprocal responsibility to demonstrate some new increment in performance. (p.
5).
This quote by Elmore (2002) demonstrates the principle of “reciprocity of accountability for
capacity,” which is the glue that holds accountability systems together.
Quality Assurance and Monitoring
When scarce resources have been allocated, it is important to have systems for ensuring
that these resources produce the intended outcomes that initially justified their allocation.
According to Marzano et al. (2005), the single most important factor in increasing student
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

58
achievement is monitoring and feedback. Thus, the role of school leaders in monitoring the
effectiveness of school practices in terms of their impact on student achievement is key
(Marzano et al., 2005). According to a meta-analysis conducted by Marzano et al. (2005), two
specific behaviors and characteristics were associated with improved student achievement. The
first was the continuous monitoring of the effectiveness of the school’s curricular, instructional
and assessment practices. The second was the ongoing awareness of the impact the school’s
practices have on student achievement.
Foord and Haar (2012) also identified two key strategies for ensuring that collaborative
learning communities produce the intended student achievement outcomes. The first strategy
involves alignment of student learning goals with professional learning goals and goals for
organizational culture and structure.. The second strategy involves systematic coaching using
evidence for continuous improvement.
Foord and Haar (2012) provide a list of questions that can be asked by evaluators, or by
teams, reflectively, to gauge the effectiveness of CLCs. The questions are designed to elicit
evidence of (a) student progress toward growth targets; (b) stakeholder perceptions and quality
of school processes; (c) professional growth; (d) effective use of professional development and
resources; (e) clear purposes, values and norms; (f) commitment to common academic, structural
and social goals; (g) role differentiation in pursuit of interdependent PLC goals; (h) assessment
and leadership in interpersonal and group processing skills; (i) formative and summative
assessment to determine areas in which coaching is needed; and (j) distributed leadership and
coherence.
Gajda and Koliba (2007, 2008) present the Teacher Collaboration Improvement
Framework (TCIF) and the Teacher Collaboration Assessment Rubric (TCAR). According to the
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

59
authors, the TCIF is presented “as a blueprint for supervising, assessing, and improving the
quality of teacher collaboration within a [collaborative] learning community” (p. 134).
The TCIF, which is grounded in action research theory, includes six non-linear stages: (a)
raise collaboration literacy, (b) identify and inventory communities of practice, (c) reconfigure
teacher teams, (d) assess quality of collaboration, (e) make corrections, and (f) recognize
accomplishments. Designed to be used in tandem with the TCIF, the TCAR measures a
collaborative learning community in four domains: (a) Dialogue, (b) Decision-Making, (c)
Action, and (d) Evaluation.
Lencioni (2002) provides an instrument for assessing (and activities for improving)
teams’ (a) trust, (b) willingness to engage in conflict, (c) commitment to decisions, (d)
willingness to hold themselves accountable, and (e) focus on results. Bernhardt (2011) provides
recommendations for measuring school processes, including collaboration, and also provides a
host of quality assurance and progress monitoring instruments.
This section presented literature-identifying trust as the foundation of effective
collaboration. The role of leadership in developing trust and other important organizational
conditions was also discussed. Then, literature establishing the basis for reciprocity of
accountability for capacity building was reviewed. Finally, the case was made for the
development of effective monitoring and quality assurance systems.
The next section focuses on the need for tri-level reform (district, school, and classroom)
with regard to (a) the manner of collaboration that occurs within, and between, the three levels,
and (b) the type of leadership that supports increased accountability in an era of limited funding.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

60
Tri-Level Considerations for Leadership and Organizational Change
Central Office Leadership and Organizational Change
Tri-level reform requires a system that has all of its levels aligned and connected with
each other (Fullan, 2009). Tri-level reform requires the district to become a learning organization
(Senge, 1990). As such, the central office has an integral role in developing the leadership
component, which is critical to institutionalizing effective collaboration around student
achievement.
Effective central office leadership promotes school success and, ultimately, promotes
student achievement. According to Fullan (2009), districts fail to garner buy-in, commitment,
and clarity relative to district reforms when they utilize top-down approaches. Central offices
that have successfully impacted student achievement have established relationships of defined
autonomy (Marzano & Waters, 2009) as a balanced alternative to extreme top-down or hands-off
approaches.
During the course of their meta-analysis of the effects of school-level factors on student
achievement, Marzano and Waters (2009) developed the concept of defined autonomy to
reconcile two seemingly paradoxical findings: (a) As site autonomy increased, student
achievement increased; and (b) Site-based management, which gives schools near complete
autonomy regarding goals, spending, and instruction, had no overall impact on student
achievement. The authors reasoned that autonomy, in order to reliably have a positive impact on
student achievement, must be nested within boundaries defined by district goals. Hence the term
defined autonomy.
Marzano and Waters (2009) explain that superintendents develop relationships of defined
autonomy when they (a) implement an inclusive goal-setting process that results in board-
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

61
adopted non-negotiable goals for achievement and instruction, (b) assure that schools align their
use of professional development resources with district goals, and (c) monitor and evaluate
progress toward goal achievement. Marzano and Waters (2009) assert that non-negotiable goals
for achievement and instruction are the centerpiece of any comprehensive district reform effort.
Additionally, Marzano and Waters (2009) argue that adequate resource allocation is one of the
foundations for ensuring that the non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction are met.
Providing a menu of research-proven instructional strategies, and a theory of action (Childress &
Marietta, 2008) connecting these strategies with the non-negotiable goals for learning is also an
important central office function. Districts jeopardize meeting their goals when they fail to
clearly delineate what is expected of schools, fail to allocate the resources required to meet
expectations, or fail to provide strategies for meeting expectations. (DuFour & Marzano, 2011).
Districts have moved toward the collaborative learning community model to move
teachers away from the professional isolation that has marked the last century (Elmore, 2004).
Effective collaboration does not occur naturally. The central office must ensure that teachers gain
the capacity to collaborate effectively. Ideally, the superintendent must work with district
leadership and site leadership to ensure that teachers at every school site have the time to meet
weekly with other teachers to discuss best practices (Thessin & Starr, 2011). This time should be
monitored (Foord & Haar, 2012; Gajda & Koliba, 2007, 2008) to ensure that it is used
purposefully for collaboration around student achievement. Despite the best intentions on the
part of teachers and site leaders, they need professional development on how to collaborate
around student achievement.
In a districtwide implementation of collaborative learning communities, Stamford Public
Schools found that there are four key roles the central office plays to successfully institutionalize
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

62
CLCs: (a) involving teachers and administrators in developing and leading the CLC process, (b)
developing teachers’ and administrators’ capacity to collaborate, (c) showing how CLCs fit into
the district’s improvement process so that each CLC’s work fits into an overall framework for
improving student achievement, and (d) supporting schools according to their unique needs in
order to help them move to the next stage in their CLC development (Thessin & Starr, 2011).
In addition, Wayman, Midgley, and Stringfield (2006), in a study of four school districts
utilizing observational and reflective data, examined the role of central office administrators and
found that the central office plays a crucial role in the realm of data generation and use. Kerr,
Marsh, Ikemoto, Darilek, & Barney (2006), in a study of three urban school districts utilizing a
mixed methods comparative case study design, found that the central office’s efforts to promote
instructional improvement through the use of data and monitoring was critical in improving
student outcomes. The central office should provide organized and refined data (i.e.,
information) that CLCs can use to create actionable knowledge (Mandinach, Honey & Light,
2006). Providing processes and protocols to facilitate collaboration is also a critical central office
function.
Furthermore, the central office is responsible for identifying promising practices and
sharing them throughout the district (Elmore, 2004). In essence, the central office develops the
districtwide strategy and builds a coherent organization that enables stakeholders at all levels to
see and fulfill their role in implementing the strategy (Childress et al., 2006). One key
stakeholder group is school site administrators, and they are the focus of the next section.
School Site Leadership and Organizational Change
The role of the school site administrator is critical to affecting the character and outcomes of
collaboration at the school site level. Principals significantly influence the success of schools
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

63
and, ultimately, student achievement. Marzano et al. (2005), in a meta-analysis of 69 studies
examining the correlation between school leadership of principals and student achievement,
found effective school site leadership to be an essential factor in creating the supporting
conditions for collaboration around student achievement. See Appendix E for the list of the 21
principal responsibilities (Marzano et al., 2005) that have been found to support student
achievement.
The sustainability of a collaborative learning community depends largely on school site
leadership. Several researchers agree that principal leadership is one of the most important
factors underlying the success of a collaborative learning community (Boyd & Hord, 1994;
DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Graham, 2007; Thompson et al., 2004).
Researchers have identified several characteristics of principals who support the success
of collaborative learning communities. Supportive principals create environments in which
shared leadership (Thompson et al., 2004), shared decision-making (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998),
and frequent, purposeful teacher interaction (Boyd & Hord, 1994) are the norm. For a principal
to share leadership, it requires letting go of some power (Hord, 1997). Newmann, Rutter, and
Smith (1989) found that principal leadership is highly correlated with both efficacy and
community.
The literature suggests that principals should begin by identifying the current values,
beliefs, and norms of the staff (Boyd & Hord, 1994). Without following this advice, principals
cannot guide their staff in the development of a clear vision focused on student learning.
According to Thompson et al. (2004), a leader cannot singlehandedly set the vision of the school.
Rather, the leader must facilitate the development of the mission by the stakeholders for it to be
accepted and implemented. Team and staff norms can also be anchors for success and should be
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

64
established early in a principal’s tenure. Furthermore, the principal needs to model what is
expected and hold high expectations for staff and students (Senge, 2006).
The principal’s relationships with the staff are the foundation of a collaborative learning
community. The principal must be open and trust the staff, must give frequent, meaningful, and
positive feedback, and encourage teachers to partake in leadership responsibilities. Building
relationships and developing trust are important leadership functions in collaborative learning
communities (Thompson et al., 2004). Hoy and Woolfolk (1993) conclude that it is important for
principals to inspire loyalty, trust, motivation and commitment in their teachers. Visibility on
campus, interacting with teachers and students, and frequent classroom visits are also important
because these activities allow the principal to monitor the school’s culture and adjust leadership
styles as needed.
Thompson et al. (2004) also found the importance of the principal sharing his or her
vision early on and reminding the staff of that vision regularly. This vision must be aligned with
that of the teachers in order to enhance consensus on what the school hopes to become. Teachers
and administrators should also work together to create shared goals and maintain ongoing
communication. The shared vision then helps guide the work of teachers and administrators
(Olsen & Chrispeels, 2009).
Although their actions and behaviors do not directly affect student learning, principals
indirectly impact student achievement through teacher interactions in the classrooms (DuFour &
Marzano, 2011; Marzano et al., 2005). Leaders who want to support collaborative learning
communities need to provide teachers with time to collaborate, develop lines of communication,
and increase interdependent teaching roles by sharing best practices (Liebman, Maldonado,
Lacey & Thompson, 2005). In practice, DuFour, Eaker, and DuFour (2005) enunciate this tenet
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

65
by stating that “principals in PLCs are called upon to regard themselves as leaders of leaders
rather than leaders of followers, and broadening teacher leadership becomes one of their
priorities” (p. 23). Again, this is a shift in thinking from classical notions of principals. Instead of
assuming the burden of being the only experts regarding curriculum, instruction, and assessment
practices (Marks & Printy, 2003), principals must learn to draw upon and build the capacity of
teacher leaders.
Despite the research supporting the benefits of collaborative culture there is a traditional
tendency for teachers to be isolated in their classrooms from other teachers, and for schools to be
isolated from other schools (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). Schmoker (2006) refers to isolation as
the enemy of improvement. Creating collaborative learning communities changes the traditional
path of influence that once flowed from principal to teacher to student, to a path that flows from
principal to collaborative team, to teacher, to student. Within the structure of collaborative
learning communities, principals can create opportunities for shared leadership. It is imperative
that principals create strong leadership teams (Marzano et al., 2005; Sergiovanni, 2005).
Building capacity involves change, which can be difficult. After ten years of reforming
schools using the principles of the Essential Schools Movement, Ted Sizer stated, “it is
exceedingly difficult to change schools – and particularly in a volatile environment where
assessment systems, political control, and collective bargaining are themselves in flux”
(Goldberg & Sizer, 1996, p. 687). The school site administrator must understand (a) change, (b)
the implications of change, (c) the change process, and (d) the leadership of change in order to
successfully implement collaborative learning communities (Waters & Cameron, 2007). Change
can be perceived as either first-order change or second order change, depending on the perceived
implication of change on the individual team members (Waters & Cameron, 2007). Thus, the
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

66
magnitude of change will be different based on each team member’s perceptions. Table 2 shows
the differences between first and second-order change.

Table 2
Comparison of First-order Change and Second-order Change
First-order Change Second-order Change
When a change is perceived as: When a change is perceived as:
• An extension of the past • A break with the past
• Within existing paradigms • Outside of existing paradigms
• Consistent with prevailing values and
norms
• Conflicted with prevailing values and
norms
• Implemented with existing knowledge
and skills
• Requiring new knowledge and skills

Change is complex and recursive, but essential for continuous improvement. Waters and
Cameron (2007) describe four phases of the change process as being interdependent: (a) creating
demand, (b) implementation, (c) managing personal transitions, and (d) monitoring and
evaluation.
Creating demand involves developing a tension between present reality and the preferred
future. When accomplished, this can create the motivation to move individuals and teams from
the status quo toward the preferred outcome, in this case, the successful implementation of
collaboration around student achievement (Waters & Cameron, 2007). Creating demand requires
school site administrators to expose their teams to research related to effective collaborative
practices. They must also be willing to challenge present conditions and routinely communicate
beliefs about collaboration around student achievement (Waters & Cameron, 2007).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

67
Implementing collaborative learning communities will require leading staff members
through the implementation with focus, fidelity, and consistency. The tension created must be
sustained in order to see successful implementation. Implementation requires school site
administrators to know about collaborative learning communities as well as inspiring their team
members to utilize the research-based practices. They must believe that their teams can
successfully implement a collaborative learning community and they must convey that belief to
them (Waters & Cameron, 2007).
External organizational changes cause internal personal transitions. Marzano and Waters
(2009) explain how managing personal transitions created by second-order change requires
flexibility to differentiate leadership behaviors and adapt to the needs created by change.
Additionally, taking on the role of leading change may be a second-order change for school site
administrators, themselves. Thus, they must reflect upon, and be aware of, the implications of
change for themselves as well as for those they lead (Waters & Cameron, 2007).
Monitoring the implementation of collaboration around student achievement will require
school site administrators to collect and analyze data on the quality, fidelity, consistency, and
intensity of implementation. They will also need to assess the impact that collaborative learning
communities have on student achievement as well as the impact it has on team members (Waters
& Cameron, 2007).
Since collaboration is a shared responsibility, leadership teams can help to mitigate
negative consequences by helping to articulate the vision, develop and provide new structures to
guide and support team members, listen to concerns, provide clarity, and seek input from other
team members to see what is or is not working (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). This positive support
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

68
will help ensure a successful implementation of collaboration around student achievement
(Waters & Cameron, 2007).
The structure of collaborative learning community works against isolation and demands
interaction between team members for the purpose of improving student achievement (DuFour &
Marzano, 2011). “Principals are in a key strategic position to promote or inhibit the development
of a teacher learning community in their school. School administrators set the stage and
conditions for starting and sustaining the community development process (McLaughlin &
Talbert, 2006, p. 56). Principals who can successfully lead the implementation of collaboration
around student achievement will not only positively impact student achievement, but also
facilitate the learning of those who directly serve students (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). As
mentioned earlier in this section, one of the key functions of school site administrators is to
develop teacher leaders. Teacher leadership as a facilitator of organizational change is the focus
of the next section.
Teacher Leadership and Organizational Change
The purpose of schools is to ensure that all students learn at high levels (DuFour et. al.,
2010). Teachers are charged with directly carrying out this fundamental purpose daily in
classrooms, face to face with students. Because of this daily direct interface with students,
teacher practice is the dominant factor in determining student achievement (Sanders, Wright, &
Horn, 1997). Teacher leaders, as both individual classroom practitioners and facilitators of
collective improvement on their teams, are powerfully positioned to impact student achievement.
Teacher leadership has become a division of managerial labor (Little et al., 2003).
Department chairpersons and lead teachers now fulfill managerial functions that were once the
purview of school site administrators. In CLCs, the role of the teacher leader takes on an even
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

69
greater significance. Zboralski (2009) identified several key roles for teacher leaders in
collaborative learning communities including (a) leading the community, (b) motivating
community members, (c) planning and organizing community work, (d) providing specialized
coaching and support, and (e) fostering communication and dissemination of information.
The culture of collaboration that undergirds CLCs is antithetical to the traditional culture
of isolation that has existed in schools (Flinders, 1988; Gratch, 2000; Tye & Tye, 1984).
Collaborative culture does not develop on its own. Teacher leaders, along with district and site
leaders, shoulder the primary responsibility for cultivating it. As one who cultivates land must
guard against the infringement of weeds, so teacher leaders must guard against threats to
collaborative culture. For example, teacher leaders must guard against attempts to co-opt
collaboration time for the purposes of fulfilling administrators’ directives (Hargreaves & Dawe,
1990; Little et al., 2003; Wood, 2007). Teacher leaders must be careful not to let their teams
mistake friendly congeniality or feigned consensus for collaborative culture (Cranston, 2009;
Dooner et. al., 2008; Williams, Brien, & Sullivan, 2008). Teacher leaders must bear in mind that
expecting or allowing collaboration to instantly bring shared values and social cohesion limits
the potential for true community to develop and undermines reform efforts (Achinstein, 2002).
Shifting from a culture of isolation to a culture of collaboration requires transformative
learning (Mezirow, 1997). Transformative learning changes points of view and habits of mind,
which shape thoughts, feelings, expectancies, and actions (Mezirow, 1997). Transformative
learning is psychically threatening because it challenges people’s views of themselves and their
core assumptions and beliefs. Mezirow (1997) defined three roles for facilitators of
transformative learning that inform teacher leaders as they do the tough work of developing a
culture of collaboration. Teacher leaders must help team members to (a) become aware and
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

70
critical of their own assumptions and those of others, (b) recognize frames of reference and use
imagination to reframe problems, and (c) engage effectively in critical discourse.
In a similar vein, Heifetz and Laurie (1997), defined adaptive work as that “required
when our deeply held beliefs are challenged, when the values that made us successful become
less relevant, and when legitimate yet competing perspectives emerge” (p. 38). Heifetz and
Laurie (1997) provide guidance for teacher leaders as they lead adaptive change. Accordingly,
teacher leaders must (a) maintain an elevated perspective on the adaptive change process, (b)
define and keep attention on adaptive challenges, (c) regulate distress so that it motivates without
disabling, and (d) empower their team members.
A hallmark of a culture of collaboration is situated learning (Horn, 2005). As Horn
(2005) explains, situated learning locates learning, in the case of CLCs, in the context of
interactions with colleagues and experiences in the learning community. Using this framework,
Horn (2005) defines learning as “a change in participation in a community of practice” (p. 211).
Particularly, with respect to CLC participation providing a context for carrying out reform, it is
important for teacher leaders to lead their teams in the process of engaging with reform artifacts.
Reform artifacts, according to Horn (2005), include slogans, policy documents, theories of
action, and the like. Whereas central offices devise reform strategies and principals create the
conditions to facilitate the implementation of these strategies, teachers implement the strategies
directly. In order for teachers to implement reform authentically and effectively, teachers must
extract from reform artifacts the larger ideas of the given reform and reflect upon the
implications of these ideas for classroom practice.
Horn (2005) also identified teachers’ conversation-based classification schemes (e.g.,
slow vs. smart students) and renderings of classroom practice as important reframing
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

71
opportunities upon which teacher leaders should capitalize. More specifically, when teachers
reveal their pedagogical assumptions and practices through collegial conversations, teacher
leaders can facilitate critical discourse that (a) identifies and challenges these assumptions and
practices, and (b) offers alternate frames of reference for consideration.
Teacher leaders must also work to establish a climate of trust on their teams. The
literature consistently underscores the importance of trust to effective collaboration (Datnow,
Park & Wohlstetter, 2007; Dooner et. al., 2008; Hipp, Huffman, Pankake & Olivier, 2008;
Servage, 2008). Teachers, for example, must feel safe admitting that their instructional practices
have been inadequate when faced with compelling data. They must trust the collective
competency of the community to help them improve, and they must trust that data will not be
used to hurt them. According to Datnow et al. (2007), such trust is built upon mutual
accountability among teachers and between teachers and administrators. Lencioni (2002)
suggests that this trust is fostered when team leaders authentically demonstrate vulnerability by
exposing their challenges and shortcomings.
Finally, ensuring that all students learn at high levels requires a focus on results (DuFour
et. al., 2010). Focusing on results requires teachers to develop several competencies. Teacher
leaders must be adept at taking inventory of their teams’ knowledge and skills to make sure that
these critical competencies are developed. Among these competencies, teachers must be skilled
at developing formative assessments and using formative assessment strategies (Wiliam, 2011)
that reveal students’ understanding and progress with respect to learning goals. Teachers must
also be skilled at using data management systems (Datnow et al., 2007; Mandinach et. al., 2006;
Wayman, 2005) to store, analyze and communicate data. Teachers must have the capacity to
collectively analyze student work in order to identify strengths and weaknesses in individual and
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

72
collective practice (Langer et al., 2003; Little et al., 2003). Finally teacher teams must develop
the collective capacity to respond in a timely, directive, and systematic manner whenever there is
a demonstrated need for intervention or enrichment (DuFour et. al., 2010).
This literature review began by establishing the need to move from the isolation that
characterizes educational institutions toward a vision of organizational capacity and internal
accountability. Developing a collaborative culture was identified as a high-leverage strategy for
facilitating this transition. Various models of collaboration in educational settings were presented
and common characteristics of effective collaboration were identified. Specific consideration
was given to requirements in the areas of knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
factors. Finally, the roles that central office administrators, school site administrators, and
teacher leaders play in bringing about organizational change were discussed.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

73
Chapter Three: Methodology
Authors: Anthony Carruthers, Sonia Llamas, Esther Salinas
3

Purpose of the Inquiry and Inquiry Questions
The overall purpose of this inquiry project was to assist PUSD with its organizational
goal of institutionalizing effective collaboration around student achievement. The project was
marked by three distinct stages. The objective of the first stage was to examine various aspects
and forms of collaboration around student achievement in order to distill essential components
that drive its success. The objective of the second stage was to utilize the Clark & Estes (2008)
gap analysis problem-solving framework to determine and analyze the challenges in knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational factors that may impede PUSD as it pursues its
organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student achievement. In the
third stage of the project the team developed potential solutions to address the root causes of
these challenges. The inquiry questions for this study were:
1. What are the challenges for PUSD central office administrators, in knowledge and skills,
motivation, and the organizational dimension, that may impede the achievement of
PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student
achievement?
2. What are the potential solutions to address PUSD central office administrators’
challenges in knowledge and skills, motivation, and the organizational dimension, and
thereby support PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration
around student achievement?

3
This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed reflecting the team approach to this
project. These authors are listed alphabetically to reflect their equal contribution.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

74
Methodology Framework
The framework for the methodology in this study was the Gap Analysis Problem Solving
Approach (GAP or Gap Analysis) (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011) The elements of the Gap
Analysis framework address measurement, diagnosis, evaluation, and proposed solutions. The
Gap Analysis Process Model addresses gaps in knowledge and skills and expands beyond these
realms to include gaps in motivation, organization, and culture to improve performance (Rueda,
2011). Whereas the classic Gap Analysis framework addresses gaps with respect to specific
organizational metrics, the current project used the framework to analyze gaps in the
implementation of a comprehensive innovation: Collaboration Around Student Achievement
(CASA). More specifically, the analysis diagnosed the root causes of the discrepancy between
current conditions and institutionalization of the innovation.
Gap Analysis uses both qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative methodology
leads one to discover how people feel, know, perceive, think, and act in a setting or situation
(Patton, 2002). It clarifies the human causes behind the performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008).
As such, the Gap Analysis framework relies on qualitative data to validate, and add depth of
understanding to, gaps in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational factors identified
through quantitative methods.
Figure 1 is a schematic diagram showing the sequence of steps in the Gap Analysis
Process. The figure also displays the cyclical nature of the Gap Analysis Process.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

75

Figure 1. Gap Analysis Process. Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
The steps of the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Process Model are:
Step 1: Goals: Identify the organizational goal.
Step 2: Current Achievement: Determine the current levels of performance with respect
to the identified goal areas.
Step 3: Gaps: Determine gaps between goals and current performance.
Step 4: Causes: Hypothesize causes in knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational culture, and empirically validate which of these are root causes.
The following steps of the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Process Model will be discussed
in Chapters Four, Five and Six of the dissertation and will not be incorporated into this
methodology chapter.
Step 5: Solutions: Plan systemic and individual gap-closing solutions.
Step 6: Implement: Implement systemic and individual gap-closing solutions.
Step 7: Evaluate: Evaluate and modify solutions for continual improvement.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

76
The significance of this study was the development of an Innovation Gap Analysis
process that may be adapted by other school districts to measure the institutionalization of
collaboration around student achievement or other innovative reforms.
Step 1: Identify the Organizational Goal
Through a meeting with PUSD’s superintendent and chief academic officer, it was agreed
that the focus of the current project would be the district’s goal to improve collaboration in order
to raise student achievement. For the purposes of this project, the term collaboration around
student achievement (CASA) describes the gestalt of collaborative efforts taking place between
stakeholders at all levels of the organization whose primary purpose is student achievement.
Collaborative Learning Communities (CLCs) is herein used as a generic term for models of
collaboration including, but not limited to, Purposeful Communities (Waters et al., 2005),
Professional Learning Communities as defined by DuFour & Eaker (1998), Communities of
Practice (Wenger & Snyder, 2000), and Professional Learning Communities as described by
Hord (1997). Appendix B shows the various models of collaboration in educational settings and
displays the salient concepts and characteristics of each model.
To operationalize PUSD’s organizational goal, a review of literature related to
collaboration around student achievement was conducted. The review revealed five key
characteristics required for effective collaboration around student achievement. Using the five
key characteristics as an organizing framework, the team identified 12 critical competencies that
support each of the characteristics. See Appendix D for a description of the characteristics and
the competencies based on knowledge and skill, motivation, and organization. PUSD’s
organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student achievement, then,
was operationalized as follows. PUSD will have achieved its organizational goal to the extent
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

77
that, districtwide, knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational factors are sufficient to
sustain high marks on measures of the 12 competencies.
Step 2: Current Achievement
The Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) has embarked on multiple initiatives and
projects supporting diverse goals. Examples of these include Excellent Middle Schools, STEM
Education, College and Career Pathways: Linked Learning, Special Education Information
System (SEIS), Behavior Response to Intervention (RtI), Redistricting Task Force, John Muir
High School Reinvention, Step Up To Writing (Auman, 2003), Kagan student engagement
strategies (Kagan & Kagan, 2009), Thinking Maps, ConnectEd and National Academy
Foundation Certification, Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI), Every Classroom Everyday (ECED),
and technology infrastructure improvement. Against this backdrop, collaboration around student
achievement is currently seen as one of many initiatives that teachers, site leadership teams, and
district administrators must juggle. Each of these initiatives and reform efforts have been
researched and implemented with varying degrees of fidelity. Consequently, their impacts on
student achievement have been mixed.
With regard to collaboration around student achievement, specifically, individual schools,
teams, and teachers demonstrate various stages of concern (Hall & Loucks, 1979) and levels of
use (Hall, Loucks, Rutherford & Newlove, 1975). Some teachers do not belong to a collaborative
team at all, and although many teachers do belong to grade-level or department teams, the
quality of collaboration on these teams varies widely. California Partnership Academies, of
which collaboration around student achievement is an integral part, exist within three of PUSD’s
four high schools. However, these academies also display a wide range of performance with
regard to collaboration around student achievement. The current performance in PUSD is
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

78
consistent with empirical findings that efforts to institutionalize models of collaboration are often
met with varying levels of commitment to learning and collaborating (Mullen & Schunk, 2010).
Step 3: Gaps
The PUSD seeks to ensure consistent and effective collaboration around student
achievement by all teams within the organization. In PUSD, there are 28 schools with grade-
level, department, academy, and administrative teams. In addition there are various departments
and teams working within the central office. During informal interviews, grade level and
department chairs, site administrators, and central office administrators were asked to gauge the
effectiveness of collaboration on their teams. The responses suggested that there is room for
improvement on all teams at all levels. It was hypothesized, therefore, that no department or
team within PUSD has achieved the desired level of performance with regard to collaboration
around student achievement. Hence, the gap between current performance and full
institutionalization of the desired level of collaboration around student achievement was assumed
to be 100%.
Step 4: Causes
Step four of the Gap Analysis Model (Clark & Estes, 2008) is to hypothesize and then
validate the causes of performance gaps. People often have naive and unfounded theories for
explaining performance problems (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). These assumed causes
can provide valuable insights. However, before they are determined to be actual causes, they
should be validated through systematic investigation. Otherwise, as Rueda and Clark and Estes
relate, organizations choose solutions that often fail to produce the results they desire. In the
current project, assumed causes were identified through (a) informal interviews, (b) consultation
of learning, motivation and organizational theory, and (c) review of the literature on
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

79
collaboration around student achievement (see Table 3 for a summary of the assumed causes
derived from these three sources).
Causes informed by informal interviews. To elicit the perceptions and perspectives of
stakeholders from multiple levels within PUSD about the implementation of learning
communities, informal interviews were conducted with 7 teachers, 13 school principals, and 9
district leaders. The guiding questions were: How are learning communities implemented at your
site? and What are the likely causes of any performance challenges with regard to the
implementation of learning communities?
Informal interviews with central office administrators. One central office administrator
shared that, until recently, the Pasadena Unified School District has given “little attention to a
coherent framework” that supports district-wide improvement. Although there have been
“sporadic attempts to implement forms of collaboration, they have been applied in “various
capacities and with varying degrees of success…but without collective purpose.” These
responses seem to indicate that the district’s attempt to implement multiple initiatives
unsystematically has resulted in uneven success throughout the district.
Central office administrators also expressed frustration over what they perceived as a
series of “unconnected” demands they are expected to meet year after year. There was a “shared
belief” among central office administrators that current initiatives would not continue for the
following year. A central office administrator commented, “We buy the new thing and use it
until the next new thing comes out. We never evaluate progress and we are not held accountable.
That’s why we don’t progress.”
When asked about their understanding of the characteristics of learning communities, no
central office administrator could define the approach to learning communities that was currently
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

80
being implemented within the PUSD. The term, “Professional Learning Community” (DuFour
et. al., 2010) was mentioned in several responses, but there was no elaboration with regard to the
defining characteristics of the model.
Informal interviews with site-level administrators. Thirteen principals were informally
interviewed. In response to How are learning communities implemented at your site? an
elementary school principal said, “The number of district initiatives is difficult to manage, given
the constraints of time to meet with faculty and staff during the monthly allotted meeting times.”
Another stated, “ Prioritizing initiatives coming from different district departments is
challenging, especially when each initiative competes for the same small allocation of time.” A
secondary principal commented “It would be great if district departments collaborated so we
[principals] wouldn’t get conflicting information from different departments. This is a problem
when it comes to our school budgets.” Another secondary principal stated, “Our current culture
[in PUSD] promotes isolation among the schools. We don’t really know what other schools are
doing.” An elementary principal stated, “I don’t really like how PLCs are being implemented and
feel that PLCs should be as individual as schools and not something we all have to implement in
the same way.”
Informal interviews with teachers. Seven teachers were interviewed informally. One
teacher leader shared “The district lacks focus and does not provide the direction needed to make
the gains with students.” When teachers were asked to define learning communities, no two
answers were the same. Responses included, “We meet everyday during lunch,” “We meet once
a week,” and “We can’t get our team to meet because, according to the contract, we can only
meet as grade levels on ‘A’ Mondays [A Mondays, per the union contract, are 14 specific days
within the school year when administrators can require teachers to meet.] No one shared an
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

81
understanding of what was being asked of teachers. Each teacher expressed that “the district is
not transparent or mutually accountable, and they [central office administrators] lack clear
direction about the outcomes for the district.”
Causes informed by learning, motivation, and organizational theories. The body of
knowledge in learning, motivation and organizational theory informed possible causes for
performance gaps. Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) Taxonomy, was used as a framework for
considering knowledge causes. The Commitment And Necessary Effort (CANE) model (Clark,
1999), was used for considering motivation causes. The Gap Analysis framework (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011) was used to analyze organizational gaps and identify possible
organizational causes.
Knowledge theory. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) categorize knowledge according to
four domains: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and
metacognitive knowledge. Possible causes of knowledge performance gaps were identified
according to these four domains. All four types of knowledge are required to sustain
collaboration around student achievement, whereas deficiencies in any of these types of
knowledge could lead to performance gaps (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). Table 3 lists the four
domains of knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) and provides examples of each related to
collaboration around student achievement.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

82
Table 3
Possible Causes of Knowledge Performance Gaps
Type of Knowledge Examples
Factual Knowledge Key vocabulary related to CASA; Knowledge of the various models
of CASA and the prominent features of each; Operationalized
definition of CASA.
Conceptual Knowledge Knowledge of the key principles of CASA; Understanding of the
fundamental ideas of CASA and how the elements are interrelated,
Understanding of the benefits of CASA; Understanding of the
generalizations, theories, models, and structures of CASA.
Procedural Knowledge Knowing how to carry out the key functions of CASA, e.g.,
facilitating meetings and conducting action research.
Metacognitive Knowledge Goal-Setting; Knowing when and why to apply interventions; Self-
reflection regarding progress through the stages of team
development

Motivation theory. Motivation is what the learner contributes to the process of learning
and is considered a prerequisite to meaningful learning (Mayer, 2011). Clark’s (1999)
Commitment And Necessary Effort (CANE) model posits that motivation is the product of
capability beliefs, affective factors, and task value. As such, these three factors, in addition to
other important motivation constructs, were considered as possible sources of performance gaps.
With respect to capability beliefs, in particular, lack of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) and lack of
collective efficacy (Goddard et al., 2004) were identified as the primary probable causes of
performance gaps.
Organization theory. Clark and Estes (2008) identify key aspects of organization that are
possible sources of performance gaps. According to the authors, gaps usually exist in work
processes, material resources, organizational culture, and features of effective organizational
change. As such, potential causes in these areas were considered.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

83
Causes informed by the literature. The literature related to collaboration around student
achievement is extensive. A review of this literature yielded key elements that are required for
effective collaboration around student achievement. See Appendix B for prominent concepts and
characteristics of models of collaboration in educational settings. Deficiencies in any of the key
elements were considered as possible sources of performance gaps.
Table 4 displays the assumed causes, organized by source and classified as Knowledge,
Motivation, or Organization.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

84
Table 4
Summary of Assumed Causes for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization
Sources

Knowledge

Motivation Organizational
Processes
Interview
No clear definition of
CASA
Lack of self-reflection on
progress as a learning
community
Lack of understanding of
the process – what and why
Lack of procedural
knowledge (i.e., how to
conduct CLC business)
Lack of collective
efficacy
Value
Interest
Attribution beliefs
Lack of planning time
Resource allocation
Lack of collaboration
Lack of prioritization
No clear goals
Theory
Factual
Conceptual
Procedural
Metacognitive

Self-efficacy
Collective efficacy
Perceived value
Attributions
Professional identity
Beliefs
Values
Goals
Isolation
Collective
accountability

Literature
Failure to operationalize the
reform goal
Procedures
Lack of conceptual
framework
No cycle of continuous
improvement due to lack of
reflection
Level of efficacy
Perceived Task Value
Norms and beliefs
Clear goals
Isolation
Distrust
Procedures
Multiple initiatives
Competing
allegiances
Lack of accountability

Step 5: Validated Causes
Mixed methods captured data in order to validate the assumed causes listed in Table 4,
and to identify other causes of performance gaps relative to PUSD’s goal of institutionalizing
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

85
effective collaboration around student achievement. Quantitative data were obtained using the
Collaboration Around Student Achievement Team Competency Survey. Qualitative data,
collected via semi-structured interviews, achieved methodological triangulation and added depth
to the quantitative data. In keeping with the principles of qualitative research (Patton, 2002),
secondary goals of the qualitative data collection were to add a personalized dimension to the
project and to clarify the human causes behind the performance gaps in the organization (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
Population and Sample
The survey population consisted of all 915 certificated staff (teachers, assistant
principals, principals, and central office administrators) employed in PUSD during the 2011-
2012 school year. Pasadena Unified School District was selected for this inquiry because, at the
onset of the project, the researchers were employed within the district and represented three
levels within the district: central office administrator, school site administrator, and classroom
teacher. Of the 915 employees in the target population, 281 PUSD certificated staff members
submitted a response to the quantitative survey.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
The following section describes the data collection instruments and the procedures that
were utilized to collect data for this project.
Surveys
Quantitative data were obtained using the Collaboration Around Student Achievement
(CASA) Team Competency Survey Protocol (see Appendix F). The survey addresses five
essential characteristics of effective collaboration around student achievement, broken down into
12 critical competencies (see Appendix D for the CASA team characteristics and competencies).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

86
Survey items were developed to assess Knowledge and Skills (K), Motivation (M), and
Organizational Factors (O) related to the competencies. For each competency, one to three items
were developed for each of the three levels (K, M, and O) of the Clark and Estes (2008)
framework. Additionally, several items were developed to assess teams’ perceived collective
efficacy. The survey contained 69 items. For each item, excluding six demographic items,
respondents were able to respond on a sliding scale from 0 to 100 with 0 indicating “Strongly
Disagree” and 100 indicating “Strongly Agree.”
The Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) administered the CASA Team
Competency Survey. On June 7, 2012, the Superintendent of Schools sent an email to all 915
certificated staff detailing the nature of the survey, and providing a direct link to the web-based
survey, which was hosted by Qualtrics. The survey window closed on August 23, 2012.
Qualtrics’ forced response feature was enabled, requiring respondents to answer all survey items
before moving on to the next group of items. Respondents were only allowed to submit the
survey once.
The Qualtrics instrument maintained respondents’ confidentiality as no identifying data
were collected. Survey data were uploaded to SPSS. Data were also stored and backed up on a
password-protected computer.
Interviews
Standardized semi-structured interviews were conducted for the following advantages:
(a) the instrument was made available for those reading the findings of the study, (b) the focus of
the interview respected participants’ time, and (c) analysis was facilitated by making responses
easily comparable (Patton, 2002, p. 346). The CASA interview protocol consisted of 20
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

87
questions related to the assumed causes in Table 4. See appendix G for a list of the 20 interview
questions.
Survey respondents indicated whether or not they were willing to participate in the
qualitative portion of the study. Key informants (Patton, 2002) from all three levels (central
office administrators, school site administrators, classroom teachers) were selected for individual
interviews. The pool of interviewees included six central office administrators, six school site
administrators, and six classroom teachers.
In each case, the inquiry team member sent a formal recruitment letter to the interviewee,
which initiated the process of the researcher and the interviewee mutually agreeing upon a time
and place to conduct an interview. With the interviewees’ consent, the interviews were audio
recorded. The interviews typically lasted between 60 and 90 minutes. Interviews were conducted
at each of the three levels (central office administrators, school site administrators, classroom
teachers) until redundancy (Patton, 2002), marked by interviewees’ tendency to duplicate
answers and provide limited amounts of new information, was reached. As it turned out, four
interviews were conducted at each of the three levels within the district. The setting for each
interview was a private room. Care was taken to obtain a quiet room with ample space, where
interviewee and interviewer could have open discussion without interruption, and without
compromising confidentiality.
Data Analysis
The unit of analysis for this inquiry project was the Pasadena Unified School District.
The purpose of this inquiry project suggested a mixed methods approach. This section explains
the strategies that were used to analyze survey and interview data.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

88
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the survey data. Specifically, means and
standard deviations were computed for each survey item. Additionally, means and standard
deviations were computed for each of the 12 competencies. Finally, grand means of the
knowledge items, motivation items, and organization items were computed.
Audio recordings of the semi-structured interviews were transcribed and coded using the
12 competencies in conjunction with the K/M/O classification scheme (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The researchers reviewed the transcripts and identified emergent themes relevant to the current
project. Specifically, the researchers looked for patterns in the interview data that (1) clarified
ambiguous results from the survey, (2) bolstered the findings from the survey, or (3) registered
as completely new. Additionally, the researchers looked for interesting convergences and
divergences of the perspectives between the three levels in the district.
The results of the data collected and analyzed are presented in Chapter Four, which
follows.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

89
Chapter Four: Results
Author: Sonia Llamas
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this inquiry project was to examine the role of the central office
administrator with regards to the institutionalization of consistent and effective collaboration
around student achievement in the Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD). A mixed method
approach was used to capture data that identified and validated the self-perceived causes of
performance gaps relevant to PUSD central office administrators are reported in Chapter Four.
Data analysis suggested perceived causes of the gaps associated with administrators’ knowledge
and skills, motivation, or with the organizational dimension (Rueda, 2011). These gaps need to
be addressed in order to assist the central office staff achieve the organizational goal of
implementing effective collaboration around student achievement districtwide. Potential
solutions to address the validated causes of the gaps will be presented and discussed in Chapter
Five.
Overview of Data Collection
District Survey
To validate these assumed causes, quantitative data were obtained using the
Collaboration Around Student Achievement Team Competency Survey described in Chapter
Three, which was administered to all administrators and certificated staff throughout the District.
The survey population consisted of all 915 certificated staff (teachers, assistant principals,
principals, and central office administrators) from the PUSD employed during the 2011-2012
school year. Of the 915 solicited participants, 281(30.7%) PUSD certificated staff members
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

90
participated. Though the response rate (30.7%) of the survey was low, a low response rate is
typical for a web-based survey (Nair & Adams, 2009; Shih & Fan, 2009).
For the purposes of this current study, a small subset of data from the districtwide survey
was utilized which isolated central office administrators (n = 18). Two concurrent studies
(Carruthers, 2013; Salinas, 2013) were also conducted from the same data set, isolating teachers
and school site administrators, respectively. A variety of statistical measures were obtained from
the survey data including: descriptive statistics, correlations and means comparison. Statistical
analysis was conducted using the statistical package SPSS 20.0 for Windows (see Appendix H
for data on n=281).
District Interviews
Interviews with consenting respondents were conducted based on the results from the
Collaboration Around Student Achievement Team Competency Survey. The survey contained an
item requesting consent for participation in a focus group or individual interview. Interviews
with consenting respondents were conducted to triangulate data and further validate the assumed
causes. After analyzing the data, participants were sorted by levels: central office administrator,
school site administrator, and teacher levels.
Eight central office administrators consented to participate in the qualitative portion of
the study. Six key informants (Patton, 2002) were identified to ensure the emergence of meta-
themes, as recommended by Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, (2006) and were selected to participate in
individual interviews. Of the six interviewees, five were female and one was a male. An
interview schedule was developed after the researcher obtained a copy of the each individual
interviewees daily schedule. The researcher reviewed the schedules and identified potential dates
and times after which the interviewees picked the day of the week and time that worked best for
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

91
their schedules. The individual interviews lasted approximately one hour each and a point of
redundancy was reached after the fourth interview when no new information was forthcoming
(Lincoln & Guba, as cited in Patton, 2002), and interviewees began to duplicate answers. Thus,
four of the original six planned interviews were conducted and it was not necessary to conduct
the final two interviews. The setting for each of the individual interviews was a private room
located in the district office away from the interviewee’s work area. Care was taken to provide a
quiet room with ample table space, where interviewees and researcher could have open
discussion without interruption.
Demographic Data
The first section of the survey included 12 demographic questions, which were broken
down into three categories: participant information, current work setting, and models of
collaboration used. For a complete breakdown of the demographic data, see Appendix I.
Of the 18 survey participants in the central office, 13 of the participants were female and
5 were male. Participants’ ages were distributed as follows: five were in the 35-40 year range;
three were in the 41-46 year; four were in the 47-52 year range; two were in the 53-58 year
range; and four were 59 years or older. Eight participants were Caucasian, and the second largest
participant group was Asian with 5 participants. Lastly, the distribution of educational attainment
was as follows: One had a Bachelor’s degree, eight had a Master’s degree, four had some level
of doctoral studies and five had completed a doctoral program. Thirteen participants had less
than five years at their current position. One had served 6 to 10 years, two had served 16 to 20
years, one had served 26 to 30 years, and one had served 31 years or longer. In addition, 15
participants had fewer than five years at their current work setting. One had less than 10 years
and one had 16 to 20 years.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

92
In the survey, respondents were asked about training they have received in any particular
model of collaboration around student achievement and also whether any model of collaboration
around student achievement was being implemented at their site. Fourteen respondents indicated
that they had received training on any particular model of collaboration. Of the 14 who
participated in training, seven had been trained on the concept of Professional Learning
Communities (PLC’s). When asked about the implementation of a particular model of
collaboration, 10 of the 18 respondents indicated that no particular model was being
implemented. Of the models implemented, Professional Learning Communities was the highest
at five.
Respondents were asked how many collaborative teams were they a part of. Nine
respondents belonged to three teams and five stated they did not identify themselves as
belonging to any team. The questions related to models of collaboration, provide the
characteristic of the model of collaboration, the number and percentage of responses related to
the training on particular models of collaboration, which model of collaboration has been
implemented and the number of teams to which the respondent belongs.
Of the 4 interview participants from the central office, 3 of them were female and 1 was
male. Participants’ ages were distributed as follows: one was in the 35-40 year range; one was in
the 41-46 year range; and two were in the 47-52 year range. One participant was Caucasian, one
was African American, and two were Asian. Lastly, the distribution of educational attainment
was as follows: Two had a Master’s degree, and two had completed a doctoral program. 2
interviewees had served less than two years in their current position and two had served 5 years
in their positions.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

93
Validation of the Causes of the Perceived Performance Gap
Inquiry Question #1: What are the challenges for PUSD central office administrators’
in knowledge and skills, motivation, and the organizational dimension, that may impede the
achievement of PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around
student achievement?
Knowledge Results
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Causes
In Chapter Three, the assumed causes of the gap were outlined. The assumed causes of
the knowledge gaps were classified as factual, procedural, conceptual, or metacognitive
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). It was noted in scanning interviews that staff (1) did not have a
clear definition of collaboration around student achievement (factual knowledge), (2) lacked an
understanding of the process of collaboration around student achievement (conceptual
knowledge), (3) lacked the procedural knowledge to conduct learning community business, and
(4) had not engaged fully in self-assessment of their progress as a learning community
(metacognitive knowledge).
The literature on professional learning communities revealed the following common gaps
associated with PLC implementation: (1) Failure to operationalize the term PLC (factual
knowledge); (2) lack of knowledge with regard to fundamental PLC procedures; (3) incomplete
understanding of the conceptual framework that undergirds PLCs; and (4) failure to engage in
the cycle of continuous improvement due to the absence of meaningful reflection (metacognitive
knowledge).
The methodology of the study attempted to validate these assumed causes. In this section
the results of the application of this methodology is presented.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

94
Knowledge Survey Results
In total, the Collaboration Around Student Achievement Team Competency Survey,
which can be found in Appendix F, included 17 questions eliciting respondents’ self-reports of
their teams’ knowledge and skills pertinent to collaboration around student achievement. Mean
teacher responses (n = 18) for each item, and the grand mean for the 17 knowledge items are
reported in Table 5. The grand mean for the 17 Knowledge items was 68.27 on a scale of 0 to
100. In the next paragraphs, and as a matter of practicality, only the two items with the lowest
mean responses (i.e., the highest priority) will be treated in further detail. The fact that only these
two highest-priority items are discussed in further detail does not imply that the other items are
not worthy of similar attention. In fact, the results from all of the survey items warrant PUSD’s
attention as it pursues its goal to implement consistent and effective collaboration around student
achievement districtwide.
Table 5 provides the competencies, the means, and the standard deviation for each
question for the knowledge and skills survey items. The two lowest competency questions, as
shown by the data, will be further examined as a matter of practicality. In the future and prior to
next steps with the implementation of collaboration, the executive administration of PUSD
should examine the other elements to gain a better understanding of the knowledge gap by
central office administrators.
As seen in Table 5, the first two knowledge questions have the lowest mean (58.33 and
61.67, respectively) and thus indicate the greatest gap within the knowledge domain. Within the
knowledge and skills questions, there is more variability (standard deviation = 29.15, 30.95,
respectively) with the lower means at the beginning of the scale. As they move to the higher
means at the end of the rank (ascending rank), the staff perceptions of their strengths in this area
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

95
are more bundled alluding to their agreement that their teams have the knowledge and skill in the
related competency. For tri-level competency comparison, see Appendix J.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

96
Table 5
Knowledge Item Results in Ascending Order by Means (n = 18)
Knowledge M SD
My team knows how to develop high quality assessments that produce useful
data about whether students have met essential learning outcomes.
58.33 29.15
My team knows how to use a data management system (e.g. DataDirector) to
store, analyze and communicate assessment data.
61.67 30.92
My team analyzes student achievement data in order to identify instructional
strengths and weaknesses as part of ongoing improvement.
64.44 28.12
Members of my team know how to organize and execute a course of action
to positively impact student achievement.
65.56 28.74
My team knows how to use common assessment data to refer students for
interventions for remediation and enrichment.
65.56 31.29
My team knows how to prioritize resources that benefit student achievement
outcomes.
66.11 18.52
My team knows how to connect students with interventions for remediation
and enrichment when there is a demonstrated need.
66.11 27.89
My team has clarity about the essential learning outcomes that all students
are expected to achieve.
66.67 22.75
My team knows how to collect various data to determine how effective a
particular intervention has been.
67.22 28.66
My team works together to gather, analyze, and implement best practices.
68.33 26.84
My team has been given the responsibility and authority for determining how
to meet the goals set by central office.
69.44 20.14
My team knows how to identify proficient and advanced students in need of
enrichment opportunities.
70.56 24.61
My team knows how to engage in team learning activities that raise our
capacity to achieve the outcomes for which we are accountable.
71.11 15.30
My team knows how to establish the tasks and purposes for working
together.
73.89 20.90
My team understands that there are inherent tensions embedded in the
collaborative process but we implement strategies to overcome these
interpersonal challenges.
74.44 16.17
My team knows how to identify struggling students in need of remediation.
75.00 24.07
My team members know the specific knowledge and skills required for our
team to achieve the outcomes for which we are accountable.
76.11 11.95
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

97
Knowledge gap #1.
Survey results. On a scale of 0 to 100 with 0 indicating “Strongly Disagree” and 100
representing “Strongly Agree”, “my team knows how to develop high quality assessments that
produce useful data about whether students have met essential learning outcomes,” the mean
response was 58.33. This knowledge gap was related to Competency #5: Developing and
deploying an assessment and monitoring system. This question was designed to see if teams had
the knowledge and skills to implement an assessment system that communicates to all team
members the extent to which students are achieving essential learning outcomes. The causes of
this gap may be dependent on the central office administrator’s perception of their teams
understanding of how to develop high quality assessments related to what students should be
learning. The creation of high quality assessments is one of the critical functions of collaborative
central office level instructional teams. Thus, it is pertinent that this knowledge and skill gap be
addressed in order for the PUSD to achieve its global goal of 100% collaboration around student
achievement as Central office provide the direction and clarity for the remainder of stakeholders.

Interview results. During the interviews, central office administrators were questioned
(see Appendix G) in order to better understand the gaps in knowledge and skill that exist within
the PUSD. In addressing the first critical gap related to creating high quality assessments, only
one of the four interviewees stated that they were directly involved in the creation of assessments.
They went on to state that the five curricular coaches were responsible for the creation of
assessments in each subject area, ELA, Math, Science and the Elementary curricular coach
creates all subject level assessments for K-5. One of the interviewees stated that there were no
direct assessments used during their meeting time but rather they had coaching tools for site
administrators that were to be utilized. In addition, one interviewee discussed how their use of
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

98
assessments it was dependent on what was the topic of their meeting. But if assessments were
being used, they were “to provide a big picture.” All four interviewees stated that assessments
were not part of their weekly meetings but rather on occasion data was introduced. Two of the
four interviewees stated that assessments were not a priority during collaboration sessions. Three
of the four interviewees stated that the purpose of their collaboration time was to create
opportunities for site administrators to look at their data and assessments and lead them though
data analysis. Lastly, one interviewee stated that this task, the creation of assessments, was the
responsibility of a few (4 curricular coaches). But this was “not their priority or their sole
responsibility”. In addition, three of the four interviewees agreed that assessments are being
created now and that the priority was to implement districtwide.
Tri-level results. All three levels: central office, school site administration and teachers
had a gap in “developing high quality assessments to produce useful data about meeting essential
learning outcomes”. This is of utmost concern given that this is a gap at all three levels of the
organization evidenced by the fact that the average mean ranged from 58.33 to 67.65. It is
concerning that this question was ranked the lowest given central office is charged with
providing the training and guidance necessary to develop quality assessments. In addition, one
site administrator stated “They were very aware of assessments but sometimes the quarterlies
were never really useful or aligned to anything.” This further shows that the assessment
measures being provided to sites and teachers are not in alignment with the pacing or learning
outcomes outlined by central office. A similar concern came from an interview with a teacher
(Carruthers, 2013) suggesting that teacher teams were able to collaborate around the idea of
developing common units and assessments aligned to the CST. However, the teacher noted that
the principal does not have the monetary resources to pay for the team to develop pacing,
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

99
outlines and assessments. This demonstrates the need but that there are no common planning
periods for teams to carry out this task. Because school sites are not being provided the necessary
tools, there are no standardized assessment measures for subject areas, grade levels or subgroups.
They are being left to decide for themselves what will best meet the needs of their students and
schools.
According to Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001), in order to effectively create
systemic change from the classroom to the district, assessment measures must be standardized
and equally used across the district at all three levels. The concern raised by the authors is that
not all students would be provided the instruction or assessment measure equitable to other
students in other classrooms and other schools. In addition, the concurrent project related to site
administrators (Salinas, 2013) elicited a consensus from the interviewees that school site
administrators are relying on assessments that have been created by their teachers which vary,
not only from school to school, but can also vary from teacher to teacher. Currently, the
professional development coordinator is working with a team of teachers in a curriculum re-
writing effort known as the Curriculum Revision Workshop (CRW). This effort demonstrates the
strides that the PUSD is making in beginning the process of standardizing assessments across the
district.
Knowledge gap #2.
Survey results. The second most common knowledge and skill gap was “My team knows
how to use a data management system (e.g. DataDirector) to store, analyze and communicate
assessment data,” and had a mean response for this item was 61.67. This question was designed
to see if teams had the knowledge and skills to use a data management system such as
DataDirector to store, analyze and communicate assessment data to determine the extent to
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

100
which students are achieving essential learning outcomes. The causes of this gap may be
dependent on the central office administrator’s perception of their teams understanding of how to
use a data management system to store, analyze and communicate assessment data. Thus, it is
imperative that this knowledge and skill gap be addressed in order for PUSD to transform data
into information by putting “data into context” . In other words, it will better inform practice and
lead to informed decision around whether or not students are achieving the essential learning
outcomes (DuFour et al., 2010, p. 215).
Interview results. In addressing the second critical gap related to how to use a data
management system, one of the four interviewees stated that they were directly involved in using
data management systems. The other three central office administrators reported that it was not
because they did not know how to use the data management systems, but rather, they did not
have the time to use the data management system. One central office administrator discussed that
the coaches “pull the data that the schools need and analyze it.” They further stated that they
receive the analyzed information and made decisions based on the data provided to them. In
addition, one central office administrator stated that data were not regularly used during
Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) meetings. In addition, they went on to state that “in house”
(formative assessments created by the PUSD team) data were rarely used at all to drive the
instructional decisions made in the district. Rather, only data that were packaged by the State
appeared to be the driving force of the District.
Tri-level results. Results from the concurrent project which focuses on Collaboration
Around Student Achievement from the teacher perspective (Carruthers, 2013) and from the site
administrator perspective (Salinas, 2013), validate that central office staff would benefit from
utilizing data management systems and their ability to relay information back to sites and
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

101
teachers. In interviews both teachers and site administration were in agreement that the central
office did not know how to provide them timely data feedback from quarterly assessments and
guidance in relation to the utilization of data management systems. They agreed that the
assessment measures being utilized were not in alignment with pacing plans and the learning
outcomes their students need to master. Thus, data that were provided did not truly measure what
was intended to be assessed in the formative assessments and the quarterlies. As addressed in
Salinas (2013), one interviewee discussed that district trimester assessment results are used to
track their progress, but noted that there have been challenges with the validity of the trimester
data and another site administrator stated that their was a challenge of misalignment with the
present scope and sequence of the curriculum. They mentioned the need to collaboratively
develop common data analysis tools from which schools could choose. They went on to state
their need to develop writing rubrics that span the curriculum and wanting this from the central
office and not having to “create it on their own.” They applauded the efforts of the CRW and that
the District is moving in the right direction. For a comparison of the validated knowledge gaps
among the three levels, see Appendix K.
Summary of the Strengths and Challenges of Central Office Administrators
Based on the qualitative and quantitative data at the central office administrator level,
several positive themes emerged. The central office staff is aware of what is needed to be an
effective collaborative team. They understand that there are inherent tensions embedded in the
collaborative process and know how to implement the strategies to overcome interpersonal
challenges. They know how to work together and engage one another in team learning activities
to build their capacity. The teams strongly believe that they are able to identify students in need
of remediation and enrichment opportunities, which suggests that they have the knowledge and
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

102
skills needed to assess students’ areas of weakness and strength. In addition, all team members
interviewed validated that there is greater structure now within ILT than in years past. The team
is confident in the direction that the new leadership has provided to the department and they
appreciate the new leaderships focus on student achievement. The new leadership has been in
place for less than one year, but the team has made great strides during this time to work
collectively on tasks to promote student achievement. In addition, the team is now receiving
guidance and clearer direction than in years past on expectations, roles, priorities and learning
opportunities as a collective team.
On the other hand, results also revealed that the PUSD central office administrators will
benefit from gaining key knowledge and skills specifically related to procedural knowledge and
to comprehend the responsibilities needed to carry out effective collaboration in creating
assessments, meeting goals and operating data management systems. If staff within the PUSD
are limited in their ability to create the quality assessments needed to measure essential student
learning outcomes and to use data management systems to produce useful data about whether
students met these essential learning outcomes, student achievement will not improve. In
addition, the PUSD must close these gaps in knowledge to successfully achieve a broader
knowledge base for these critical competencies to improve student achievement.
Solutions to the two gaps in the knowledge dimensions will be provided in the discussion of
Research Question Two in Chapter 5.
Motivation Results
Motivation is a “process whereby goal-directed activity is instigated and sustained.”
(Schunk et al., 2008, p. 4). It involves active choice, persistence and mental effort (Mayer, 2011).
Motivation can affect learning and behavior and one’s learning and actions can influence
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

103
subsequent tasks (Schunk et al., 2008). Motivation can be assessed by self-reports, surveys,
interviews and dialogues (Schunk et al., 2008).
Summary of Assumed Motivation Causes
The gap analysis methodology follows a path from performance gap to assumed causes to
validated causes to solutions. In Chapter 3, the assumed causes of the performance gap were
outlined in Table 4. Clark’s (1999), CANE (Commitment and Necessary Effort) model of
motivation was used as the guiding framework to consider possible causes of motivation gaps.
The CANE model frames goal commitment as the product of capability beliefs, affective factors,
and task value.
The assumed causes of this project revolved around self-efficacy, efficacy and collective
efficacy. Questions were incorporated into the survey administered to central office
administrators. The survey served to assess staff’s perceptions of whether the team had the
collective efficacy and other motivational variables such as commitment and value, to carry out
specific tasks needed to implement collaboration learning communities. The following items,
sorted by major motivation constructs, represent a sampling of the survey items used to validate
the assumed motivation causes.
Collective efficacy. My team is committed to the belief that, collectively, we have the
capability to produce the student achievement results we desire.
Value. My team values the time we spend together collaborating
Affective factors. My team respectfully addresses group tensions when working
collaboratively to gather, analyze and transfer best practices across all group members.
According to Bandura (1997), collective efficacy refers to the self-efficacy of a group, team or
larger social entity or system. It includes both the perceived capabilities of the individual
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

104
members and group members’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the links between tasks, skills,
and roles (Schunk et al., 2008). As noted by Bandura (1997), collective efficacy can affect the
purpose of a system, its commitment to seek what it wants to accomplish and how well team
members work together to collectively produce the results set by the organization. In addition, it
can affect a team’s ability to navigate through difficult situations, further derailing efforts to
meet specified goals. Survey questions were framed by asking motivation questions in relation to
the respondent’s perception of their team’s ability to carry out a respective task. The respective
competency is in parenthesis at end of motivation question. The complete list of competencies on
motivation can be found in the Appendix D.
Motivation Survey Results
In total, the Collaboration Around Student Achievement Team Competency Survey,
which can be found in Appendix F, included 29 questions eliciting respondents’ self-reports of
their teams’ motivational factors related to collaboration around student achievement. Mean
central office administrators responses (n = 18) for each item, and the grand mean for the 29
Motivation items are reported in Table 6. The grand mean for the 29 Motivation items was 75.90
on a scale of 0 to 100. In the next paragraphs, and as a matter of practicality, only the two items
with the lowest mean responses (i.e., the highest priority) will be treated in further detail. The
fact that only these two highest-priority items are discussed in further detail does not imply that
the other items are not worthy of similar attention. In fact, the results from all of the survey items
warrant PUSD’s attention as it pursues its goal to implement consistent and effective
collaboration around student achievement district wide. For tri-level competency comparison,
see Appendix J.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

105
Table 6
Motivation Item Results in Ascending Order by Means (n = 18)
Motivation M SD
Provide students with enrichment opportunities whenever there is a
demonstrated need.
65.56 25.95
Identify specific knowledge and skill deficits that inhibit our team from
achieving the outcomes for which we are accountable.
66.11 25.24
Provide students with additional time and support whenever there is a
demonstrated need.
67.22 24.69
Identify strengths and weaknesses in our collective and individual practice
as part of an ongoing cycle of improvement.
67.22 25.39
Use common assessment data to identify needs for intervention and
enrichment.
68.89 26.77
My team values comparing assessment results and sharing instructional
strategies to identify strengths and weaknesses in individual and collective
teaching.
68.89 28.47
Collaborate interdependently to gather, analyze and determine best
practices and transfer best practices across all team members.
71.11 26.32
Make use of available time to hold productive collaboration meetings.
71.11 26.10
Engage ourselves in knowledge- and skill-building activities that raise our
team’s capacity to achieve the outcomes for which we are accountable.
71.11 25.18
My team respectfully addresses group tension when working
collaboratively to gather, analyze and transfer best practices across all team
members.
71.67 17.91
My team makes a concerted effort to connect students with interventions
for remediation and enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need.
72.78 25.62
Make resource allocation decisions that provide the greatest benefit to
student achievement outcomes.
73.33 17.49
Develop clarity among all team members regarding the essential learning
outcomes that all students are expected to achieve.
73.89 24.29
Accept and carry out the responsibility and authority for determining how
to meet the clear, non-negotiable goals set by site and/or district leadership.
75.56 20.36
Use data to measure the impact of interventions.
76.11 26.15
My team is committed to developing our professional knowledge and skills
so that we can achieve the outcomes for which we are accountable.
76.67 13.72
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

106
Motivation M SD
My team is committed to the belief that, working collectively, we have the
ability to produce the student achievement results we truly desire.
77.22 24.69
My team values having access to a data management system that can
communicate to all team members the extent to which students are
achieving essential learning outcomes.
77.22 30.83
Using common assessment data to refer students for interventions for
remediation and enrichment is important to my team.
77.22 26.30
It is important to my team to make all members feel that their contribution
is vital to our success.
77.78 18.96
My team values being given the responsibility and authority for
determining how to meet district goals.
78.33 17.91
Agree to be held accountable to clear, non-negotiable goals for learning
and instruction set by site and/or district leadership.
78.89 12.78
My team values feedback from colleagues when identifying and implementing
best practices.
80.00 15.34
My team believes that all members of our team play an essential role in
positively impacting student achievement.
81.11 18.11
It is important that my team can make decisions about how to spend
allocated resources that provide the greatest benefit to student achievement
outcomes.
82.22 14.37
My team values the time we spend together collaborating.
82.78 15.27
It is important for my team to develop clarity about the essential learning
outcomes that all students are expected to achieve.
86.67 16.80
It is important to use data to determine how effective an intervention has
been.
91.11 11.83
It is important that students are provided with interventions for remediation
and enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need.
93.33 9.08

Motivation gap #1.
Survey results. On a scale of 0 to 100 with 0 indicating “Strongly Disagree” and 100
representing “Strongly Agree”, “can your team provide students with enrichment opportunities
whenever there is a demonstrated need,” had the lowest mean response among central office
administrators. The mean response for this item was 65.56 and thus, ranked as the greatest need
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

107
within the motivation domain. The data from this item suggests that central office level
administrators do not feel confident that their team can provide students with the enrichment
opportunities when there is a need. The literature reinforces that the central office role is to be
strategic in their planning with a few specific goals that flow from the central office to its schools
in order to ensure the focus remains on students. In order to ensure that students are being
provided the enrichments opportunities when there is a demonstrated need, resources need to be
appropriately allocated along with concise goals set by central office to ensure that school level
goals are SMART goals and that school site plans incorporate the improvement goal needed and
the appropriate strategies to work with student who require additional supports. In addition,
central office administrators confirm that it is important (93.33, respectively) that students are
provided with interventions for remediation and enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated
need. This confirms that there is a high value for student achievement and the need to provide the
optimum opportunities for student growth and enrichment but do not feel that there team can
provide the enrichment opportunities for the reasons discussed in the organizational section of
this project analysis.
Interview results. During interviews held with central office administrators, all four
interviewees stated that there are limited enrichment opportunities for students within the district
as most funds and resources are funneled to the schools and students who require remediation.
The focus within the district had been predominately on remediation and turning around schools
rather than providing students with greater enrichment opportunities and rigor. All four
interviewees alluded to a need to change the focus toward equity in allocating resources for
remediation as for enrichment. One interviewee stated that the central office instructional team
was looking into creating more enrichment opportunities for students in order to stem the “flow
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

108
of students leaving for private school” from the district due to lack of educational enrichment
opportunities during the middle grades. Providing students with enrichment opportunities was
further validated when another interviewee stated, “we have a number of schools with low
performing students, we have rallied to support them as a team.” All interviewees concurred
through the interviews that remediation has been the focus of the district and not enrichment.
Tri-level results. In the concurrent project on teachers (Carruthers, 2013) and on site
administrators (Salinas, 2013), there is validation in their findings that the central office staff
could benefit from creating enrichment opportunities districtwide for students. One site leader
stated,
“I think that one of the things that needs to be kept in mind is that not one size fits
all….In terms of what the district has to offer, I have to be honest that I’m not sure that I
see something that’s been good… And, as of yet, we have not come up with a piece or a
method that has been sustainable and so we therefore then go back to our sites and just do
what we need to do as leaders,...it just seems like the [Professional Development
Coaches] are this little island [who are] just told what to do. They deliver it, and then
think they do a great job of that, but again how well is it that received at the schools and
what is the message that goes back with the leaders? Just in observing, within my cluster,
each of us has a very different site, and a very different needs.”
Further, one teacher discusses how they need planning time to create and manage tiered
systems of intervention and enrichment. In order to share practice, teachers need time together.
Motivation gap #2.
Survey results. “Can your team identify specific knowledge and skill deficits that inhibit
our team from achieving the outcomes for which they are accountable,” had the second lowest
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

109
mean response of 66.11. The data from this item suggests that central office administrators do
not feel confident that their teams are able to identify the knowledge and skill deficits preventing
them for completing their work. This could be related to the lack of knowledge related to skill
building activities. This could also be attributed to the lack of time to identify deficits due to the
limited human resources facing many school districts. This is further validated in that the
question related to knowledge and skill was the highest ranking at 76.11, respectively. This is to
suggest that it is not due to the team’s inability to recognize what the deficits preventing task
completion are, but rather that they are not confident that they can carry out this needs
assessment of their district.
Interview results. This gap is validated by the concurring comments that were made by
all four central office administrators. They all believe that people are assuming multiple roles
within the central office that would have been the purview of someone else but due to lack of
resources, the position may have be eliminated or combined with an existing position. In
addition, two of the four interviewees stated that they have empowered staff to do things outside
of the scope of their duties. This illustrates that it may not being due to lack of ability but rather
lack of time or a focus on multiple priorities. In order to identify roots and barriers, the team
needs to be afforded time and resources to allow for greater depth and monitoring to occur.
Lastly, during one interview, a participant suggested that they wanted to go a certain way with a
project, but the team wanted to go in a different direction. Instead of blocking the suggestions
about how to carry out the team project, they deferred to their team members understanding and
history within the PUSD. Ultimately, this allowed for team members to maximize collaboration
efforts and proved to be successful when implemented. Once again, this a demonstration of the
new leadership and the incorporation of more opportunities for collaboration and need to make
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

110
decisions as a team rather than in isolation or persistent decide and announce tactics leaving little
room for collaboration.
Tri-level results. Interestingly, Carruthers (2013) and Salinas (2013) both validated the
challenges with respect to the central office identifying the specific knowledge and skill deficits
that inhibit their team from achieving the outcomes for which they are accountable.
According to Salinas (2013), all four site administrators interviewed named specific areas
of need their teams identified as not having adequate knowledge and skills to accomplish the
desired outcomes. One interviewee described a curricular area that both the administrator and
teachers identified as needing to be strengthened, but no one had the capacity. A site
administrator explained that there is not time to find the root causes when “everyone is running
on crisis mode and trying to set order in the school…there is no time to focus on instruction.”
These responses suggest that school site administrators actually do have the skill to
identify the specific knowledge and skill deficits that inhibit their teams from moving forward,
but may be deterred from acting on that knowledge due to several possible causes that include a
perceived culture of distrust, lack of time and misaligned resources on limited priorities.
This concurrence with the results from school site administrators, coupled with the fact
that teachers are not fully motivated to engage in team learning activities (Carruthers, 2013),
suggest that PUSD is not adequately motivated to build its own capacity to achieve the goal of
effective collaboration around student achievement. For a comparison of the validated
motivation gaps among the three levels, see Appendix K.
Summary of the Strengths and Challenges of Central Office Administrators
Once again, as a central office administration, there is evident strength among team
members. Collectively, survey respondents from central office strongly agreed that interventions
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

111
for remediation and enrichment are important scoring 93.33, respectively. They strongly agree
that data are needed to determine how effective interventions have been. Lastly, they believe in
the development of clarity among expected learning outcomes and the time needed to
collaborate. Staff has the will at the central office level to take on additional duties to ensure
coverage. In addition, one interviewee stated, “Now we have a core group of people who are
dedicated to what we are doing…people have a general liking for one another and we share a
common goal.” The Instructional Leadership Team is mobilizing in the right direction.
In PUSD, it appears that there are challenges in how central office administration
perceives their teams are functioning and what the central office team believes in their abilities to
meet goals. Overall, all three levels are motivated to assist students, but there comes a threshold
to that motivation when staff are not acknowledged, resources are not provided and staff are not
provided the guidelines for working as collective and collaborative teams. The threshold is
replaced by distrust, lack of clear focus and poor communication among all three levels needed
to ensure effective collaboration around student achievement. In all four central office level
administrator interviews, it is evident that there is a value of colleagues but it is superseded by
tasks that are being prioritized and the sharing of best practices is halted. As a central office staff,
it is critical to know and believe that your team can identify the knowledge and skill deficits
impeding outcome achievement. In addition, school sites would benefit from central office
providing the needed guidance on how to effectively provide enrichment opportunities to all of
their students. If it is only provided to those schools that are performing an issue of equity and
access come into play. However, this challenge is being addressed with the creation of a Science
Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) school in the North West Pasadena area, one
of the most challenging areas of the PUSD.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

112
Solutions to the two gaps in the motivation dimension will be provided in the discussion
of Research Question Two, based on the appropriate assessments for each motivation dimension
(Bandura, 1997; Clark, 1999; Clark & Estes, 2008) and the most critical gaps to be addressed to
successfully help students achieve.
Organizational Results
The third and final area of the gap analysis relates to addressing organizational culture
and support (Clark & Estes, 2008). In Chapter 3, the assumed causes of the performance gap
were outlined. Clark and Estes (2008) identify key aspects of organization that are possible
sources of performance gaps. According to the authors gaps usually exist in work processes,
material resources, organizational culture, and features of effective organizational change.
Similarly, Rueda (2011) suggests looking for organizational gaps in culture, structure, and
policies and practices. As such, potential causes in these areas were considered.
Summary of Assumed Organizational Causes
As mentioned in the previous sections, teachers, school site and central office
administrators engaged in casual conversations and offered their thoughts and insights into the
challenges of implementing a districtwide model of collaboration around student achievement.
Assumed causes for organization gaps were distilled from these informal scanning interviews,
theories of Learning, Motivation and Organization, and the literature related to collaboration
around student achievement.
Central office administrators were asked about their perceptions of the implementation of
collaboration around student achievement. One principal stated, “It would be great if district
departments collaborated so we [principals] wouldn’t get conflicting information from different
departments. This is a problem when it comes to our school budgets.” ” Another commented,
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

113
“Our current culture [in PUSD] promotes isolation among the schools. We don’t really know
what other schools are doing.” The number of district initiatives is difficult to manage, given the
constraints of time to meet with faculty and staff during the monthly allotted meeting times
Responses such as these began to form the assumed causes of the gaps in organizational factors
related to PUSD’s organizational goal to implement successful collaboration around student
achievement. Possible gaps may occur in work processes, material resources, organizational
culture, and features of effective organizational change.
From organizational theory, the culture of working in silos and lack of organizational
coherence (Childress et al., 2007) were identified as potential causes of the performance gap.
Several potential causes related to organization were identified in the literature on collaboration
around student achievement. Among these are (1) failing to communicate, organizationally, that
learning is the fundamental purpose, (2) failing to cultivate a culture of collaboration and (3)
failure to focus on results rather than intentions (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Additionally, failing to
build teams’ capacity to collaborate through job-embedded professional development (DuFour et
al., 2010) was assumed to be an organizational cause. Specifically, failing to provide site
administration and teachers with protocols and processes for collaborating around student
achievement was assumed to be a cause of the performance gap.
Organizational Survey Results
In total, the Collaboration Around Student Achievement Team Competency Survey,
which can be found in Appendix F, included 17 questions eliciting respondents’ assessments of
organizational factors related to collaboration around student achievement. Mean teacher
responses (n = 18) for each item, and the grand mean for the 17 organization items are reported
in Table 7. The grand mean for the 17 organization items was 60.90 on a scale of 0 to 100. As
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

114
was noted earlier, the mean for organization was substantially lower than the means for
knowledge and motivation. This warrants a closer examination of organizational factors. For this
reason, the four organization items with the lowest mean responses (i.e., the highest priority) will
be treated in further detail in the following paragraphs and a cross analysis of two concurrent
studies will be reviewed. The respective competency is in parenthesis at end of organization
question. The complete list of competencies on organization can be found in Appendix D.
Results from the survey suggest that there are four organizational gaps at the central
office level that were validated by quantitative and qualitative data gathered during interviews
with central office administrators, teachers and site administrators. The PUSD has experienced
many changes ranging from fiscal issues, staff turnover, leadership, implied state and federal
mandates related to disproportionality, and the depletion of support by community and
government due to economy. When there is high turnover, it is difficult for a district to establish
consistency and an organizational culture immediately. Organizational culture develops over
time and with specific strategies for success (Clark &Estes, 2008). It is not static and requires
that it be jointly created and revised by its stakeholders through careful and collegiate negotiation
(Clark &Estes, 2008).
As was noted earlier, the mean for Organization was significantly lower than the means
for Knowledge and Motivation. This warrants a closer examination of the Organizational factors.
For this reason, the four Organization items with the lowest mean responses (i.e., the highest
priority) will be treated in further detail in the following paragraphs and a cross analysis of two
concurrent studies will be reviewed. The respective competency is in parenthesis at end of
organization question. The complete list of competencies on can be found in the Appendix D.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

115
Table 7
Organization Item Results in Ascending Order by Means (n = 18)
Organization M SD
My team is provided the necessary resources to learn and grow professionally.
52.22 23.65
My team uses a systematic, collaborative process to develop common assessments that
are aligned with essential learning outcomes.
55.56 26.62
My team is provided with processes and resources that enable us to develop clarity
about the essential learning outcomes that all students are expected to achieve.
55.56 26.62
My team is provided with the time to develop clarity about the essential learning
outcomes that all students are expected to achieve.
55.56 30.14
Resource allocation criteria are consistently applied and managed.
56.11 26.15
My team is provided the necessary time to learn and grow professionally.
56.11 22.79
My team is provided structured opportunities to develop the clear actionable steps (i.e.,
action plans) necessary to produce the student achievement results we truly desire.
57.22 29.27
My team has access to a data management system that communicates to all
stakeholders the extent to which students are achieving essential learning outcomes.
57.78 33.70
My team is provided an environment where we can safely share and examine strengths
and weaknesses in individual and collective teaching.
58.89 30.27
My team is provided the systems, processes and/or resources necessary to provide
students with interventions for remediation and enrichment whenever there is a
demonstrated need.
60.00 26.79
Protocols, models, and/or other resources for determining the effectiveness of
interventions, have been available to my team.
60.56 29.60
My team has specific protocols and processes for analyzing common assessment data.
62.78 30.83
Intentional communication occurs between central office and school sites regarding
clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction.
64.44 22.02
Administration supports and facilitates collaboration time through helpful scheduling
arrangements.
65.56 31.10
My team consistently uses norms and protocols for working collaboratively to gather,
analyze, and transfer best practices across all team members.
65.56 22.02
Intentional communication occurs between central office and school sites surrounding
student achievement goals.
67.78 23.90
Central office sets clear goals and expectations for site performance.
69.44 23.38
School culture fosters the notion that, working collectively, we have the ability to
produce the student achievement results we truly desire.
75.00 20.07
Note. SD = standard deviation.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

116
Organization gap #1.
Survey results. On a scale of 0 to 100 with 0 indicating “Strongly Disagree” and 100
representing “Strongly Agree”, “my team is provided the necessary resources to learn and grow
professionally” was the organization item with the lowest mean response of 52.22. The data from
this item suggests that central office administrators do not feel that their team is provided with
the necessary resources to learn and grow in a manner, which would enable them to better
support their sites and primarily, students. In addition, it can also demonstrate that teams are not
provided opportunities to share best practices after attending conferences or trainings. Another
important factor that may be contributing to this mean being so low is the possibility that due to
lack of funding, teams are not being afforded the opportunity to attend valuable training in a time
when there are significant changes in curriculum such as the new Common Core, practices and
strategies for working with certain sub populations at risk of needing remediation, and funding.
Central office administrators need to know how to utilize their own resources, budgets and
staffing to maximize support to schools that are also limited in their resources.
Interview results. All four central office administrators listed resources as one of their
three wishes for making their collaborative team more effective. It resonated repeatedly
throughout the interviews even at times when the questions were to gage knowledge and skill
and motivation. During one interview, a member was asked a motivation questions but in turn,
the root was organizational. The interviewee stated:
“The ability to grow and to continue to learn is hindered by the lack of resources… the
difficulty in implementing things that we have developed…we become frustrated when
we are denied the resources that we need to get these important things implemented even
when they, Executive Leadership Team, (ELT) know it would be good for kids. These
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

117
kinds of things serve to demoralize a team…so more autonomy in terms of having a part
of resources that is ours to spend without restrictions is probably the biggest thing. More
alignment across the system, where all resources are aligned around one common goal
and teams operating in silos missing whole premise of education…. its for children.”
One central administrator went on to state:
“There are limited resources and the work rests on the shoulders of very few. Because of
the limited resources and the lack of focus on what the priorities are, we are in siloes and
seen as encroaching on the general fund. If our purpose is to educate all students, then
how is it possible that we are encroaching when we are attempting to create sustainable
instructional programs in the best interest of our students’…it does not make sense. We
just keep getting cut and denied the resources.”
Tri-level results. Within the top three organizational challenges as cited by the concurrent
teacher and site administrator projects (Carruthers, 2013; Salinas, 2013) was the need to have
time to learn and grow professionally. This confirms the need to focus on providing resources to
promote professional growth and development. If teams were provided the concrete processes,
were clearly communicated from the central office their level of defined autonomy to promote
accountability, and were provided the provision of adequate time true collaboration around
student achievement would be facilitated.
One site leader also stated that they wished they had time, not just after school, but also
for a time to go to other schools and…see a different perspective then just seeing your own
building. They thought that it would help. They went on to state that it would build the internal
capacity of the team. All three levels would benefit from concurrent training related to CLC’s
and best practices.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

118
Organization gap #2.
Survey results. My team is provided with processes and resources that enable us to
develop clarity about the essential learning outcomes that all students are expected to achieve”
was the organization item with the second lowest mean response, which was 55.56 in Table 4.3.
This questions ties into the aforementioned competency. If teams are not provided the process or
resources to understand what students are suppose to know if it is evident that the
communication of this will be message will not be uniform among central office level
staff/administrators to the site and to teachers. According to literature, district office tends to
send mixed messages creating a cacophony of competing interests (DuFour & Marzano, 2011).
In addition, it reaps confusion, frustration and lack of trust in the districts ability to know what is
right for students and to execute an effective plan of action. The central office is to serve the role
of a clearinghouse of best practices to be used throughout the district so that teams can learn
from one another. When teams at the district are not afforded the opportunity to have the
adequate resources necessary to carry out this charge, districts experience discord. Central office
needs to serve as the buffer to ensure schools stay on their journey to academic success.
Interview results. A central office administrator further depicts the need for resources
when they suggest that “people” in upper leadership needed to take the time to understand what
is going on in the district and they give opinions about things and how resources are spent that
are totally not aligned to where the district is going. They suggested that the District needs to
take the time to understand where instruction is headed.
Lastly, another interviewee from the central office stated that a budget of their own
would assist in allowing staff access to resources outside the district to assist with team
development and student achievement. They stated ‘there is always the need to ask for
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

119
permission to attend, to wait and see if its been approved, to write a proposal as to why you need
to attend…. it breaks down the efficiency of the work.”
Tri-level results. In a concurrent study by Carruthers (2013), with regard to resource
allocation, one teacher said, “there was a time that the state and district were flush with money.
They would actually pay teachers money to get training. There was all kind of incentive to
constantly learn new things and get exposure to other things. Now, the way life is, it’s a rat race.
We don’t get any sort of professional development outside of the campus.”
Organization gap #3.
Survey results. “My team is provided with the time to develop clarity about the essential
learning outcomes that all students are expected to achieve” was the organization item with the
third lowest mean response, which was 55.56. The literature has identified time as one the most
important factors for sustaining effective collaboration around student achievement. Closing staff
knowledge and skill gaps requires time and dedicated time. Also, in order to answer the first
question of Professional Learning Communities, What must all students know? (DuFour et al.,
2010), staff needs time to develop clarity about essential learning outcomes. This is fundamental
to the work of collaborative teams. It also supports the creation of common assessments and
promotes collaboration and consistency.
Interview results. One interviewee discussed that the time provided is not utilized in the
manner that it should be used. They state,
“We can meet for a lot of reasons but many of the meetings are not productive because
they do not focus on student achievement and learning outcomes for our students. If our
final goal is consistently about our students then every task that appears around that
becomes important and a priority. When things are not connected to that final goal,
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

120
people can really spend time and energy in nonproductive ways…If we are going to call a
meeting together than we make sure that we have put in the planning time to ensure that
agenda will be productive …we have to go to protocols …focused on the task.”
In addition, the team’s ability to have clarity around the essential learning outcomes was a key
knowledge and skill challenge identified earlier. In this section it related to the lack of time to
develop clarity not so much knowledge and skills. One central office administrator validated this
statement as a challenge when they were asked about their three wishes:
“I wish we had three to four hours a week to really work together. I wish leadership was
more available to meet with us at least on occasion…. just to hear and to affirm what we
are doing because I think that everyone would have more confidence and assurance if
they had a simple head nod from leadership who would actually sit with us for a length of
time.”
To further validate that time is needed to develop clarity around student learning outcomes from
another interviewee who suggested:
”There needs to be dedicated time that everyone commits to and leadership can help in
that the main excuse that I hear when we cannot get a common time is “because so and so
person told me I have to do this…. priorities and initiatives conflict and people are being
pulled for different things and we do not have a dedicated time which does not allow us
to establish team priorities and work collectively to meet the needs of students and
understand what we are all doing to meet those needs.”
In sum, these comments made by key central office administrators are unsettling and
concerning given they are charged with the instructional and academic success of 18,000 PUSD
students. Teams are to be provided the necessary time to meet to develop what is needed for
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

121
students and the resources to effectively function. In addition, resources when funneled to a few
concrete priorities of the District, all goals and objectives are focused on student learning and
student achievement. It alleviates the tensions of allocating unnecessary resources to programs,
initiatives or “false” priorities and keeps them in tune with overarching goals of the district. It is
a premise to which collaborative learning communities succeed.
Tri-level results. In the concurrent site administrator project by Salinas (2013) this was
also listed among their top organizational challenges. One-site leader stated, that it was difficult
to have uninterrupted time and space. They felt that they could do a better job if they could have
dedicated, uninterrupted time to better collaborate. They wanted more time and more focus.
Another site administrator stated that they would benefit from central office providing more
boundaries or protocols or menus of options so they did not have to create everything.
In the concurrent project by Carruthers (2013), one lead teacher expressed that, while the site
principal supports collaboration in word, the principal has not provided adequate time for
collaboration to take place. Another teacher lamented, “It’s a bad year to ask me these things
[about collaboration]. I feel the lack of time more this year and last year. So I don’t know if
that’s district directive, or if that’s school site, or what it is, but we’ve met less these last two
years. … We just haven’t met really…. and a lot of that is missed”. Standardization to a certain
level surrounding common planning time is of critical importance in establishing CLC’s.
Organization gap #4.
Survey results. “My team uses a systematic, collaborative process to develop common
assessments that are aligned with essential learning outcomes,” was the organization item with
the fourth lowest mean response, which was 55.56. This question also ties to the earlier
organizational challenges in that if teams are not using the systematic processes to collaborate to
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

122
develop quality assessments, there will be difficulties in understanding what students are
learning. In addition, communication of this will not be uniform among central office level
staff/administrators to the site and to teachers. As stated earlier in organizational gap #2,
competing messages from various departments within central office are a norm in low
performing districts (DuFour and Marzano, 2011). As a central office it is critical to establish
clear processes at all levels surrounding essential learning outcomes.
Interview results. All four central office administrators concurred that there was a need
for a systematic way to collaborate, as the current process has not operated effectively. One
central office administrator stated that collaborative time with their colleagues at central office
has become better since the new leadership has come on board but competing priorities and
interests continue to derail the quality work they are attempting to accomplish. There is a great
amount of respect among central office administrators and it is evident that they attempt to
collaborate every opportunity they have even if it is for 15 minutes of their day.
Tri-level results. As cited by the concurrent teacher and site administrator projects
Carruthers (2013) and Salinas (2013) and as mentioned through the Knowledge and Skills,
motivation and organizational sections of this project, both teachers and site leaders would
benefit from the central office developing the processes and methods to collaborate around
student achievement with the greatest need being the development of quality assessments that
reflect the essential learning outcomes to be measured. These parameters are the one of many of
the essential responsibilities of effective school districts. Teachers and site administrators
concurred that this need, if met, would assist in raising their students’ achievement as
assessments would the competencies that needed to be retaught to ensure full comprehension.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

123
Summary of the Strengths and Challenges for Central Office Administrators
In relation to organization, there are several strengths exhibited by the PUSD central
office staff. Overall, the team has moved toward a more collaborative model from one that was
structured on putting out fires and determining items to be placed on a calendar. There are more
formal processes during team meetings and individuals are provided more structure than what
was provided with the past administration. The team has also developed a high level of trust in
one another’s abilities and strengths to accomplish tasks assigned. With greater empowerment to
create and take initiative, coupled with the understanding of roles and responsibilities, there is a
sense of camaraderie and unity to accomplish tasks assigned and sharing of best practices. In
addition, all four interviewees mentioned that the cross training occurring during weekly
meetings provided a deeper understanding of what each individual department is responsible for
in relation to the strategic plan and to one another. This was essential for the central office staff
to functionality given their increased job duties and responsibilities. With a few central office
administrators, building collective capacity is integral to their success as a team.
Of all three dimensions, the organizational dimension is deeply rooted as the
underpinnings of several motivational and knowledge and skills gap and had the lowest
dimension mean. This was validated by quantitative and qualitative measures. Additionally, the
results of two concurrent studies (Carruthers, 2013; Llamas 2013) suggest that organizational
factors represent the largest impediment, as PUSD pursues its organizational goal of
implementing consistent and effective collaboration around student achievement districtwide.
For the purposes of this study, there will be a focus on three organizational gaps, which are
intertwined with site administration, and teacher’s gaps. There is a clear understanding that all
three levels, central office administration, site administration and teachers are in need resources
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

124
not only to support their professional growth and development but also the time to develop
common assessments that are in alignment at all three levels of the hierarchy. In addition, teams
need to be provided the processes and resources to create assessments to gage whether learning
outcomes are being met. In addition, additional time and structured time to meet is an additional
apparent gap, which is plaguing all three levels. When individuals are not provided the
opportunity to meet and collaborate effectively, teams are not reaping the benefits of the strength
of their team and building the internal capacity to create high quality assessments, measures and
practices in the best interest of students.
According to DuFour and Marzano (2011), the districts main task is to provide school
teams with the resources, processes and structured time to collaborate around data, student work
samples, and the creation of high quality assessments that are in alignment with learning
outcomes. Lastly, although intentional communication is not listed as one of the top gaps for
central office, both site administration and teachers listed it as one of their top two organizational
gaps. Central office administration ranked it among its top organizational competencies along
with providing set goals and expectations. As found by Carruthers (2013) and Salinas (2013), it
is evident that both levels strongly believe that the central office is not providing them with the
intentional communication in relation to student learning outcomes, methods of collaboration
and the clear non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction. In addition, this is evident in both
concurrent study results validating that inherent tensions with their teams have arisen due to lack
of processes and methods to collaborate. Thus, the need to build greater internal, intentional
communication will need to be addressed in order to the PUSD to create the systemic change to
ensure successful collaboration around student achievement.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

125
Specific solutions to the gaps in the organizational dimension will be provided in the
discussion of Inquiry Question Two. Based on the appropriate evaluation for each organizational
gap (Clark & Estes, 2008), the most critical gaps to be addressed to successfully help students
achieve.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

126
Chapter Five: Recommended Research-Based Solutions And Implementation
Author: Sonia Llamas
The overall purpose of this project was to assist Pasadena Unified School District
(PUSD) in closing the performance gap relative to its organizational goal of institutionalizing
effective and consistent collaboration around student achievement throughout the district.
Toward that end, the project was driven by two research questions: (1) For PUSD central office
administrators, what are the causes, in the areas of knowledge and skills, motivation, and the
organizational dimension, that contribute to the gap between PUSD’s organizational goal for
collaboration around student achievement, and its current performance in that regard? (2) For
PUSD central office administrators, what are potential solutions, in the areas of knowledge and
skills, motivation, and the organizational dimension, to address the causes of the performance
gap and thereby close it?
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Process Model was used as a guide and
framework to help PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize collaborative learning
communities throughout the district. Following the gap analysis model, PUSD identified the goal
and the researcher sought to identify the gap between the desired outcome and current
performance. Scanning interviews and observations helped identify potential causes of the gap,
and along with previous research, a review of literature guided the construction of a survey and a
set of questions to test potential causes of the gap. The gaps were identified through staff
surveys, and central office administrator interviews. For the purposes of this chapter, Research
Question #2 will be addressed.
Thus, this chapter identifies potential solutions the Pasadena Unified School District can
adopt in order to reach their goal of districtwide implementation of collaborative learning
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

127
communities throughout the district. This chapter will also aid the district in the implementation
process of the solutions. The following Chapter Six will discuss how to evaluate the solutions in
order to ensure the solutions are indeed helping to close the identified gaps.
Solutions
Inquiry Question #2: What are the potential solutions to address PUSD central office
administrators’ challenges in knowledge and skills, motivation, and the organizational
dimension, and thereby support PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize effective
collaboration around student achievement?
Knowledge and Skill
Both the survey and interviews resulted in validating the assumed knowledge and skills
gaps at the central office administrator level. There were two significant gaps revealed, which
will be addressed in this section. First, there appears to be a strong knowledge and skill gap
related to procedural knowledge and the realization of the responsibilities needed to carry out
effective collaboration in creating high quality assessments. The second significant gap to be
addressed is the team’s ability to operate a data management system to store and communicate
assessment data. If staff within the PUSD do not know how to create the quality assessments
needed to measure essential student learning outcomes and do not know how to use data
management systems to produce useful data about whether students met these essential learning
outcomes, student achievement within the PUSD will not improve. In addition, the PUSD must
close these gaps in knowledge to successfully address a broader knowledge base for these critical
competencies to improve student achievement.
According to Clark & Estes (2008), there are three critical factors related to performance
gaps. As cited by Clark & Estes (2008), the three factors are: people’s knowledge and skills,
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

128
their motivation to achieve set goals, and organizational barriers. The roots of the problem for
Pasadena Unified School District stem from all three-core concepts: Knowledge and Skill,
Motivation and Organization.
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) categorize knowledge according to four domains:
factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge.
As knowledge solutions are crafted, then, deficits in each of these four knowledge domains must
be considered. This warrants a more in-depth analysis to determine the extent to which deficits in
each of the four knowledge domains are contributing to PUSD’s performance gap. Such an
analysis is important because, based on the type of knowledge deficit being treated, specific
types of solutions are indicated.
Learning is a change in knowledge that takes place within the learner, thereby, changing
the learner as well (Mayer, 2011). According to Mayer (2011), “learning is caused by the
learner’s experience in the environment” (p. 14). Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) Taxonomy,
lists four general types of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive. All of
these types of knowledge were discussed in detail in Chapters Three and Four. In order to design
appropriate solutions to the knowledge and skills gaps of the central office administration in the
PUSD, it was first necessary to identify the type of cognitive process that is needed to meet the
learning objective (Mayer, 2011). The solutions for gaps in knowledge and skills must be
appropriate to both the knowledge dimensions and the cognitive processes. Using the matrix
created by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) as a framework, the following are the cognitive
processes that will help guide the appropriate solutions for the learning needed (Rueda, 2011)
based on the central office administration’s evaluation of their teams knowledge and skills gaps
(Clark & Estes, 2008):
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

129
1. Remember: Recalling relevant knowledge from long-term memory.
2. Understand: Constructing meaning from instruction.
3. Apply: Utilization of a procedure in a specific situation.
4. Analyze: Breaking something down into smaller parts and determining how they are
related to one another.
5. Evaluate: Making judgments based on selected criteria or standards.
6. Create: Making a new structure, pattern, or whole from distinct parts.
In addition, solutions for gaps in the learning and knowledge dimension, related to central
office administrators depend on the type of knowledge needed by the staff. Based on the validate
causes of the knowledge gap, there was a lack of procedural knowledge needed to create high
quality assessments. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) emphasizes that procedural knowledge
reflects the knowledge of “how” and the knowledge of different processes needed to carry out a
task. Schraw (1998) defines procedural knowledge as knowing how to do a task. Central office
administrators with high procedural knowledge are able to perform a task automatically without
having to think of each step. In addition, staff with high procedural knowledge is more likely to
be familiar with many different strategies and they know how to sequence strategies. These
individuals will tend to integrate and categorize new information.
Create high quality assessments. According to Clark and Estes (2008), when people do
not know how to accomplish their performance goals and when future challenges will require
innovative problem solving this indicates a need for information, job aids, training, and
continuing and advanced education. Therefore, staff need the procedural knowledge about the
how to create high quality assessments, how to use these assessments to measure whether
students have met essential learning outcomes, and know the connections between high quality
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

130
assessment and academic achievement. Since staff are not aware of how to create high quality
assessments, central office administration need to focus on providing all teachers, site
administrators and central office administrators with written information about how to create
high quality assessments and continue throughout the year to explain what is expected of them in
terms of assessments. There are no clear illustrations of assessment expectations visible to any
stakeholder at the three levels. Job aids can be utilized in the form of step-by-step procedures on
creating standardized assessments, which clearly explain essential learning outcomes that need to
be measured on a weekly, monthly, quarterly and semester basis. It would be beneficial to
determine if there are more causes within the subset of knowledge: factual, procedural,
conceptual and metacognitive. But the main gap is in the knowledge dimension of “how to”
which is procedural knowledge. Utilizing Clark and Estes (2008), the solution is training. We
need multiple knowledge types to create solutions.
An empirically based solution for lack of procedural knowledge was found in the studies
conducted by Merrill (2002). Merrill (2002) proposes five principles found in the most powerful
design systems that promote learning. The five principles of instructional methods are described
as follows:
1) Provide realistic field-based problems for students to solve;
2) Give students analogies and examples that relate their relevant prior knowledge to
new learning;
3) Offer clear and complete demonstrations of how to perform key tasks and solve
authentic problems;
4) Insist on frequent practice opportunities during training to apply what is being
learned (by performing tasks and solving problems) while receiving corrective
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

131
feedback; and
5) Require application practice that includes “part task” (practicing small chunks of
larger tasks) but also “whole tasks” (applying as much of what is learned as possible
to solve the complex problems that represent challenges encountered in operational
environments) both during and after instruction. (Clark, Yates, Early and Moulton,
2010)
Thus, a possible solution to a training gap is to provide professional development training
for teachers, site administrators and central office administration on how to create effective
assessments utilizing Merrill’s (2002) five principles. Effective training methods are those that
include the use of an authentic problem where learners prior knowledge about the subject
material to be covered is activated, task and performance demonstrated, and they are given time
to integrate practice into their own work (Merrill, 2002). When these practices or instructional
methods/designs are integrated into structured training, training effectiveness is increased.
Merrill (2002) further describes a study reported in a conference paper by Barklay, Gur, and Wu
(2004) who analyzed the extent to which these five principles were included in the hundreds of
training courses presented on over 1400 web sites in five different nations, one being the U.S. He
found that the best training courses included only half of the principles illustrated above.
Training that is based on knowledge and skills captured by experts practicing skill, makes for a
more effective professional development (Clark et al., 2010). This therefore means that the
efficacy of professional training will be increased when experts at creating assessment, are
utilized to present or participate in the professional development activity.
The content for demonstrating “how to,” might be derived from Cognitive Task Analysis
(CTA) (Clark & Estes, 1996). CTA captures both the overt observable behavior and the covert
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

132
cognitive functions behind difficult problem/tasks to form an integrated whole (Chipman,
Schraagen, & Shalin, 2000). It captures the unobservable judgments through the lens of the
expert. Thus, a valuable approach to task analysis is to capture both the observable actions and
the underlying “cognitive” knowledge experts use to successfully and consistently perform a
complex task (Clark & Estes, 1996). Clark, Feldon, van Merrienboer, Yates, and Early (2008)
describe a relatively straightforward CTA method demonstrated to be effective for capturing
both the conceptual knowledge and procedural skills experts use to solve complex problems. The
CTA method uses semi-structured interviews with multiple subject matter experts (SMEs) who
have demonstrated consistent and successful proficiency in performing a task over a long period
of time. In addition, these SMEs have not served as instructors because instructors tend to report
what they teach but not necessarily what they do (Clark et al., 2008). CTA would assist in
capturing the decisions experts make with automaticity to accomplish a task or goal. This step-
by-step procedure would assist in the reduction of cognitive load and promote learning for all
levels. With this method, CTA is generally performed in stages in which a trained specialist first
interviews at least three SMEs with recent successful experience to capture:
1. The sequence of stages to perform a complex job or task.
2. The equipment or materials required to perform the job or task.
3. The procedural steps about when and how to make decisions and perform actions.
4. The conceptual knowledge (concepts, processes, and principles) required as pre-
requisite knowledge to perform the complex job or task.
5. Quality or proficiency standards required for expert performance.
The experts edit and correct their own information, which is then aggregated into one “gold
standard procedure”, in which any differences are resolved by the group or by a fourth, more
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

133
senior, expert (Yates, Sullivan, & Clark, 2012). At every step, clarification is elicited to ensure
succinct steps are formulated to carry out a task. Optimal instructional design methods, then,
should integrate both cognitive task analysis (CTA) and Merrill’s (2002) five principles.
Cohen and Hill (2001) describe two approaches that proved successful in California's
statewide reform, which introduced a new mathematics curriculum and assessments. Both
approaches gave teachers opportunities to actively learn about new mathematics content as well
as to practice and share their new knowledge. The first professional learning activity engaged
teachers in learning the mathematics in the new curriculum units. Teachers then taught the units
and returned to share their experiences with other teachers and to problem solve while preparing
to teach subsequent units. In the second effective approach, teachers evaluated student work on
assessments directly linked to the reform curriculum. The teachers were guided through
conceptual roadblocks students faced on the assessments, and they learned how to anticipate and
address these misunderstandings. In addition, teaching practices and student learning are more
likely to be transformed by professional development that is sustained, coherent, and intense
(Cohen & Hill, 2001; Weiss & Pasley, 2006). The traditional episodic, fragmented approach
does not allow for rigorous, cumulative learning (Knapp, Copeland, & Talbert, 2003). In a
review of 9 studies, Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, and Shapley (2007) found that sustained and
intensive professional development was related to student achievement. The three studies of
professional development lasting l4 or fewer hours showed no effects on student learning,
whereas other studies of programs offering more than 14 hours of sustained teacher learning
opportunities showed significant positive effects. The largest effects were found for programs
offering between 30 and 100 hours spread out over 6–12 months.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

134
If training provided for teachers, site administration and central office administration is
informed by cognitive task analysis (content) and Merrill’s (2002) five principles of instructional
design (methodology), staff will develop the knowledge and skill to develop high quality
assessments, and be able to integrate this knowledge and skill into their professional practice.
Use of data management systems. In addition, there is an entire aspect of knowledge
and skill related to the use of data management systems such as DataDirector and AERIES
database system that needs to be addressed with central office administrations staff. Not all staff
has been thoroughly trained in the database. Central office administrators felt that they did not
have a high level of competency on how to use the data management systems and did not know
how to use assessment data during team meetings. Central office staff will need specific training
of the data management programs in order to aggregate data and communicate this information
back to school sites. This will include knowledge on how to access the online data management
portal and run reports, how to flag students who are not meeting essential learning outcomes, and
where to refer students that are in need of remediation and enrichment. Central office
administrators that are running the reports need to know how to communicate the data that is
being extracted, to site administrators and teacher teams in a timely manner. Both site
administrators and teachers reported this as a deficit by the central office as well. Both alluded to
the fact that quarterly assessments are requested of school sites but there is never feedback to the
sites around whether students met outcomes or whether schools met benchmarks. Also, teachers
understand the importance of assessing their student with quarterlies but also stated that they do
not align with what is being taught in the classroom.
Datnow et al. (2007) recommends four key strategies to empower educators. They are (1)
investing in professional development, (2) providing support for staff in how to use data and
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

135
modeling data use and data discussions, (3) providing time for teacher collaboration, and (4)
connecting educators across schools to share data and improvement strategies (p. 7). In
conducting professional development on how to create high quality assessments aligned to the
essential learning outcomes, it is important for the district’s administrators to provide ongoing
training and coaching support to the school administrators and teachers. This would ensure the
buy in and competency of staff in the development of high quality assessments.
Lastly, program training with teachers, site administrator and central office administrators
can be correlated with data on student achievement and testing. Ensuring that assessments
measure outcomes effectively will assist teachers and site administration in providing targeted
intervention to students with the greatest needs as well as those in need of enrichment. This is a
powerful tool for sites and central office to review daily, weekly and quarterly. As suggested in
Datnow et al. (2007) when educators become more knowledgeable about data use, they evaluate
their existing capacities and can create better-planned interventions for their students. Teachers
will continue with certain ineffective instructional strategies and may not make advances with
their students unless they have the relevant knowledge and skills with regards to data use.
Motivation
Survey and interview results validate the assumed motivation gaps at the central office
administrator level. In PUSD, there were two significant motivation gaps revealed. Overall, all
three levels are motivated to support student learning (Carruthers, 2013; Salinas, 2013).
However, there are factors that inhibit one’s active choice, persistence or mental effort (Clark &
Estes, 2008) that contribute to motivated performance. First, there appears to be a strong
motivation gap related to the collective belief that central office administrators can not
effectively provide students with enrichment opportunities when there is a demonstrated need.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

136
The second significant gap to be addressed is the weak belief among school site administrators in
their collective ability to identify specific knowledge and skill deficits that inhibit their teams
from achieving the outcomes for which they are accountable.
Collective efficacy in providing students with enrichment opportunities when there
is a demonstrated need. In PUSD, there appears to be an evident motivation gap related to how
the central office believes its teams are functioning and how the teams believe in their abilities to
meet goals. Overall, all three levels are motivated to assist students, but there a limit to that
motivation when staff is not acknowledged, resources are not provided and staff members are not
provided the guidelines for working as collective and collaborative teams. The level of
motivation is usually replaced by distrust, lack of clear focus and poor communication among all
three levels, which inhibits effective collaboration around student achievement. In all four central
office level administrator interviews, it is evident that colleagues and collaboration are valued
but the sharing of best practices is halted because of the inordinate number of tasks that are
assigned to them. As a central office staff, it is critical to know and believe that your team can
provide guidance to schools and teachers on how to effectively provide enrichment opportunities
to all of their students. If it is only provided to those schools that are performing well, then the
issue of equity and access come into play. Potential solutions to building a team’s collective
efficacy will be discussed in the subsequent paragraphs also addressing the issue of collective
efficacy.
Collective efficacy in identifying deficits inhibiting essential learning outcomes.
Central office administrators need to find effective ways to increase belief in their collective
ability to identify specific knowledge and skills deficits that inhibit their teams from achieving
the essential learning outcomes for which they are accountable. If not addressed, then the
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

137
professional capacity of teams will not increase and student achievement within the PUSD will
not improve.
Knowledge and skill issues can be at the root of performance issues and can lead to
motivational gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). Therefore, PUSD must close these gaps in knowledge
and skill to identify essential learning outcomes to increase proficiency of the critical team
competencies leading to improved student achievement. Developing skills alone will not be
sufficient to change the instructional outcomes. Chong and Kong (2013) describe the importance
of applying the will to persist, even in the face of adversity. Skill acquisition, along with the
positive belief about the ability to persist through challenges, will ensure progress toward the
desired outcome (Bandura, 1997; Chong & Kong, 2013). Given the skill and will, PUSD must
close these gaps to successfully achieve a broader knowledge base for these critical
competencies to improve student achievement.
For a team to exist, team members must play different roles and bring a valued skillset to
the table (Clark, 2005). Those different skills are required to accomplish the stated goals of the
team (Clark, 2005). A team is an “interdependent group of individuals, each possessing a
different set of skills but who collectively possess all of the skills required to achieve team goals”
(Clark, 2005, p. 13). Motivation is required to support the persistence within a team in the face of
distractions and competing work priorities. According to Clark’s (1999) Commitment and
Necessary Effort (CANE) model, commitment problems occur when people resist assigning
adequate priority to important job task. Commitment will increase when the team has the ability
to accomplish the goal and the team will be permitted to accomplish it (Bandura, 1997). If there
is doubt in the organizations willingness to let the team use their skill, commitment will decrease
(Clark, 2005).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

138
One possible solution to instill confidence is to increase the staffs’ collective efficacy.
According to Bandura (1997), collective efficacy refers to the self-efficacy of a group, team or
larger social entity or system. It includes both the perceived capabilities of the individual
members and group members’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the links between tasks, skills,
and roles (Schunk et al., 2008). As noted by Bandura (1997), collective efficacy can affect the
purpose of a system, its commitment to seek what it wants to accomplish and how well team
members work together to collectively produce the results set by the organization. In addition, it
can effect a teams ability to charter through difficult situations, further derailing efforts to meet
specified goals. People are more likely to be motivated to engage, persist and apply the necessary
mental effort needed in certain tasks when they believe their team will be successful (Bandura,
1997). People are also less likely to be responsive to the organization when there is uncertainty
about a specific course of action and the degree of intrinsic reinforcement already present in the
situation (Bandura, 1997). Effective solutions to increase collective efficacy may include
incorporating effective feedback regarding competence, developing productive goals for learning
the task, focusing on the development of competence, expertise and skill, and providing a mental
rehearsal prior to practice. In addition, providing organizational and management structures that
encourage personal and social responsibility and prove a safe, comfortable and predictable
environment build efficacy (Harney, Hogan, & Broome, 2012). Another effective strategy is the
use of cooperative and collaborative groups to allow for opportunities to attain both social and
professional goals (Matthews, Whittaker, Moran, Helsley, & Judge, 2012).
According to Rueda (2011), organizational issues can be at the root of performance
problems and can lead to additional motivational and learning gaps. As validated in this project,
central office administrators interviewed have the collective capabilities in knowledge and skill
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

139
to carry out the task required of them but viewed the lack of processes, protocols and resources,
the unclear or changing expectations and goals, and negative feedback as deterrents to their work
(Clark & Estes, 2008). These barriers are linked to organizational issues, which impact staff
motivation. Organizational barriers will be addressed in the next section.
Organizational Barriers/Culture
The following section related to the organizational dimension is deeply rooted in the
underpinnings of several motivational and knowledge and skills gaps. The survey and the
interview results validate the assumed motivation gaps at the central office administrator level.
Four significant gaps were revealed. The organizational dimension had the lowest grand mean
of the three dimensions. For the purposes of this project, there was a focus on four organizational
gaps within central office administrators. They were closely intertwined with site administration
and teachers’ gaps in this same dimension. For the purposes of this section, all four gaps will be
addressed and intertwined among the three levels.
Resources to learn and grow. Closely related to time is the need to provide
accompanying resources that support professional learning. Once again, all three levels converge
around this organizational gap. According to DuFour and Marzano (2005), school teams must be
provided with adequate resources, processes and structured time to collaborate around data,
expectations surrounding essential learning outcomes, and high quality assessments that are in
alignment with learning outcomes. School site administrators need to analyze and evaluate
present allocation of resources to determine if they align with school and district goals.
Develop collaboration capacity. According to DuFour and Marzano (2011), the districts
main task is to provide school teams with the resources, processes and structured time to
collaborate around data, expectations surrounding essential learning outcomes, and the creation
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

140
of high quality assessments that are in alignment with learning outcomes. There is a clear
understanding that all three levels, central office administration, site administration and teachers
are in need resources not only to support their professional growth and development but they
also the time to engage in team building activities as well as to develop common assessments
that are in alignment at all three levels of the PUSD hierarchy. When individuals are not
provided the opportunity to meet and collaborate, teams are unable to building the internal
capacity necessary to perform at levels that are beneficial to the students they educate.
Once per week, all schools in PUSD have a shortened instructional day for teacher
professional development. Half of these days are designated as administration-driven ‘A-
Mondays’, and the other half are teacher-driven ‘B-Mondays’. If the district has a goal for
teacher professional development to take place within the context of collaborative learning
communities, it is recommended that central office leadership reflect on how best to
communicate their valuing of this goal through the manner in which A-Monday professional
development time is utilized. To be plain, it is recommended that A-Monday time be used to
engage collaborative teams in collaboration-based professional development that strengthens
teams in order to increase their capacity to impact student achievement.
To begin the process, it is recommended that central office administrators collaborate
with school site leaders to develop clear, non-negotiable goals regarding professional learning to
improve school site administrator and teacher collaboration. The ensuing design of professional
learning activities should employ the two-phase Thompson & Wiliam (2008) approach, which
includes (a) initial exposure and motivation, and (b) ongoing guided learning, practice,
reflection, and adjustment. In addition, the existing EdLeader 21 relationship should be fostered
to entertain best practices from other districts that have successfully built collaboration capacity.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

141
Resources and time to clarify outcomes for students. Additional structured time
beyond that which is allocated for professional development is needed for developing clarity
around essential learning outcomes for all students. This gap is apparent at all three levels. When
individuals are not provided the opportunity to meet and effectively collaborate, teams are not
reaping the benefits of their team and building the internal capacity to create high quality
assessments, measures and practices in the best interest of students they educate (DuFour &
Marzano, 2011; Eaker & Keating, 2012). School site administrators must also analyze and
evaluate the existing use of time to determine as it pertains to collaboration to clarify essential
learning outcomes for students.
Intentional communication. Although intentional communication is not listed as one of
the top gaps for central office, both site administration and teachers listed it as one of their top
two organizational gaps between their levels of communication with central office. Central office
administration ranked it among its top five organizational competencies along with setting clear
goals and expectations. As cited in the concurrent project on teachers (Carruthers, 2013) and site
administrators (Salinas, 2013), it is evident that both levels strongly believe that the central office
is not providing them with the intentional communication in relation to student learning
outcomes and the clear non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction. Thus, the need to build
greater internal, intentional communication will need to be addressed in order to the PUSD to
create the systemic change to ensure successful collaboration around student achievement. A
possible solution to increasing collaboration and organizational growth is for central office
administration to create and communicate the essential instructional goals that schools are to
follow. The primary goal of central office administration is to provide site administration and
teachers with the processes, resources and protocol to successfully collaborate around student
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

142
achievement (Childress et al., 2007). Central office creates the districtwide strategy, which
requires building a coherent organization that enable people at all levels to implement their piece
of the strategy (Childress et al., 2006). An effective solution would be to create improved
methods of communication to schools and teachers related to how they must collaborate, the
protocol they are to follow, and resources in the form of professional development and websites
to ensure that operationalized terms/language is standardized on all campuses, among grade
levels and subject areas. Implementing professional development trainings utilizing Merrill’s
Principle’s of Instruction, creating a collaboration toolkit consisting of team building resources,
realigning resources around student achievement and establishing goals that align with state
mandates and school improvement plans provide avenues for immediate growth.
In order to improve communication within the District, it must be deliberate in its efforts
to teach teachers and site leaders to collaborate. Ideally, the superintendent must work with
district leadership and site leadership to ensure that teachers at every school site have the time to
meet weekly with other teachers to discuss their best practices (Thessin & Starr, 2011).
According to Fullan (2001) principals should meet monthly with other administrators to stay
abreast of current advances in curriculum, instruction and assessment. The Superintendent and
the Board must create non-negotiable goals around collaboration that are clearly communicated
to district administrators, principals, teachers, each individual school and student subgroups.
There must be an expectation that all levels of the organization will utilize research-based
methods for meeting these goals (Crafton and Kaiser, 2011).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

143
Table 8
Summary of Causes, Solutions, and Implementation of the Solutions
Causes Solutions Implementation
Knowledge and Skills
• Lack of procedural
knowledge.
• Central office
administrators (COA)
do not know how to
create high quality
assessment to
measure essential
learning outcomes of
students
• Central office
administrators do not
know how to use data
management systems
to store and
communicate
assessment data
• Increase central office
administrators procedural
knowledge of how to create
high quality assessments by
subject areas and grade
levels (Merrill, 2002; Clark
& Estes, 2008; Yates &
Clark, 2008)
• Provide training to all
central office
administrators, site
administrators and teachers
on how to create high
quality assessments using
Merrill’s principles of
instruction (Childress et al.,
2007; Thessin & Starr,
2011)
• Provide training to central
office administrators on how
to use existing data
management systems to
store and communicate
assessment data. (Childress
et al., 2007; Datnow et al.,
2007; Honig & Coburn,
2008); McLaughlin &
Talbert, 2010)
• Find subject area experts in the area of the
development of high quality subject area and
grade level assessment and conduct a
Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA) with a SME
• Create a CTA Job Aid for respective levels
with the information provided by expert
• Incorporate a checklist that helps with
planning, monitoring and evaluating students
for meeting the essential learning outcomes
• Expand workshops on assessment creation for
respective levels and subject areas twice a
month

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

144
Table 8 (continued)
Summary of Causes, Solutions, and Implementation of the Solutions
Causes Solutions Implementation
Motivation
• Central office
administration does
not feel that they can
provide students with
enrichment
opportunities when
there is a
demonstrated need.
• Central office
administrators do not
feel that their team
can identify specific
knowledge and skill
deficits that inhibit
them from achieving
the outcomes for
which they are
accountable.
• Promote collective
efficacy of the team by
providing timely feedback
to develop mastery
experiences (Bandura,
1997; Hoy & Tshannen-
Moran, 2000)
• Promote team
commitment by providing
defined autonomy,
mastery, and purpose
around instruction (Clark,
1998; Kay & Greenhill,
2011)
• Support to be provided to
central office, school site
leadership and teachers
with the necessary
resources they need to
complete tasks (Clark &
Estes, 2008)
• Provide clear non negotiable goals for
school sites and teachers
• Provide necessary resources to complete
tasks
• Offer mastery experiences opportunities
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

145
Table 8 (continued)
Summary of Causes, Solutions, and Implementation of the Solutions

Causes Solutions Implementation
Organization
• COA is not
provided the
resources to learn
and grow
professionally.
• COA does not use
a systematic,
collaborative
process to
develop common
assessments that
are aligned with
the essential
learning
outcomes.
• COA is not
provided the
processes and
resources to
develop clarity
about the essential
learning outcomes
that all students
are expected to
achieve.
• COA is not
provided the time
to develop clarity
about the essential
learning outcomes
that all students
are expected to
achieve.
• Change the culture of the
organization to
emphasize that academic
instructional goals are at
the focus of all decisions
made for the district
including fiscal
considerations (Childress
et al., 2006; Clark &
Estes, 2008; DuFour &
Marzano, 2011; Foord &
Haar, 2012).
• Increase communication
with site leadership and
teachers to improve
confidence and accuracy
of information that is
being distributed
throughout the district
related to CLC
implementation (Elmore,
2003; Hoy and
Tshannen-Moran, 2000;
NSFR, 2012; Waters &
Cameron, 2006)
• Assist site leadership and
teachers with building
their capacity within their
respective teams as well as
their individual growth by
providing necessary staff
development (Childress et
al., 2007; Crafton &
Kaiser, 2011; Darling
Hammond, 2009; DuFour
et al., 2010)
• Write and feature articles on CLC’s and school
highlights in employee newsletters, and initiate an
Online Learning Forum/ bulletin board for staff to
share issues and solutions.
v Provide resources and literature such
as Five Dysfunctions of a Team
(Lencioni, 2002)
• Expand training for K-12 CRW leaders and others
on managing CLCs.
• Customize CLC training to individual schools as
needed.
• At each level, offer CLC institutes inviting school
leads.
v Provide time at CRT meetings to
discuss successes and issues during the
CLC time
• Develop a central office CLC steering committee
to develop outcomes and expectations of CLCs
• COA periodically visit CLCs to monitor
implementation and gauge the type of discussions
that are occurring and issues that arise (visits
primarily by the Chief Academic Officer and ILT
staff
v Centralize meeting opportunities and
planning time for CLCs to meet
• Conduct another survey to isolate the types of
support and delivery method staff need at the
various levels.
v Meeting with principals, Resource
teachers, data teams, and CRW
members
• Discuss what differentiated support should be
available for new teachers versus CRW leads.
• Conduct
another
study
in
collaboration
with

USC
Rossier
School
of
Education
to
evaluate

resource
allocation.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

146
Table 9
Summary of Organizations Main Goal, Short-Term Goals, Cascading Goals, and Performance Goals
Organizational Goal: To institutionalize consistent and effective collaboration around student achievement
districtwide.
Goal 1: Central office will
evaluate the current allocation of
resources to ensure that
instructional goals a securely
funded to support student
achievement such as expansion of
CRW.
Goal 2: Central Office
administration will expand to
provide differentiated
professional development
opportunities to all school sites
by Spring 2013.
Goal 3: Central Office
Administration will develop a
vehicle to effectively communicate
CLC strategies and expectation by
Fall 2013.
Cascading Goal 1:
Central office will evaluate
current levels of spending and
minimize initiatives to ensure
focus on two-core initiative for
the 2013-2014 school year.
Cascading Goal 2:
Central office will administer
another survey to determine
training needs in order to create
a differentiated support plan to
move CLC’s to the next level at
their school site by Fall 2013.

Cascading Goal 3:
Central office will create a CLC
Steering committee composed of site
administrators and teacher leaders to
support CLC development, provide
guidelines for teachers and site
leaders, and make recommendations
for next steps.
Performance Goal:
Central office will create a Theory
of Action for CLC work with
clear non-negotiable goals each
core initiative by Summer 2013.
Performance Goal:
Central office administrators will
conduct classroom observations
to monitor CLC progress and
implementation monthly
beginning Spring 2013.
Performance Goal:
Central office administration will be
able to develop and communicate
essential learning outcomes to school
sites and teachers by the Spring
semester of 2013.

Performance Goal:
Central office staff will set
timelines for site leadership to
monitor implementation of the
two core initiatives.
Performance Goal:
Based on the survey results,
CRW facilitators will provide
training once a month at their
school sites to build internal
capacity beginning Fall 2013.

Performance Goal:
CLC Steering committee will
examine existing improvement
processes such as data team models
and team learning process every
month beginning Summer 2013.
Performance Goal:
Central office will conduct CTA’s
with SME’s to create job aids for
staff in the creation of
instructional tools to carry of
goals such as high quality
assessments to measure student
achievement.
Performance Goal:
Central office administrators will
participate in a retreat to
operationalize components of
CLC and train facilitators on 8
voluntary, 6 hours Saturday
sessions monthly beginning
Spring 2013.
Performance Goal:
Central office will create a website
which will contain a CLC toolkit
consisting of articles, protocols,
instructional goal template, CLC
minutes template, action plan
template and CLC rubric by Spring
2013.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

147
Table 10
Summary of Performance Goals, Timelines, and Measurement of Goals

Stakeholder Performance Goal Goal Measure
Central office administrators will participate in a retreat to
operationalize components of CLC and train facilitators on
8 voluntary, 6 hours Saturday sessions monthly.

Implement by: Spring 2013.

Evaluate Progress by: Beginning of Fall Semester
Progress will be monitored by ILT
and CRW facilitators by asking
questions related to components of
CLC.
Central office will create a Theory of Action for CLC
work with clear non-negotiable goals by Summer 2013.

Implement by: Fall 2013 Semester

Evaluate Progress by: Ending of Fall Semester
Progress will be measured by the
set goals within the Theory of
Action.
Based on the survey results, CRW facilitators will provide
training once a month at their school sites to build internal
capacity.
Implement by: Fall 2013
Evaluate Progress by: Ending of Fall Semester
This will be evaluated by
evaluations requested of
participants and the number of
participants participating in
training.
Central office administrators will conduct classroom
observations to monitor CLC progress and implementation
monthly.
Implement by: Spring 2013 Semester
Evaluate Progress by: Ending of Fall Semester
Teams of site administrators and
teachers will measure progress by
debriefing after Learning Pathway
walks. A checklist of “look for’s”
will be completed to evaluate
progress of schools and make
recommendation to school teams
with timely, productive feedback.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

148
Table 10 (continued)
Summary of Performance Goals, Timelines, and Measurement of Goals

This section of the current literature focused on empirically based educational strategies
that may assist the PUSD in reaching its global goal of consistent and effective implantation of
CLC’s districtwide. The purpose of this literature was to present solutions of effective, sound
educational practices to address the CLC gap in the PUSD. Additionally, this literature presented
Stakeholder Performance Goal Goal Measure
CLC Steering committee will examine existing
improvement processes such as data team models and
team learning process every month.
Implement by: Summer 2013.
Evaluate Progress by: Ending of Fall Semester
Progress will be measured by
teacher, site and central office
administrator’s recommendations
at the end of end of every meeting
when minutes are collected and
reviewed by ILT.
Central office will create a website which will contact a
CLC toolkit consisting of articles, protocols, instructional
goal template, CLC minutes template, action plan template
and CLC rubric by Spring 2013.

Implement by: Fall 2013 Semester

Evaluate Progress by: Ending of Fall Semester
CAO will monitor progress of
website to ensure that all facets of
the toolkit are created. During ILT
templates and resources will be
reviewed prior to their appearance
of the website.
Central office administration will be able to develop and
communicate essential learning outcomes to school sites
and teachers.
Implement by: Spring semester of 2013.
Evaluate Progress by: Ending of Fall Semester
ILT will develop in conjunction
with CLC steering committee
essential learning outcomes for
school sites and teachers to
follow.
Central office staff will set timelines for site leadership to
monitor implementation of the two core initiatives.
Implement by: Fall 2013 Semester
Evaluate Progress by: Ending of Fall Semester
A theory of action will be created
with attainable non-negotiable
goals for school sites on two
initiatives with set dates for
monitoring.
Central office will conduct CTA’s with SME’s to create
job aids for staff in the creation of instructional tools to
carry of goals such as high quality assessments to measure
student achievement.
Implement by: Spring semester of 2013.
Evaluate Progress by: Ending of Fall Semester
ILT and site administrators will
brainstorm and select District
SME’s to create job aids for staff
for subject area and grade level
assessments.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

149
pertinent information that central office administration should consider in order to understand
how to effectively implement, monitor and sustain CLC’s at the central office while creating a
tri-level collaborative team. The District can utilize this information to adequately differentiate
supports to schools to close the existing gap. In addition, solutions provided as goals were
provided which were based on this literature to help close the gap.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

150
Chapter Six: Discussion
Author: Sonia Llamas
The purpose of the project was to identify causes and offer solutions to the Pasadena
Unified School District in order to assist the district reach its goal of 100% implementation of
collaborative learning communities. The project was steered using the gap analysis model, in
which gaps of knowledge, motivation, and organization were found (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Researched based solutions were offered in order to help close the identified gaps. In this
chapter, Kirkpatrick’s (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006) Four Levels of Evaluation framework
will guide the Pasadena Unified School District to determine if the suggested solutions are
indeed successful in increasing completion rates.
The questions guiding the project were the following:
1. What are the challenges for PUSD central office administrators’, in knowledge and skills,
motivation, and the organizational dimension, that may impede the achievement of
PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration around student
achievement?
2. What are the potential solutions to address PUSD central office administrators’
challenges in knowledge and skills, motivation, and the organizational dimension, and
thereby support PUSD’s organizational goal to institutionalize effective collaboration
around student achievement?
Synthesis of the Results
In the following sections are the results found in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organization. The results were obtained from 281 surveys from teachers, site and central office
administrators, and individual central office administrator interviews. With respect to this
specific project, a subset of the data from central office administrators was utilized (n=18).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

151
Knowledge and Skills
Both the survey and interviews resulted in validating the assumed knowledge and skills
gaps at the central office administrator level. There were two significant gaps revealed. First,
there was a strong knowledge and skill gap related to procedural knowledge and the
understanding of the responsibilities needed to effectively collaborate in creating high quality
assessments. The second significant gap addressed was the team’s ability to operate a data
management system to store and communicate assessment data. If staff within the PUSD do not
know how to create the quality assessments needed to measure essential student learning
outcomes and do not know how to use data management systems to produce useful data about
whether students met these essential learning outcomes, student achievement within the PUSD
will not improve. In addition, the PUSD must close these gaps in knowledge to successfully
achieve a broader knowledge base for these critical competencies to improve student
achievement.
Motivation
In this study, the results of both the quantitative and qualitative measures validated the
assumed causes in motivation. In PUSD, there appeared to be a motivation gap related to how
the central office believed their teams functioned and what the teams believed to be their abilities
to meet goals. Overall, all three levels are motivated to assist students, but there comes a
threshold to that motivation when staff is not acknowledged, resources are not provided and staff
are not provided the guidelines for working as collective and collaborative teams. The threshold
is replaced by distrust, lack of clear focus and poor communication among all three levels needed
to ensure effective collaboration around student achievement. In all four central office level
administrator interviews, it was evident that there is a value of colleagiality but it is superseded
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

152
by too many tasks which impedes the time to share best practices. As a central office staff, it is
critical to know and believe that your team can identify the knowledge and skill deficits
impeding outcome achievement. In addition, central office needs to provide guidance to schools
and teachers on how to effectively provide enrichment opportunities to all of their students. If it
is only provided to those schools that are performing, the issue of equity and access will come
into play.
Organization and Culture
Of all three themes, knowledge, motivation and organization, the organizational
dimension is deeply rooted as the underpinnings of several motivational and knowledge and
skills gaps and had the lowest grand mean of the three dimensions. These gaps were validated by
quantitative and qualitative measures. For the purposes of this project, there was a focus on four
organizational gaps, which were intertwined with site administration and teachers’ gaps in the
knowledge and skill, motivation and organizational dimension. There is a clear understanding
that all three levels, central office administration, site administration and teachers are in need
resources not only to support their professional growth and development but resources in the
form of time to develop common assessments that are in alignment at all three levels of the
PUSD hierarchy. In addition, teams need to be provided the processes and resources to create
assessments to gage whether student-learning outcomes are being met. Furthermore, additional
time and structured time to meet is an additional apparent gap, which is a barrier for
collaboration at all three levels. When members of a team are not provided opportunities to meet
and collaborate effectively, teams do not reap the benefits of their team’s full capabilities. It
prevents the development of the internal capacity needed to create high quality assessments and
fluid practices to best serve students they serve.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

153
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The Gap Analysis framework is a tool that is effective in assisting an organization to plan
the steps necessary to reach their goal. This framework takes into consideration that each
organization is distinct and the cause of the problem is exclusive to their respective level and
organization. It creates a blueprint for success specific to their organization. The framework
helps quantify the gap that needs to be closed, which provides clear goals and measurable
outcomes. One of drawbacks of the Gap Analysis framework is the time commitment especially
in school districts where there is always pressure to provide immediate results. The gap analysis
requires time, commitment and the alignment of resources from the organization. In addition,
solutions to close a gap can cause other gaps to occur (Clark & Estes, 2008). If goals of the
organization are not met, the process needs to repeat until the right solution closes the gap.
Causes for gaps in goal achievement must be identified and validated, so that solutions based on
the literature and research in learning, motivation, and organization theory can be recommended
and evaluated.
Innovative gap analysis (Smith & Ragan, 2005) provides an effective and useful
approach to problem solving when an institution undergoes transformative change, as in the case
of the Pasadena Unified School District. The innovation Gap Analysis framework used in this
study helped the PUSD undertake a process by which central office administration analyzed their
goal of 100% implementation of collaborative learning communities in a proactive, rather than
reactive, approach to problem solving. Through surveys and interviews, it was possible to
identify the PUSD’s central office administrations self-perceptions of the knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational gaps that may exist as potential barriers to implementation of
collaborative learning communities throughout the district. While this study applied the gap
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

154
analysis process specifically to PUSD’s global goal for their district, other districts, school sites
and school departments could adapt the process to analyze and implement solutions to help staff
meet its own organizational goals.
A cost-benefit analysis of using the Gap Analysis framework for problem solving (Clark
& Estes, 2008) must include both the time and resources available to conduct gap analysis and
the value of the tangible and intangible benefits. For the PUSD, the tangible benefits of this study
may include positive WASC reports, reduction of OCR complaints, increased collaboration
around student achievement, alignment of resources, and more effective teacher instruction that
contributes to student achievement. The intangible benefits may include the reputation of the
Pasadena Unified School District and the satisfaction that the organization attains by helping its
students to meet the challenges of the Common Core and succeeding in a global society.
Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four-level framework is a tool that will help the school evaluate the
effectiveness of the implementation plans. This process of evaluation is based on formative and
summative evaluation (Patton, 2002). In many cases organizations skip the evaluations or use
basic level one evaluation without investigating if the solutions are helping in closing the gap.
The framework is detailed which helps in the implementation of the evaluation process. Based
on the solutions suggested by the research literature to close the gaps in knowledge, motivation
and organizational support, and revealed through the validation of the causes, specific
recommendations for implementation in the Pasadena Unified School District are made.
Recommendation and Implications
Before moving into solutions, it is important to consider the central office administrator
level as only one part of this tri-level project. Concurrent projects examine the school site
administrator level (Salinas, 2013) and the teacher level (Carruthers, 2013). Kofman and Senge
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

155
(1993) describe how organizations are fractals of society, each part a representation of the whole.
Thus, altering how one part of an organization operates must be addressed in conjunction with
the larger culture. As such, altering how one level of PUSD operates cannot be considered in
isolation of the other levels or the district as a whole. Therefore the proposed solutions of the
central office administrator level are only partial solutions if viewed in isolation, but are
interconnected when viewing the larger context. Without consideration of the whole, partial
implementation could prove ineffective. Kofman and Senge (1993) warn against the
fragmentation that occurs when complex situations are broken into smaller components and
treated in isolation with separate solutions. Instead, the proposed solutions should be viewed
within the context of the larger system. Implementing only one level of the solutions would
contribute to a pattern of fragmentation and reactiveness (Kofman & Senge, 1993). To fully
appreciate this complexity, PUSD executive leadership will need to consider the
interconnectedness of each level's gaps and solutions, and how each individual level is connected
with the larger organization. “The behavior of the system doesn’t depend on what each part is
doing, but on how each part is interacting with the rest (Kofman & Senge, 1993, p. 14).
The implementation of the solutions will help to close the gap of knowledge, motivation,
and organization. It is recommended that the solutions begin May 2013. This will allow time for
the central office administration to collaborate and prepare the necessary materials to carry out
the solutions. Central offices have been running the same for many years; in order to move
toward becoming an innovative central office, the mindset of central office administration will
need to change to one, which fosters the collective goal of educating all students. Focus on
student achievement must be the focal point in all central office departments. At first, central
office administration might be resistant, believing that they are relinquishing power or resources,
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

156
but there has to be a common understanding that these solutions are necessary in order to aid
staff in collaborating effectively around student achievement. There must be a focus on changing
the attitude of some central office administrators through professional development and team
building activities. Specifically, the district culture of departments operating in silos must be
changed and there has to be a common understanding that all departments must align their
resources around the common goals of the district. Implementing the proposed solutions in the
Spring of 2013 is an effective strategy as central office administration will begin to put in place
the processes that will help streamline the communication for site administration and teachers for
the summer and fall implementation. Eventually, there will begin a shift in culture where all
stakeholders will be engaged in uniform goals, from central office to site departments with the
common goal being student achievement.
Central office administrators must work collaboratively with site administration and
teachers in the implementation of the proposed solutions. The district must foster an
environment, which is collaborative and conducive to learning for not only students but also
staff. In addition, it is recommended that a survey be conducted of parents and students to ensure
that they have a voice in the creation of the implementation plan. It would benefit the District to
also consider engaging the school board members in dialogue around the prioritization of goals
and how best to allocate financial resources to these goals. When there is alignment from the top
of the hierarchy, there will be no questions in relation to how resource are allocated, what the
expectations are for each of the stakeholder level, and the responsibilities for each member
(DuFour & Marzano, 2010). Central office administrators must also formulate a carefully crafted
communications plan to relay to site level stakeholders, students, parents and the community, the
essential learning outcomes expected of students as well as the priorities around collaboration.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

157
Evaluation
The Pasadena Unified School District will utilize Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four-level program
model to evaluate the action plan of the district. The first level will evaluate the reactions of the
central office administrators to the implementation of the action plan. The second level is the
impact of the program. It targets the impact of all programs while being implemented (Clark &
Estes, 2008). The gap of knowledge will be examined in level one to ensure that learning is
taking place. Level three will focus on the continued effectiveness of the program. Level four
will evaluate if the action plan has contributed to the achievement of reaching goals (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Level 1: Central Office Administration Reactions during Implementation
This evaluation level measures motivational influences such as interest, value, efficacy,
and mood during the implementation of the recommendations to answer questions such as: Does
the staff like the activities associated with the recommendations. Are they interested? Do they
value the activities? Do they feel confident that they can apply what they are learning?
Methods. Post workshop feedback forms and ongoing quarterly staff feedback using both
open-ended and 4 point Likert scale items will be utilized. Successful implementation of the
recommendations will be indicated by positive feedback by staff at the teacher, site and central
office administration level.
Level 2: Change, Learning, and Motivation during Implementation
This level measures the impact of the program while the solutions are being
implemented. This level investigates that learning is taking place. Staff will be asked to identify
what they have learned.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

158
Methods. Staff will fill out a survey that asks about the goals of the district, the essential
learning outcomes, and expectations for students, and how well they are planning, monitoring
and evaluating their students learning. If the solutions offered are being effective the survey
results will be shown by observing staff in their collaborative learning communities effectively,
engaging in collaboration around student achievement, focused on a set agenda, analyzing data
and reviewing student work and by the responses of the survey.
Level 3: Transfer of Learning and Motivation to Learning Experiences
This evaluation level measures the application of new learning to novel workplace
situations and answers questions such as: Do central office administrators continue to incorporate
the components of collaborative learning communities in their interactions with staff and with
one another? Are CASA practices being implemented in the decisions that are being made at the
central office?
Methods. During site visits and site administration meetings, central office staff will
analyze the level of implementation at respective sites based on open-ended questions related to
collaboration around student achievement. Staff will be asked on a monthly basis to report if
central office is meeting the needs of the site to ensure that communication and resources are
being funneled appropriately and timely to school sites. If the solutions offered are being
effective, teachers’ and site administrators’ comments and observations will verify it. In addition,
the effectiveness will be verified by student’s academic performance.
Level 4: Impact of Collaboration Around Student Achievement
This level investigates if the organization has made progress towards their organizational
goal. This is when the organization will determine if the solutions offered helped close the gap.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

159
Methods. If there are no results found in level 2 and 3, there will not be a need to move
to level 4. Level 1 and 2 is when modifications to the program would have been made. If the
solutions offered are effective, the organization will have gotten closer to its goal of districtwide
implementation of collaborative learning communities at the central office, site administration
level and teacher level. In addition, if levels 1, 2 and 3 are successful, it will have helped close
the gap of motivation, knowledge, and organization and improve the academic achievement of
the PUSD students served.
Limitations
The survey was administered on the last day of school of the 2011-2012 school year. It
remained open until the first day of instruction of students in August. Therefore, results of the
survey may only include staff that happened to be there during the distribution of the survey that
were motivated to complete a 25-minute survey online. In addition, staff may not have had the
means during the summer to access the online survey through Qualtrics. Furthermore, staff may
not have been as forthcoming on the survey given it was sent by the Superintendent of Schools.
In addition, many of the staff that began the survey may not necessarily be employed during the
2012-2013 school year due to budget cuts, which may have curtailed their access to the survey.
In addition, the interviews were conducted at the central office, which although staff were not
interviewed in their respective offices, it may not have been comfortable or conducive for an
open dialogue around central office concerns.
Self-report surveys can have its drawbacks. Some of the respondents may have
suppressed their true feelings in order to look favorable to the investigator or for fear of breach
of anonymity. Thus, according to Patton (2002), there are few valid and reliable instruments to
measure particular phenomena or outcomes, such as perceptions. Multiple measures, including
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

160
qualitative measures such as interviews with central office administrators (see Appendix G) were
used to strengthen the validity and reliability.
In addition, one survey competency was eliminated due to the school district not utilizing
the all knowledge, motivation and organization questions related to Clear Actionable Steps. This
competency was related to Collective Efficacy. Given there were other questions provided as
part of the survey and interviews, measures of this competency could still be validated through
these means.
Future Research
Finding empirical literature about the role of central office in collaborative learning
communities is limited. Many of the studies focused on the site administration leadership and
teacher collaboration. Nevertheless, there is a large amount of literature on professional learning
communities and its respective constituent groups. Many central offices have skeletal staff due to
fiscal constraints from the past several years of budget cuts. There is a need to conduct further
research on the impact of collaborative learning communities in urban educational settings
related to student achievement. It would be interesting to see if gap findings from those studies
are similar to the gaps found within the PUSD. In addition, further tri-level studies should be
conducted so that generalizations can be made which would validate causes and the Gap
Analysis framework.
Case studies of successful collaborative learning communities of central office
administrators within K-12 urban school districts, using the positive deviance approach (Lapping
et al., 2002; Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2004), would be valuable. These teams could be used as
exemplars and the information gained through the case studies could be used to inform the
district’s efforts to build collaboration capacity throughout PUSD.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

161
Research on the role of the board of education in the institutionalization of collaboration
around student achievement. Since the responsibility for the education of PUSD students rests
with the board of education, it would be important to ensure that the board not only has a full
understanding of the concepts and characteristics of collaborative learning communities, but that
the board, both as individual members and the collective whole, sees the moral purpose to
embrace, support, and practice collaboration around student achievement (Eaker & Keating,
2012).
Conclusion
The purpose of the project was to use the gap analysis model as a framework to help
identify gaps in motivation, knowledge, and organization that could be hindering the PUSD from
reaching its goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). Using the model, gaps were identified and validated
through surveys and interviews. After the gaps were identified, solutions were suggested that
could help the Pasadena Unified School District reach its goal. Lastly, the project suggests how
the school can evaluate the solutions implemented using Kirkpatrick’s (2006) Four Levels of
Evaluation.
Students in typical school districts come from different backgrounds and levels of
schooling. With this in mind, school districts tend to implement solutions without investigating
the cause of the problems. The gap analysis is a useful tool in investigating what are the gaps in
that particular school setting. This case study may be used as an example to inform other
institutions of public education of how to institutionalize collaborative learning communities
effectively. It provides a guideline in the development of a strategic needs assessment for staff at
various levels to achieve effective collaboration around student achievement. The process does
not have to be applied solely to the CASA goal, but it could be utilized in the assessment of
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

162
achievement of student learning outcomes in public education. The decision to use the Pasadena
Unified School District as a case study was intentional. This provided a unique opportunity to
examine, through the use of innovation gap analysis, (Clark & Estes, 2008, Smith & Ragan,
2005), a process to determine how to identify the barriers among central office administration
that could potentially affect the achievement of students in the PUSD. The PUSD chooses to
commit to a continuous process of improvement and at the time of this research, the
Superintendent of Schools and Chief Academic Officer were in their first months in leadership.
The administration expects to provide substantive evidence to the Board of Education and State
of California that they have a measurement process in place for the determination of whether the
PUSD, in fact, implemented collaborative learning communities district wide.
This study provided the means for staff to examine their perceptions regarding their
ability to implement all 12 competencies of collaborative learning communities, and thereby
allow the researcher to offer viable recommendations to close the identified gaps that might
prevent staff from achieving this organizational goal. The potential barriers to central office
administration achieving this goal were not due to lack of ability or leadership, but rather due to
significant transformative change by the PUSD. It is apparent that through commitment, a clear
goals and processes and a true belief in the power of collaboration, stakeholders from all levels
of the educational landscape, can come together and persist to bring a common vision to fruition
for the best interest of students.
The PUSD has a unique window of opportunity to close the self-perceived staff gaps in
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational support at all three levels. If these areas are
analyzed, addressed, and closed now, they may not become barriers to meeting the essential
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

163
learning outcome for PUSD graduates to graduate college and career ready. When students do
not graduate college or career ready, they will be ill prepared to live and compete in today’s
global society.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

164
References
Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. The
Teachers College Record, 104(3), 421-455.
Anderson, L. W. Krathwohl (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Auman, M. (2003). Step Up To Writing. Longmont, CO: Cambium Learning.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Barklay, M. W., Gur, B., & Wu, C. (2004). The impact of media on the family: assessing the
availability and quality of instruction on the World Wide Web for enhancing marriage
relationship. In World Congress of the Family: Asia Pacific Dialogue, Kuala Malaysia.
Bernhardt, V. L. (2011). Measuring school processes. Retrieved from
http://eff.csuchico.edu/downloads/MeasuringProcesses.pdf
Berryhill, J., Linney, J. A., & Fromewick, J. (2009). The effects of education accountability on
teachers: Are policies too stress provoking for their own good?. International Journal of
Education Policy & Leadership, 4(5), 1–14.
Borman, K. M., Carter, K., Aladjem, D. K., & Carlson LeFloch, K. (2004). Challenges for the
future of comprehensive school reform. In Putting the pieces together: Lessons from
comprehensive school reform research (3). Retrieved from
http://elschools.org/sites/default/files/PTPTLessonsfromCSRResearch.pdf

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

165
Boyd, V., & Hord, S. M. (1994). Principals and the new paradigm: Schools as learning
communities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Brooks, J. S., Hughes, R. M., & Brooks, M. C. (2008). Fear and Trembling in the American High
School: Educational Reform and Teacher Alienation. Educational Policy, 22(1), 45–62.
doi:10.1177/0895904807311296
Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-
state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305-331.
Carruthers, A. S. (2013). An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement:
Teacher factors. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, CA.
Center on Education Policy. (2007). Answering the question that matters most: Has student
achievement increased since No Child Left Behind? Washington, DC: Author.
Childress, S., Elmore, R., Grossman, A., & King, C. (2007). Note on the PELP coherence
framework. Public Education Leadership Project, January 2007, 1-14.
Childress, S., & Marietta, G. (2008). A problem-solving approach to designing and
implementing a strategy to improve performance. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school districts.
Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 55.
Chipman, S. F., Schraagen, J. M., & Shalin, V. L. (2000). Introduction to cognitive task analysis.
In J. M. Schraagen, S. F. Chipman & V. L. Shalin (Eds.), Cognitive task analysis (pp. 3-
23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

166
Chong, W. H., & Kong, C. A. (2012). Teacher collaborative learning and teacher self-efficacy:
The case of lesson study. The journal of experimental education, 80(3), 263-283.
Clark, R. E. (1998). Motivating performance: Part 1—Diagnosing and solving motivation
problems. Performance Improvement, 37(8), 39-47.
Clark, R. E. (1999). The CANE model of motivation to learn and work: A two-stage process of
goal commitment and effort. In J. Lowyck (Ed.), Trends in Corporate Training. Leuven,
Belgium: University of Leuven Press.
Clark, R.E. (2005). Research-Tested Team Motivation Strategies. Performance Improvement,
44(1), 13-16.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (1996) Cognitive task analysis. International Journal of Educational
Research, 25, 403-417.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Clark, R. E., Yates, K., Early, S., & Moulton, K. (2010). An analysis of the failure of electronic
media and discovery-based learning: Evidence for the performance benefits of guided
training methods. In K. H. Silber & W. R. Foshay (Eds.), Handbook of improving
performance in the work- place (pp. 263–297). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership,
51, 49-49.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

167
Crafton, L., & Kaiser, E. (2011). The language of collaboration: Dialogue and identity in teacher
professional development. Improving Schools, 14(2), 104–116.
doi:10.1177/1365480211410437
Cranston, J. (2009). Holding the reins of the professional learning community: Eight themes
from research on principal’s perceptions of professional learning communities. Canadian
journal of educational administration and policy, 90(2), 1-22.
Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing
school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Center on
Educational Governance, USC Rossier School of Education, Los Angeles, CA.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024-1037.
Dee, T., & Jacob, B. (2013). The impact of no child left behind on student achievement (NBER
Working Paper 15531). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Retrieved Dec 1, 2011, from http://www.nber.org/papers/w15531
Deering, A., Dilts, R., & Russell, J. (2003). Leadership cults and culture. Leader to leader, 28(2),
31-38.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Donahoe, T. (1993). Finding the way: Structure, time, and culture in school improvement. Phi
Delta Kappan, 75(4), 298-305.
Dooner, A. M., Mandzuk, D., & Clifton, R. A. (2008). Stages of collaboration and the realities of
professional learning communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 564-574.
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a "Professional Learning Community"? Educational Leadership,
61(8), 6-11.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

168
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2010). Raising the bar and closing the gap:
Whatever it takes. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for
professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work; Best practices for
enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
DuFour, R., Eaker, R. E., & DuFour, R. B. (2005). On common ground: The power of
professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. (2009). High-leverage strategies for principal leadership.
Educational Leadership, 66(5), 62–68.
DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. J. (2011). Leaders of Learning: How district, school, classroom
leaders improve student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Eaker, R., & Gonzalez, D. (2006-2007). Leading in professional learning communities. National
Forum of education administration and supervision journal, 24(1), 6-13.
Eaker, R., & Keating, J. (2012). Every school, every team, every classroom. Bloomington, ID:
Solution Tree Press.
Easton, L. B. (2008). Powerful designs for professional learning. Oxford, Ohio: National Staff
Development Council.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for
professional development in education. Albert Shanker Institute. Washington, D.C.
Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

169
Fallon, G., & Barnett, J. (2009). Impacts of school organizational restructuring into a
collaborative setting on the nature of emerging forms of collegiality. International
Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 4(9).
Flinders, D. J. (1988). Teacher isolation and the new reform. Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision, 4(1), 17-29.
Foord, K. A., & Haar, J. M. (2012). Gauging Effectiveness: how to know whether your district's
PLCs are contributing to better student outcomes. School Administrator, 69(1), 33-36.
Friedman, I. A. (1999). Teacher-perceived work autonomy: The concept and its measurement.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 58-76.
Fullan, M. G. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational leadership, 50(6),
12-17.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Fullan, M. (2004). Systems Thinkers in Action: Moving Beyond the Standards Plateau: Teachers
Transforming Teaching. London, England: Department for Education and Skills.
Fullan, M. (2009). Large-scale reform comes of age. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2), 101
113.
Fullan, M. (2010). All systems go: The change imperative for whole system reform. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gagné, M., Koestner, R., & Zuckerman, M. (2000). Facilitating acceptance of organizational
change: The importance of self‐determination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
30(9), 1843-1852.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

170
Gajda, R., & Koliba, C. J. (2007). Evaluating the imperative of intraorganizational collaboration:
A school improvement perspective. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(1), 26-44.
Gajda, R., & Koliba, C. J. (2008). Evaluating and improving the quality of teacher collaboration:
A field-tested framework for secondary school leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 92(2), 133-153.
Goddard, R.D., Hoy, W.K., & Hoy A.W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning,
measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal,
37(2), 479-507.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical
developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3),
3-13. doi:10.3102/0013189X033003003.
Goddard, R.D. & Skrla, L. (2006). The influence of school composition on teachers’ collective
efficacy beliefs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 216-235.
Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical
investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in
public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877-896.
Goodlad, J. I. (1983). A study of schooling: Some implications for school improvement. Phi
Delta Kappan, 64(8), 552–558.
Goldberg, M. F., & Sizer, T. (1996). An interview with Ted Sizer: Here for the long haul. The
Phi Delta Kappan, 77(10), 685-687.
Graham, P. (2007). Improving teacher effectiveness through structured collaboration: A case
study of a professional learning community. Research in Middle Level Education, 31(1),
1-17.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

171
Graham, P., & Ferriter, W. (2010). Building a professional learning community at work: A guide
to the first year. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Gratch, A. (2000). Becoming teacher: student teaching as identity construction. Teaching
Education, 11(1), 119-126.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough?: An experiment
with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). Analyzing lists of the characteristics of effective professional development
to promote visionary leadership. NASSP Bulletin, 87(637), 4-20.
Hall, J. N. (2010). Investigating internal accountability and collective capacity: Taking a closer
look at mathematics instruction. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 4(2), 9.
Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1979). Implementing innovations in schools: A concerns-based
approach. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education,
University of Texas.
Hall, G. E., Loucks, S. F., Rutherford, W. L., & Newlove, B. W. (1975). Levels of use of the
innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher
Education, 26(1), 52-56.
Handley, K., Sturdy, A., Fincham, R., & Clark, T. (2006). Within and Beyond Communities of
Practice: Making Sense of Learning Through Participation, Identity and Practice. Journal
of Management Studies, 43(3), 641-653.
Hargreaves, A., & Dawe, R. (1990). Paths of professional development: Contrived collegiality,
collaborative culture, and the case of peer coaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 6(3),
227–241.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

172
Hargreaves, A., & Macmilan, R. (1992). Balkanized secondary schools and the malaise of
modernity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA.
Harney, O., Hogan, M. J., & Broome, B. J. (2012). Collaborative learning: the effects of trust
and open and closed dynamics on consensus and efficacy. Social Psychology of
Education, 1-16.
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2010). Professional learning communities and system improvement.
Improving Schools, 13(2), 172–181.
Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75,
124-134.
Hipp, K. K., Huffman, J. B., Pankake, A. M., & Olivier, D. F. (2008). Sustaining professional
learning communities: Case studies. Journal of Educational Change, 9(2), 173-195.
Hord, S. M. (1986). A synthesis of research on organizational collaboration. Educational
Leadership, 43(5), 22–26.
Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: What are they and why are they
important? Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Horn, I. S. (2005). Learning on the job: A situated account of teacher learning in high school
mathematics departments. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 207-236.
Hoy, W.K., & Woolfolk, A.E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational
health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 355-372.
Hughes, T.A., & Kritsonis, W.A. (2007). Professional learning communities and the positive
effects on student achievement: A national agenda for school improvement. The Lamar
University Electronic Journal of Student Research, Spring, 2007.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

173
Johnson, L. B. (1964). Lyndon B. Johnson: Remarks in Providence at the 200th anniversary
convocation of Brown University. Retrieved November 21, 2012, from
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/
Kagan, Spencer & Kagan, Miguel. (2009). Kagan Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, CA:
Kagan Publishing.
Kay, K., & Greenhill, V. (2011). Twenty-first century students need 21st century skills. Bringing
schools into the 21st century, 41-65.
Kerr, K. A., Marsh, J. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., & Barney, H. (2006). Strategies to
promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from
three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 496-520.
Kirkpartrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J.D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four
levels (3
rd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., & Talbert, J. E. (2003). Leading for learning: Reflective tools for
school and district leaders. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Kofman, F., & Senge, P. M. (1993). Communities of commitment: The heart of learning
organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 1-33.
Langer, G. M., Colton, A. B., & Goff, L. S. (2003). Collaborative analysis of student work:
Improving teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision &
Curriculum Development.
Lapping, K., Marsh, D. R., Rosenbaum, J., Swedberg, E., Sternin, J., Sternin, M., & Schroeder,
D. G. (2002). The positive deviance approach: Challenges and opportunities for the
future. Food & Nutrition Bulletin, 23(Supplement 2), 128-135.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

174
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, H. (2004). The logic of collaboration in education and the human services. Journal of
Interprofessional Care, 88(3), 225–237.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1998, April), Distributed leadership and student engagement in
school. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Diego, CA.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of
leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496-528.
doi:10.1177/0013161X08321501
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Lencioni, P. (2005). Overcoming the five dysfunctions of a team: A field guide for leaders,
managers, and facilitators. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Liebman, H., Maldonado, N., Lacey, C.H, & Thompson, S. (2005). An investigation of
leadership in a professional learning community: A case study of a large, suburban,
public middle school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Educational
Research Association, Miami.
Little, J. W., Gearhart, M., Curry, M., & Kafka, J. (2003). Looking at student work for teacher
learning, teacher community, and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(3), 184-192.
Louis, K. S., & Kruse, S. D. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming
urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

175
Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom?
Teachers' work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of
Education, 532-575.
MacMullen, M. M. (1996). Taking stock of a school reform effort: A research collection and
analysis (No. 2). Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform.
Mandinach, E. B., Honey, M., & Light, D. (2006). A theoretical framework for data-driven
decision making. In EDC Center for Children and Technology. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San
Francisco, CA.
Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of
transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly,
39(3), 370-397.
Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making
in education: Evidence from recent RAND research. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Retrieved from RAND Education website: www.rand.org
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research on
what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum
Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

176
Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
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.
Matthews, T., Whittaker, S., Moran, T. P., Helsley, S. Y., & Judge, T. K. (2012). Productive
interrelationships between collaborative groups ease the challenges of dynamic and
multi-teaming. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 1-26.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning
communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement (Vol. 45). Teachers
College Press.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50(3), 43-59.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 74, 5-12.
Miller, D. L. (2003). The stages of group development: A retrospective study of dynamic team
processes. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20(2), 121-134.
Mullen, C. A., & Schunk, D. H. (2010). A view of professional learning communities through
three frames: Leadership, organization, and culture. McGill Journal of Education, 45(2).
Muncey, D. E., & McQuillan, P. J. (1993). Preliminary findings from a five-year study of the
Coalition of Essential Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6) 486-489.
Murphy, J., Smylie, M., Mayrowetz, D., & Louis, K. S. (2009). The role of the principal in
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

177
fostering the development of distributed leadership. School Leadership and Management,
29(2), 181-214.
Musanti, S. I., & Pence, L. (2010). Collaboration and teacher development: Unpacking
resistance, constructing knowledge, and navigating identities. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 37(1), 73-89.
Nair, C. S., & Adams, P. (2009). Survey platform: A factor influencing online survey delivery
and response rate. Quality in Higher Education, 15(3), 291-296.
National School Reform Faculty (2012). National School Reform Faculty. Retrieved from
http://www.nsrfharmony.org
Newmann, F., Rutter, R., & Smith, M. (1989). Organizational factors that affect school
sense of efficacy, community, and expectations. Sociology of Education, 62(4),
221-238.
Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the
public and educators. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Center
on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
Olsen, E. M., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2009). A pathway forward to school change: Leading together
and achieving goals. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(4), 380-410.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn
knowledge into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Powell, W. W. (1996). Trust-based forms of governance. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust
in organizations (pp. 51-67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

178
Prestine, N. A. (1993). Extending the Essential Schools metaphor: Principal as enabler. Journal
of School Leadership, 3(4), 356-79.
Rasberry, M. A., & Mahajan, G. (2008). From isolation to collaboration: Promoting teacher
leadership through PLCs. Center for Teaching Quality: Hillsborough, NC. Retrieved
from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED503637.pdf
Raywid, M. A. (1993). Finding Time for Collaboration. Educational Leadership, 51(1), 30-34.
Reeves, D. (2011). Elements of grading: A guide to effective practice. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree Press.
Ross, R., Smith, B., & Roberts, C. (1994). The wheel of learning. In P. Senge, et al., The fifth
discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization (pp. 59-
64). New York: Doubleday.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Sahlberg, P (2010). Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational
Change, 11, 45-61. DOI 10.1007/s10833-008-9098-2
Salinas, E C. (2013). An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement
using the gap analysis approach: School site leadership factors (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P. , & Horn, S. P. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on
student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of personnel evaluation
in education, 11(1), 57-67.
Schlicte, J., Yssel, N., & Merbler, J. (2005). Pathways to burnout: Case studies in teacher
isolation and alienation. Preventing School Failure, 50(1), 35- 40.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

179
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results Now. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor: The challenge of
leading 21st-century schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy, 22(1), 181-
203. DOI: 10.1177/0895904807311291
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113-
125.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research
and applications (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York, NY: Doubleday.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization.
Crown Business.
Senge, P. , Ross, R., Smith, B., Roberts, C., & Kleiner, A. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook:
Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building community in schools (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2005). The virtues of leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 112-123.
Servage, L. (2008). Critical and transformative practices in professional learning communities.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 63–77.
Shih, T. H., & Fan, X. (2009). Comparing response rates in e-mail and paper surveys: A meta-
analysis. Educational Research Review, 4(1), 26-40.
Sizer, T. R. (1986). Rebuilding: First steps by the coalition of essential schools. Phi Delta
Kappan, 68(1), 38-42.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

180
Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (2005). Instructional Design (2nd Ed.). Danvers: MA: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. (2004). Toward the construct definition of positive deviance.
American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 828-847.
Stephenson, L. E., & Bauer, S. (2010). The role of isolation in predicting new principals'
burnout. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 5(9), 1-17.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional
design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
Tan, H. H., & Lim, A. K. (2009). Trust in coworkers and trust in organizations. The Journal of
Psychology, 143(1), 45-66.
Tan, H. H., & Tan, C. S. F. (2000). Towards the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in
organization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126(2), 241–260.
Taylor, B. M., Pressley, M., & Pearson, D. (2000). Effective teachers and schools: Trends across
recent studies. Ann Arbor, MI: CIERA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
450 353).
Thessin, R. A., & Starr, J. P. (2011). Supporting the growth of effective professional learning
communities districtwide. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 48-54.
Thompson, S.C., Gregg, L., & Niska, J. (2004). Professional learning communities, leadership,
and student learning. Research in Middle Level Education, 28(1), 1-15.
Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2008). Tight but loose: A conceptual framework for scaling up
school reforms. American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 9, 13.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to
improve instruction and achievement in all schools: A leadership brief. Learning First
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

181
Alliance.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A.W., & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning
and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature,
meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547-593.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A.W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group
& Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427.
Tye, K. A., & Tye, B. B. (1984). Teacher isolation and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 65(5),
319–322.
Van Merriënboer, J. J., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner's
mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5-13.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional
learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24(1), 80–91.
Wagner, T. (2003). Making the Grade: Reinventing America's schools. New York, NY:
Routledge Falmer.
Waite, D. (2010). On the shortcomings of our organizational forms: with implications for
educational change and school improvement. School Leadership and Management, 30(3),
225–248.
Waters, T., & Cameron, M. A. (2007). The balanced leadership framework: Connecting vision
with action. Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

182
from http://www.mcrel.org/~/media/Files/McREL/Homepage/
Products/01_99/prod54_BL_Framework.ashx
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Retrieved from
http://www.sai-iowa.org/storage/BalancedLeadership.pdf
Wayman, J. C. (2005). Involving teachers in data-driven decision making: Using computer data
systems to support teacher inquiry and reflection. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 10(3), 295-308.
Wayman, J. C., Midgley, S., & Stringfield, S. (2006). Leadership for data-based decision-
making: Collaborative data teams. In A. Danzig, K. Borman, B. Jones, & B. Wright
(Eds.), New models of professional development for learner centered leadership (pp. 189-
206). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2006). Scaling up instructional improvement through teacher
professional development: Insights from the local systemic change initiative.
Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) Policy Briefs.
Welch, M. (1998). Collaboration: Staying on the bandwagon. Journal of Teacher Education,
49(1), 26–37.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 9(5),
2-3.
Wenger, E. (2009). Communities of practice. Communities, 22, 57. Retrieved from
www.ewenger.com/theory/
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A
guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

183
Wenger, E.C., & Snyder, W.M. (2000). The organizational frontier. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Business Review.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2011). Understanding by design guide to creating high quality
units. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Williams, R., Brien, K., Sprague, C., & Sullivan, G. (2008). Professional learning communities:
Developing a school-level readiness instrument. Canadian Journal of Educational
Administration and Policy, 74(6), 1–17.
Wood, D. (2007). Teachers' learning communities: Catalyst for change or a new infrastructure
for the status quo? The Teachers College Record, 109(3), 699-739.
Yates, K., Sullivan, M., & Clark, R. (2012). Integrated studies on the use of cognitive task
analysis to capture surgical expertise for central venous catheter placement and open
cricothyrotomy. The American Journal of Surgery, 203(1), 76-80.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W. Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the
evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. National
Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education
Sciences, US Department of Education.
Zboralski, K. (2009). Antecedents of knowledge sharing in communities of practice. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 13(3), 90-101.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

184
Appendix A
Definition of Key Terms
The following terms will be used throughout the study. For the purposes of consistency and
clarity, they are defined as follows:
Action Research. Any systematic inquiry conducted by teacher researchers, principals, school
counselors, or other stakeholders in the teaching/learning environment to gather information
about how their particular schools operate, how they teach, and how well their students learn.
This information is gathered with the goals of gaining insight, developing reflective practice,
effecting positive changes in the school environment, and improving student outcomes and the
lives of those involved. Action research is research done by teachers for themselves; it is not
imposed on them by someone else. Action research engages teachers in a four-step process: (a)
identify a focus area, (b) collect data, (c) Analyze and interpret data, and (d) develop an action
plan (Mills, 2006, p. 5).
Collaborative Analysis of Student Learning (CASL). A teacher development system that
helps educators develop a culture for collaborative inquiry and gain a deeper understanding of
the link between their instruction and their students' learning around a standards-based target
learning area" (p. 3). "CASL has four components: a guiding conceptual framework, a culture for
collaborative inquiry, shared inquiry into students' learning, and supportive facilitation and
leadership" (p. 24).
Collective Efficacy. The teachers’ shared beliefs that the staff as a whole has the ability to
perform in such a way as to ensure a positive effect on students (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004).
Cycle of Continuous Improvement. Alternately called the Deming Cycle, it is a continuous
quality-improvement model developed by W. Edwards Deming in which a sequence of the four
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

185
repetitive steps (plan, do, check, and act) comprise a feedback loop that allows for identification
and correction of deficiencies. (http://business.yourdictionary.com/deming-cycle)
Defined Autonomy. Ability to set clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction, yet
providing school leadership teams with the responsibility and authority for determining how to
meet those goals.
Institutionalization. Process which translates an organization's code of conduct, mission,
policies, vision, and strategic plans into action guidelines applicable to the daily activities of its
officers and other employees. It aims at integrating fundamental values and objectives into the
organization's culture and structure
(http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/institutionalization.html).
Learning Organization. Organizations in which participants continually expand their capacities
to create and achieve, where novel patterns of thinking are encouraged where collective
aspirations are nurtured, where participants learn how to learn together, and where the
organization expands its capacity for innovation and problem solving (Senge, 1990, p. 5).
Professional Learning Communities. Educators committed to working collaboratively in
ongoing processes of collective inquiry and action research in order to achieve better student
results (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2006; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2010).
Self-Efficacy. The “…beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute a course of action
required to produce a given attainment” (Bandura, 1997, p. 2).
Shared Leadership: Contains Capacity building, defined autonomy and resource allocation
(Hord, 1997)
Shared Vision: Answers the question “what do we want to create?” and “creates a sense of
commonality that permeates the organization and gives coherence to diverse activities…where
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

186
each individual has a similar picture and are committed to one another having it (Senge, 1990, p.
206).
SMART Goals: Strategic, specific, measurable, attainable, results-based and time-bound
(SMART) goals that are agreed upon and supported by the school community are
critical for supporting student achievement (O’Neill, Conzemius, Commodore, & Pulsfus, 2006).
Teacher Efficacy: The extent to which the teacher believes he or she has the capacity to affect
student performance (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

187
Appendix B
Concepts and Characteristics of Model Communities of Collaboration in Educational
Settings
Model Concepts and Characteristics
Coalition of
Essential Schools
Sizer (1986)
Instructional improvement through inquiry and collaboration
Ten principles for school-wide reform:
• Intellectual focus that helps students use their minds well
• Goals that value depth and mastery over breadth of content covered
• Universal goals that apply to all students
• Personalization of teaching and learning
• Student-as-worker and teacher as coach to teach students how to
learn, then teach themselves
• Student exhibitions of mastery
• Tone of decency, high expectations, trust, values of fairness,
generosity and tolerance
• Staff are first generalists, then specialists
• Resources dedicated to teaching and learning
• Democracy and equity
Critical Friends
Costa & Kallick
(1993)
A critical friend is “a trusted person who asks provocative questions,
provides data to be examined through another lens, and offers critiques of
a person’s work as a friend.”
• Promotes meaningful interaction, learning and problem solving
• Reflection, public practice, meaningful questions and substantive
feedback that challenges assumptions, habits and practices
• Use of processes and protocols
Communities of
Commitment
Kofman & Senge
(1993)
“The learning organization vision is grounded in a culture based on values
of love, humility, wonder, empathy, and compassion; a set of practices for
generative conversation and coordinated action; and a capacity to see and
work with the flow of life as a system”
• Promotes systems thinking and team building
• Addresses dysfunction of isolation, competition, and reactiveness

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

188

Appendix B (continued)
Model Concepts and Characteristics
Professional
Learning
Communities
Hord
(1997, 1998)
“A school in which the professionals (administrators and teachers)
continuously seek and share learning to increase their effectiveness for
students and act on what they learn.”
• Shared values and mission
• Collective learning and application of that learning
• Shared personal practice
• Supportive conditions
• Share and supportive leadership
Professional
Learning
Communities
DuFour & Eaker
(1998)
• Three
Big
Ideas:
(1)
The
purpose
of
school
is
to
ensure
that
all

students
learn.
(2)
Ensuring
that
all
students
learn
requires
a

culture
of
collaboration.
(3)
Ensuring
that
all
students
learn

requires
a
focus
on
results.
PLCs
are
characterized
by:

• Collaboratively developed and shared mission, vision values and goals
• Collective inquiry into best practices and current reality
• Action orientation and experimentation
• Collaborative teams that work interdependently to achieve common
goals
• Results orientation: focus on results as evidenced by a commitment to
continuous improvement

Communities of
Practice
Wenger & Snyder
(2000)
“Groups of people informally bound together by shared expertise and
passion for a joint enterprise”
• Interdisciplinary membership
• Use of processes and a diverse menu of protocol choices
• Decentralized structure
Purposeful
Community Waters,
McNulty & Marzano
(2005)
“A purposeful community is one with the collective efficacy and
capability to develop and use assets to accomplish goals that matter to all
community members through agreed upon processes”
• Accomplish a purpose and produce outcomes that matter to all
• Use of all available assets, tangible and intangible
• Agreed-upon processes
• Collective efficacy
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

189
Appendix C
Common Characteristics of Collaboration Around Student Achievement
Regardless of the collaborative model or setting in which it operates there are inherent
dynamics and best practices related to collaboration around student achievement. Five common
characteristics of collaboration around student achievement were identified from relevant
literature. These characteristics include (1) supportive and shared leadership, (2) learning as a
fundamental purpose, (3) culture of collaboration, (4) focus on results and (5) collective efficacy.
These and their associated competencies are further explored in the following sections.
Supportive and Shared Leadership
Supportive and shared leadership is an essential characteristic of collaboration around
student achievement (NAESP, 2008). From relevant literature emerge three competencies that
define supportive and shared leadership. These competencies include (a) capacity building, (b)
defined autonomy, and (c) resource allocation.
Capacity building. An important function within collaborative learning communities is
to build capacity of teams and team members (Costa & Kallick, 1993). Capacity building
requires the ability to (a) identify the specific knowledge and skill deficits that inhibit teachers
and administrators from achieving the outcomes for which they are accountable and (b) engaging
them in knowledge- and skill-building activities that raise their capacity to achieve these
outcomes (Hord, 1997). In this process it is important that team members believe their
contributions are vital and valued (Sizer, 1986). Collectively, the team must be committed to
developing their knowledge and skills so they can achieve the outcomes for which they are
accountable (Waters & Cameron, 2008). It is also important that teams be provided the necessary
time and resources for professional growth (DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Marzano & Waters,
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

190
Appendix C (continued)
2009). When these conditions have been met, leadership can systematically release the
responsibility and authority for determining how to meet district goals to the teams that are
accountable for meeting them (DuFour & Marzano, 2011).
Defined autonomy. Collaborative learning communities define autonomy. Defined
autonomy provides independence within parameters (Marzano & Waters, 2009). It is the task of
central office to set clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction while providing
school leadership teams with the responsibility and authority to determine how to meet those
goals (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). Central office must set goals and expectations for site
performance (Eaker & Keating, 2012). Intentional communication between the central office and
school sites regarding these clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction must occur
(Marzano & Waters, 2009). Under these conditions, teams are entrusted to take on increasing
responsibility and authority for determining how to meet district goals (NAESP, 2008).
Resource allocation. The success of collaborative learning communities relies on
effective resource allocation. Resource allocation is the ability to make the decisions that provide
the greatest benefit to student achievement outcomes (Hord, 1997). Criteria for resource
allocation must be set by central office then consistently applied and managed at the both the
central office and school site levels (Marzano & Waters, 2008; DuFour & Marzano, 2011). It
requires central office and school sites to prioritize available resources then make decisions
about how to spend allocated resources in order to provide the greatest benefit to student
achievement. Effective resource allocation also relies on intentional communication between the
central office and school sites surrounding student achievement goals (Eaker & Keating, 2012).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

191
Appendix C (continued)
Learning as the Fundamental Purpose
The fundamental purpose of schools is to ensure that all students learn at high levels
(DuFour et al., 2010). Students who have learned at high levels can transfer what they have
learned to new situations appropriately (Wiggins & McTighe, 2011). Teaching for transfer
involves schema building (Sweller, Van Merrienboer & Paas, 1998) and strategies for managing
cognitive load (Van Merrienboer, Kirschner & Kester, 2003). Therefore, instruction must be
intentionally designed with transfer outcomes in mind (Wiggins & McTighe, 2011). It is
important, then, for teachers and administrators to develop clarity about what it is that all
students must learn (DuFour et. al., 2010).
Learning as the fundamental purpose is an essential characteristic of collaboration around
student achievement (DuFour et al., 2010). From relevant literature emerge four competencies
that operationalize Learning as a fundamental purpose. These competencies include (a) building
collective knowledge regarding essential learning outcomes, (b) developing and deploying an
assessment and monitoring system, (c) developing timely, directive, systematic interventions for
remediation and enrichment, and finally, (d) evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in
producing the essential learning outcomes.
Building collective knowledge regarding essential learning outcomes. Collaborative
learning communities build collective knowledge about essential learning outcomes (DuFour et
al., 2010; Hord, 1997). Teams develop clarity about essential outcomes by considering content
and process standards as well as dispositions and habits of mind that students are expected to
acquire by the end of a particular learning progression (Marzano & Waters, 2009). In order for

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

192
Appendix C (continued)
teams to develop clarity about the essential learning outcomes, they must be provided with
processes, resources, and adequate time (Eaker & Keating, 2012).
Developing and deploying an assessment and monitoring system. Collaborative
learning communities develop and deploy assessment and monitoring systems (DuFour & Eaker,
1998). Assessment and monitoring systems communicate to all team members the extent to
which students are achieving essential learning outcomes (Eaker & Keating, 2012). This requires
that teams know how to develop high quality assessments that produce useful data about whether
students have met essential learning outcomes (DuFour et. al, 2010). Additionally, it requires an
accessible data management system that can store data and communicate to all stakeholders the
extent to which students are achieving essential learning outcomes. Student learning is at the
center of an effective assessment and monitoring system (DuFour et. al, 2010). Supporting
factors include collaboration, data systems, knowledge and skills, and structural supports
(Datnow et al., 2007).
Assessment and monitoring systems make it possible to engage in Data-Driven Decision
Making. Marsh, Pane and Hamilton (2006) defines data-driven decision making (DDDM) as
“teachers, principals, and administrators systematically collecting and analyzing various types of
data, including input, process, outcome and satisfaction data, to guide a range of decisions to
help improve the success of students and schools” (p. 1). As Datnow et al. (2007) writes, the
ability to gather and make use of data is an integral part of a culture and system of continuous
improvement that is geared toward improving student learning outcomes.
Factors can support or hinder effective data-driven decision-making (Datnow et al., 2007;
Mandinach et al., 2006; Marsh et al., 2006). Synthesizing data from four large-scale RAND
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

193
Appendix C (continued)
studies, Marsh et al. (2006) presented findings on the ways in which data are used in education
and the factors that influence the extent to which educators use data to make decisions. Among
the most salient factors she noted were (a) accessibility, quality and timeliness of data, (b) staff
motivation and skills to use data, and (c) organizational factors such as time, pressure to adhere
to pacing guidelines, and overall culture/leadership.
Developing timely, directive, systematic interventions for remediation and
enrichment. Collaborative learning communities develop timely, directive, systematic
interventions for remediation and enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need (DuFour et.
al, 2010). This mandates that students receive additional time and support or enrichment
opportunities when needed. Teams need to know how to identify struggling students who need
remediation as well as identify students who are already achieving at proficient and advanced
levels and are in need of enrichment opportunities (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). Systems,
processes and resources must be in place (Hord, 1997, 1998) to provide remediation and
enrichment. Teams must then be committed to making a concerted effort (Kofman & Senge,
1993) to connect students with the appropriate remediation and enrichment opportunities
whenever the need is demonstrated (DuFour & Marzano, 2011).
Evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in producing the essential learning
outcomes. Collaborative learning communities evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in
producing the essential learning outcomes for students (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Teams collect
various data to determine how effective a particular intervention has been. Protocols, models,
and other resources are made available and are used to determine the effectiveness of
interventions.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

194
Appendix C (continued)
Culture of Collaboration
Culture of collaboration is an essential characteristic of collaboration around student
achievement (NAESP, 2008). Two competencies emerged from the literature that are used here
to operationalize culture of collaboration. These competencies are (a) providing collaborative
teams with time to meet and (b) collaborative teams working interdependently to gather, analyze,
and determine best practices and transfer these best practices across all team members (Sizer,
1986; Hord, 1997, 1998).
Collaborative teams are given time to meet. Collaborative learning communities
require time to meet (NAESP, 2008). Additionally, collaborative teams are allowed to establish
the tasks and purposes for their time working together (Waters, Marzano & McNulty, 2005).
Administrators at both central office and school site levels support and facilitate collaboration
time through helpful scheduling arrangements.
Collaborative teams work interdependently to gather, analyze, and determine best
practices and transfer best practices across all team members. Continuous improvement
requires feedback. When identifying and implementing best practices, feedback offered by
trusted colleagues regarded positively (Costa & Kallick, 1993). However, collaborative teams
also understand that there are inherent tensions embedded in the collaborative process (Graham
& Ferriter, 2010). To persist and accomplish their goals, collaborative teams implement
strategies to overcome these interpersonal challenges (Costa & Kallick, 1993). When group
tension arises, team members respectfully address the tension. Collaborative learning teams
consistently use norms and protocols for working collaboratively to gather, analyze, and transfer
best practices across all team members (Wenger & Snyder, 2000).
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

195
Appendix C (continued)
Focus of Results
Focus on results is an essential characteristic of collaboration around student achievement
(NAESP, 2008). Two related competencies that emerged from the relevant literature define a
focus on results. These competencies are (a) using common assessment data to identify needs for
intervention and enrichment and (b) using assessment data to identify strengths and weaknesses
in individual and collective teaching as part of a cycle of continuous improvement (DuFour &
Eaker, 1998; Schmoker, 2011; Waters & Cameron, 2008).
Using common assessment data to identify needs for intervention and enrichment.
Collaborative learning communities use common assessment data to identify needs for
intervention and enrichment (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Common assessments are developed and
aligned with essential learning outcomes using a systematic and collaborative process (Langer et
al., 2003). Teams then use specific protocols and processes for analyzing common assessment
data (Little et al., 2003; Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Using common assessment data, collaborative
teams then refer students for interventions for remediation and enrichment (DuFour & Eaker,
1998; DuFour et al., 2010).
Using assessment data to identify strengths and weaknesses in individual and
collective teaching as part of a cycle of continuous improvement. Collaborative learning
communities use assessment data to drive conversations aimed at identifying practices that have
been effective and those that need to be re-evaluated (Langer et al., 2003; Schmoker, 2011).
Collective Efficacy
Collaborative learning communities share the belief that, as a team, they can organize and

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

196
Appendix C (continued)
execute a course of action that positively impacts achievement (Waters & Cameron, 2008). This
competency requires teams to identify clear actionable steps that lead to achievement goals.
Administrators at the central office and school site levels must provide structured time for teams
to engage in action planning. Collective efficacy is enhanced when school culture fosters the
notion that working collectively makes it possible to produce desired student achievement
outcomes (Marzano & Waters, 2009). Collective efficacy underscores the essential role that all
members play in positively impacting student achievement (NAESP, 2008).
Collective efficacy is an important motivational construct that moderates the other four
characteristics of collaboration around student achievement and their associated competencies
(Goddard & Goddard, 2001; Goddard et al., 2004). Collective efficacy, as applied to the 12
competencies of collaboration around student achievement, indicates the extent to which team
members believe that the team, working together as a whole, can demonstrate the competencies
(Waters & Cameron, 2008). To be clear, the teams collective efficacy beliefs impact the teams
actual ability to demonstrate the competencies.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

197
Appendix D
CASA Team Characteristics and Competencies

CASA Team
Characteristics
& Competencies

Frameworks

Factual,
Conceptual,
Procedural,
Metacognitive
(Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2005)
CANE Model
(Clark, 1999)
Processes, Material
Resources,
Organizational
Culture
(Clark & Estes,
2008)
Coding
Characteristic #1
SUPPORTIVE &
SHARED
LEADERSHIP
Knowledge &
Skill
Motivation Organization Possible Artifacts
1. Capacity Building

Ability to identify the
specific knowledge and
skill deficits that inhibit
people from achieving the
outcomes for which they
are accountable.

Ability to engage teachers
and administrators in
knowledge- and skill-
building activities that raise
their capacity to achieve
the outcomes for which
they are accountable.
• My team
members know
the specific
knowledge and
skills required
for our team to
achieve the
outcomes for
which we are
accountable.
• My team knows
how to engage
in team learning
activities that
raise our
capacity to
achieve the
outcomes for
which we are
accountable.
• It is important
to my team to
make all
members feel
that their
contribution is
vital to our
success.
• My team is
committed to
developing our
professional
knowledge and
skills so that we
can achieve the
outcomes for
which we are
accountable.
• My team is
provided the
necessary time to
learn and grow
professionally
• My team is
provided the
necessary
resources to learn
and grow
professionally
• PD plan
• District PD plan
• Team activities
• Schedules
• Calendars
• Budget allocation

2. Defined Autonomy

Ability to set clear, non-
negotiable goals for
learning and instruction,
yet providing school
leadership teams with the
responsibility and authority
for determining how to
meet those goals.
• My team has
been given the
responsibility
and authority
for determining
how to meet the
goals set by
central office.
• My team values
being given the
responsibility
and authority
for determining
how to meet
district goals.
• Intentional
communication
occurs between
central office and
school sites
regarding clear,
non-negotiable
goals for learning
and instruction.
• Central office sets
clear goals and
expectations for
site performance
• Yearly goals
(individual)
• Mid-year
• Single school plan
• Mid-year updates
• Instructional
updates
• Data advance
• Staff evaluations
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

198
Appendix D (continued)

3. Resource Allocation

Ability to make resource
allocation decisions that
provide the greatest benefit
to student achievement
outcomes.
• My team knows
how to
prioritize
resources that
benefit student
achievement
outcomes.
• It is important
that my team
can make
decisions about
how to spend
allocated
resources that
provide the
greatest benefit
to student
achievement
outcomes.
• Intentional
communication
occurs between
central office and
school sites
surrounding
student
achievement goals.
• Resource
allocation criteria
are consistently
applied and
managed.
• Budgets
• Budget
prioritization
process

Characteristic #2
LEARNING AS THE
FUNDAMENTAL
PURPOSE
Knowledge &
Skill
Motivation Organization Possible Artifacts
4. Building collective
knowledge regarding
essential learning
outcomes
Develop clarity among
all team members
regarding the essential
learning outcomes that
all students are expected
to achieve.
• My team has
clarity about the
essential
learning
outcomes that
all students are
expected to
achieve.

• It is important
for my team to
develop clarity
about the
essential
learning
outcomes that
all students are
expected to
achieve.
• My team is
provided with the
time to develop
clarity about the
essential learning
outcomes that all
students are
expected to
achieve.
• My team is
provided with the
processes and
resources that
enable us to
develop clarity
about the essential
learning outcomes
that all students
are expected to
achieve.
• Lesson plan
objectives aligned
with standards
• Lesson plans
objectives aligned
with common core
standards
• Schedules
• Calendars
• Team protocols
used

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

199
Appendix D (continued)
5. Developing and
deploying an assessment
and monitoring system.
Implement an assessment
and reporting system that
communicates to all team
members the extent to
which students are
achieving essential
learning outcomes.
• My team knows
how to develop
high quality
assessments
that produce
useful data
about whether
students have
met essential
learning
outcomes.
• My team knows
how to use a
data
management
system (e.g.
Data Director)
to store and
communicate
assessment
data.

• My team values
having access
to a data
management
system that can
communicate to
all team
members the
extent to which
students are
achieving
essential
learning
outcomes.
• My team has
access to a data
management
system that
communicates to
all stakeholders the
extent to which
students are
achieving essential
learning outcomes.
• Assessments
• Reports generated
from Data Director
• Meeting minutes
from SSC, ELAC,
PTA, AAPC, etc.,
of when student
achievement
results were shared
with stakeholders
• Newsletter or
newspaper articles
describing student
achievement
6. Developing timely,
directive, systematic
interventions for
remediation and
enrichment.
Provide students with
additional time and
support whenever there is
a demonstrated need.
Provide students with
enrichment opportunities
whenever there is a
demonstrated need.
• My team knows
how to identify
struggling
students in need
of remediation.
• My team knows
how to identify
proficient and
advanced
students in need
of enrichment
opportunities.
• My team knows
how to connect
students with
interventions
for remediation
and enrichment
when there is a
demonstrated
need
• It is important
that students
are provided
with
interventions
for remediation
and enrichment
whenever there
is a
demonstrated
need.
• My team makes
a concerted
effort to
connect
students with
interventions
for remediation
and enrichment
whenever there
is a
demonstrated
need.
• My team is
provided the
systems, processes
and/or resources
necessary to
provide students
with interventions
for remediation
and enrichment
whenever there is
a demonstrated
need
• List of struggling
students
• List of possible
interventions
available
• List of enrichment
opportunities
• Lesson plans of
differentiated
instruction
• Documentation
that measures
student growth
before and after
the application of
an intervention
• Data Director
student reports
• Budget allocations
for intervention
teachers
7. Evaluating the
effectiveness of
interventions in
producing the essential
learning outcomes.

Use data to measure the
impact of interventions

• My team knows
how to collect
various data to
determine how
effective a
particular
intervention has
been.
• It is important
to use data to
determine how
effective an
intervention has
been.

• Protocols, models,
and/or other
resources for
determining the
effectiveness of
interventions, have
been made
available to my
team.
• Student data
• CST data
• Formative test data
• Data

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

200
Appendix D (continued)

Characteristic #3
CULTURE OF
COLLABORATION
Knowledge &
Skill
Motivation Organization Possible Artifacts
8. Collaborative teams
are given time to meet.
• My team knows
how to establish
the tasks and
purposes for
working
together.
• My team values
the time we
spend together
collaborating.
• Administration
supports and
facilitates
collaboration time
through helpful
scheduling
arrangements.

• Team task list
• Schedule of
meetings
9. Collaborative teams
work interdependently to
gather, analyze and
determine best practices
and transfer best
practices across all team
members.

Ability to collaborate in
order to identify and scale
up best practices
• My team works
together to
gather, analyze,
and implement
best practices.
• My team
understands that
there are
inherent tensions
embedded in the
collaborative
process but we
implement
strategies to
overcome these
interpersonal
challenges.
• My team values
feedback from
colleagues when
identifying and
implementing
best practices.
• My team
respectfully
addresses group
tension when
working
collaboratively
to gather,
analyze and
transfer best
practices across
all team
members
• My team
consistently uses
norms and
protocols for
working
collaboratively to
gather, analyze, and
transfer best
practices across all
team members.
• Team minutes
showing discussion
of best practices
• Shared strategies
used to overcome
interpersonal
challenges
• Team norms
• Protocols
Characteristic #4
FOCUS ON RESULTS

Knowledge &
Skill
Motivation Organization
Possible Artifacts
10. Using common
assessment data to
identify needs for
intervention and
enrichment
Ability to use common
assessment data to identify
needs for intervention and
enrichment
• My team knows
how to use
common
assessment data
to refer students
for interventions
for remediation
and enrichment.
• Using common
assessment data
to refer students
for interventions
for remediation
and enrichment
is important to
my team.
• My team has
specific protocols
and processes for
analyzing common
assessment data.

• My team uses a
systematic,
collaborative
process to develop
common
assessments that are
aligned with
essential learning
outcomes.

• Assessment data
used to refer
students
• Protocols used for
analyzing data
• Documented
collaborative
process to develop
common
assessments

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

201
Appendix D (continued)

11. Using assessment data
to identify strengths and
weaknesses in individual
and collective teaching as
part of a continuous
improvement cycle.

Ability to identify strengths
and weaknesses
collectively and
individually as part of
ongoing improvement.

• My team
analyzes student
achievement
data in order to
identify
instructional
strengths and
weaknesses as
part of ongoing
improvement.
• My team values
comparing
assessment
results and
sharing
instructional
strategies to
identify
strengths and
weaknesses in
individual and
collective
teaching.
• My team is
provided an
environment where
we can safely share
and examine
strengths and
weaknesses in
individual and
collective teaching.
• List of strategies
implemented as a
result of analyzing
student
achievement data
• Shared ways in
which instructional
weaknesses have
been addressed

Characteristic #5
COLLECTIVE
EFFICACY

Knowledge &
Skill
Motivation Organization Possible Artifacts
12. Shared belief that
they can organize and
execute a course of action
that positively impacts
achievement

Ability to organize and
execute a course of action
based on a shared belief
that collectively the team
could positively impact
achievement.
• Members of my
team know how
to organize and
execute a course
of action to
positively impact
student
achievement
• My team is
committed to the
belief that
collectively we
have the ability
to produce the
student
achievement
results we
desire.
• My team
believes that all
members of our
team play an
essential role in
positively
impacting
student
achievement.

• School culture
fosters the notion
that working
collectively we
have the ability to
produce the student
achievement
outcomes we truly
desire.
• My team is
provided structured
opportunities to
develop the clear
actionable steps
(i.e. action plans)
necessary to impact
student
achievement results
we truly desire.
• Team action plans
for student
achievement
• Student
achievement results
• List of clear
actionable steps
taken
• Schedules or
calendars showing
team meetings
• Meeting minutes

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

202
Appendix D (continued)
Perceived Collective Team Efficacy
The statements below describe activities that are important to collaborative teams.
For each statement, please rate how certain you are that your team, by working together as a whole, can accomplish
the following activities.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cannot Can do Can do with
do at all moderately high certainty

Supportive & Shared Leadership
1 Identify the specific knowledge and skill deficits that inhibit our team from achieving the outcomes for
which we are accountable.
2 Engage ourselves in knowledge- and skill-building activities that raise our team’s capacity to achieve the
outcomes for which we are accountable.
3 Agree to be held accountable to clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction set by site and/or
district leadership.
4 Accept and carry out the responsibility and authority for determining how to meet the clear, non-negotiable
goals set by site and/or district leadership.
Supporting Artifacts:
● List of knowledge and skill-building activities

Learning as the Fundamental Purpose
1 Make resource allocation decisions that provide the greatest benefit to student achievement outcomes.
2 Develop clarity among all team members regarding the essential learning outcomes that all students are
expected to achieve.
3 Provide students with additional time and support whenever there is a demonstrated need.
4 Provide students with enrichment opportunities whenever there is a demonstrated need.
5 Use data to measure the impact of interventions.
Supporting Artifacts:
● Budget used or allocated for student achievement
● Student intervention schedule
● Student enrichment schedule
● Single School Plan
Grade level and Department goals

Culture of Collaboration
1 Make use of available time to hold productive collaboration meetings.
2 Collaborate interdependently to gather, analyze and determine best practices and transfer best practices
across all team members.
Supporting Artifacts:
● Collaboration meeting schedule
● Student work produced as a result of implementing best practices

Focus on Results
1 Use common assessment data to identify needs for intervention and enrichment.
2 Identify strengths and weaknesses in our collective and individual practice as part of an ongoing cycle of
improvement.
Supporting Artifacts:
● Common Assessments
● Plan to address weaknesses
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

203
Appendix E
The 21 Responsibilities of the School Leader
Responsibility The extent to which the Principal…
1. Affirmation Recognizes & celebrates accomplishments & acknowledges failures
2. Change Agent Is willing to challenge & actively challenges the status quo
3. Contingent Rewards Recognizes & rewards individual accomplishments
4. Communication Establishes strong lines of communication with & among teachers & students
5. Culture Fosters shared beliefs & a sense of community & cooperation
6. Discipline Protects teachers from issues & influences that would detract from their teaching
time or focus
7. Flexibility Adapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of the current situation & is
comfortable with dissent
8. Focus Establishes clear goals & keeps those goals in the forefront of the school’s attention

9. Deals/Beliefs Communicates & operates from strong ideals & beliefs about schooling
10. Input Involves teachers in the design & implementation of important decisions & policies
11. Intellectual Stimulation Ensures faculty & staff are aware of the most current theories & practices & makes
the discussion of these a regular aspect of the school’s culture
12. Involvement in
Curriculum, Instruction, &
Assessment
Is directly involved in the design & implementation of curriculum, instruction, &
assessment practices
13. Knowledge of
Curriculum, Instruction, &
Assessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction, & assessment practices
14. Monitoring/ Evaluating Monitors the effectiveness of school practices & their impact on student learning
15. Optimizer Inspires & leads new & challenging innovations
16. Order Establishes a set of standard operating procedures & routines
17. Outreach Is an advocate & spokesperson for the school to all stakeholders
18. Relationships Demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of teachers & staff
19. Resources Provides teachers with materials & professional development necessary for the
successful execution of their jobs
20. Situational Awareness Is aware of the details & undercurrents in the running of the school & uses this
information to address current & potential problems
21. Visibility Has quality contact & interactions with teachers & students

Source. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005)
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

204
Appendix F
CASA Team Competency Survey Protocol
Q1.1 We are conducting a tri-level analysis (Central office, Site Leadership, and Teachers) of
how we professionally collaborate to increase student achievement throughout the
Pasadena Unified School District. Your participation is crucial to gathering meaningful
data to build greater capacity within our teams. If you belong to two or more collaborative
teams, please respond to the survey with the team in mind that most directly impacts
student achievement. The survey will require 15 to 20 minutes of your time. Once again,
thank you for taking the time to complete this survey

Q2.1 Gender.
Male (1)
Female (2)

Q2.2 Age.
21-28 (1)
29-34 (2)
35-40 (3)
41-46 (4)
47-52 (5)
53-58 (6)
59 or older (7)

Q2.3 Ethnicity.
1. Caucasian (White) (1)
2. African American (2)
3. Hispanic (3)
4. Asian (4)
5. Native American (5)
6. Multiracial (6)
7. Other: Please specify (7) ____________________

Q2.4 Highest level of education attained.
1. Bachelor’s Degree (1)
2. Some Master's Work (2)
3. Master’s Degree (3)
4. Some Doctoral Work (4)
5. Doctoral Degree (5)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

205
Appendix F (continued)
Q2.5 What is your current position?
Teacher (1)
Assistant Principal (2)
Elementary Principal (3)
Secondary Principal (4)
Coordinator (5)
Director (6)
Executive Director (7)
Chief (8)
Superintendent (9)

Q2.6 How many years have you served in your current position (e.g. teacher, coordinator or
administrator)?
1-5 years (1)
6-10 years (2)
11-15 years (3)
16-20 years (4)
21-25 years (5)
26-30 years (6)
31 years or longer (7)

Q2.7 Current work setting.
Pre K: Preschool (1)
K-5: Elementary (2)
K-8: Span School (3)
6-8: Middle School (4)
6-12: Span School (5)
9-12: High School (6)
Alternative Education School (7)
District Office (8)

Q2.8 Name of your school. (Example: Blair MS, Rose City HS, and Sierra Madre ES)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

206
Appendix F (continued)
Q2.9 How many years have you served at your current work setting?
1-5 years (1)
6-10 years (2)
11-15 years (3)
16-20 years (4)
21-25 years (5)
26-30 years (6)
31 years or longer (7)

Q2.10 Have you received training on a particular model(s) of collaboration (e.g., professional
learning communities, communities of practice, purposeful communities)?
Professional Learning Communities (1)
Communities of Practice (2)
Purposeful Communities (3)
Other (4) ____________________
No (5)

Q2.11 Do you feel that your school/department has implemented a particular model of
collaboration?
Professional Learning Communities (1)
Communities of Practice (2)
Purposeful Communities (3)
Other (4) ____________________
No (5)

Q2.12 How many collaborative teams do you belong to?
I belong to one (1) collaborative team. (1)
I belong to two (2) collaborative teams. (2)
I belong to three (3) or more collaborative teams. (3)
I do not belong to a collaborative team. (4)

Q3.1 My team members know the specific knowledge and skills required for our team to achieve
the outcomes for which we are accountable.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q3.2 My team knows how to engage in team learning activities that raise our capacity to achieve
the outcomes for which we are accountable.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

207
Appendix F (continued)
Q3.3 It is important to my team to make all members feel that their contribution is vital to our
success.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q3.4 My team is committed to developing our professional knowledge and skills so that we can
achieve the outcomes for which we are accountable.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q3.5 My team is provided the necessary time to learn and grow professionally.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q3.6 My team is provided the necessary resources to learn and grow professionally
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q4.1 My team has been given the responsibility and authority for determining how to meet the
goals set by central office.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q4.2 My team values being given the responsibility and authority for determining how to meet
district goals.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q4.3 Intentional communication occurs between central office and school sites regarding clear,
non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q4.4 Central office sets clear goals and expectations for site performance.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q5.1 My team knows how to prioritize resources that benefit student achievement outcomes.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q5.2 It is important that my team can make decisions about how to spend allocated resources
that provide the greatest benefit to student achievement outcomes.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

208
Appendix F (continued)

Q5.3 Resource allocation criteria are consistently applied and managed.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q6.1 My team has clarity about the essential learning outcomes that all students are expected to
achieve.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q6.2 It is important for my team to develop clarity about the essential learning outcomes that all
students are expected to achieve.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q6.3 My team is provided with the time to develop clarity about the essential learning outcomes
that all students are expected to achieve.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q6.4 My team is provided with processes and resources that enable us to develop clarity about
the essential learning outcomes that all students are expected to achieve.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q7.1 My team knows how to develop high quality assessments that produce useful data about
whether students have met essential learning outcomes.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q7.2 My team knows how to use a data management system (e.g. DataDirector) to store, analyze
and communicate assessment data.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q7.3 My team values having access to a data management system that can communicate to all
team members the extent to which students are achieving essential learning outcomes.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q7.4 My team has access to a data management system that communicates to all stakeholders the
extent to which students are achieving essential learning outcomes.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q8.1 My team knows how to identify struggling students in need of remediation.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

209
Appendix F (continued)

Q8.2 My team knows how to identify proficient and advanced students in need of enrichment
opportunities.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)
Q8.3 My team knows how to connect students with interventions for remediation and enrichment
when there is a demonstrated need.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q8.4 It is important that students are provided with interventions for remediation and enrichment
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q8.5 My team makes a concerted effort to connect students with interventions for remediation
and enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q8.6 My team is provided the systems, processes and/or resources necessary to provide students
with interventions for remediation and enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q9.1 My team knows how to collect various data to determine how effective a particular
intervention has been.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q9.2 It is important to use data to determine how effective an intervention has been.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q9.3 Protocols, models, and/or other resources for determining the effectiveness of
interventions, have been made available to my team.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q10.1 My team knows how to establish the tasks and purposes for working together.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q10.2 My team values the time we spend together collaborating.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q10.3 Administration supports and facilitates collaboration time through helpful scheduling
arrangements.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

210
Appendix F (continued)

Q11.1 My team works together to gather, analyze, and implement best practices.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q11.2 My team understands that there are inherent tensions embedded in the collaborative
process but we implement strategies to overcome these interpersonal challenges.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q11.3 My team values feedback from colleagues when identifying and implementing best
practices.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q11.4 My team respectfully addresses group tension when working collaboratively to gather,
analyze and transfer best practices across all team members
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q11.5 My team consistently uses norms and protocols for working collaboratively to gather,
analyze, and transfer best practices across all team members.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q12.1 Members of my team know how to organize and execute a course of action to positively
impact student achievement.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q12.2 My team is committed to the belief that, working collectively, we have the ability to
produce the student achievement results we truly desire.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q12.3 My team believes that all members of our team play an essential role in positively
impacting student achievement.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q12.4 School culture fosters the notion that, working collectively, we have the ability to produce
the student achievement outcomes we truly desire.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q12.5 My team is provided structured opportunities to develop the clear actionable steps (i.e.,
action plans) necessary to produce the student achievement results we truly desire.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q13.1 My team knows how to use common assessment data to refer students for interventions
for remediation and enrichment.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

211
Appendix F (continued)

Q13.2 Using common assessment data to refer students for interventions for remediation and
enrichment is important to my team.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q13.3 My team has specific protocols and processes for analyzing common assessment data.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q13.4 My team uses a systematic, collaborative process to develop common assessments that are
aligned with essential learning outcomes.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q14.1 My team analyzes student achievement data in order to identify instructional strengths and
weaknesses as part of ongoing improvement.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q14.2 My team values comparing assessment results and sharing instructional strategies to
identify strengths and weaknesses in individual and collective teaching.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q14.3 My team is provided an environment where we can safely share and examine strengths
and weaknesses in individual and collective teaching.
______ Please indicate your level of agreement with the statement above (1)

Q15.1 Supportive and Shared Leadership. How certain are you that your team, working together
as a whole, can do the following:
______ Identify the specific knowledge and skill deficits that inhibit our team from achieving the
outcomes for which we are accountable. (1)
______ Engage ourselves in knowledge- and skill-building activities that raise our team’s capacity to
achieve the outcomes for which we are accountable. (2)

______ Agree to be held accountable to clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction set by site
and/or district leadership. (3)

______ Accept and carry out the responsibility and authority for determining how to meet the clear, non-
negotiable goals set by site and/or district leadership. (4)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

212
Appendix F (continued)

Q15.2 Learning as the Fundamental Purpose. How certain are you that your team, working
together as a whole, can do the following:
______ Make resource allocation decisions that provide the greatest benefit to student achievement
outcomes. (1)

______ Develop clarity among all team members regarding the essential learning outcomes that all
students are expected to achieve. (2)

______ Provide students with additional time and support whenever there is a demonstrated need. (3)

______ Provide students with enrichment opportunities whenever there is a demonstrated need. (4)

______ Use data to measure the impact of interventions. (5)

Q15.3 Culture of Collaboration. How certain, working together as a whole, can your team:
______ Make use of available time to hold productive collaboration meetings. (1)

______ Collaborate interdependently to gather, analyze and determine best practices and transfer best
practices across all team members. (2)

Q15.4 Focus on Results. How certain, working together as a whole, can your team:
______ Use common assessment data to identify needs for intervention and enrichment. (1)

______ Identify strengths and weaknesses in our collective and individual practice as part of an ongoing
cycle of improvement. (2)

Q16.1 Thank you for your time in completing the survey. There are two final questions.

Q16.2 Would you be willing to participate in a focus group or an individual discussion on the
topic of collaboration around student achievement?
Yes (1)
No (2)

Q16.3 If you would like to be entered in a drawing for one of five $25 gift cards, please be sure
to enter you name and email address below.
Name (1)
Email Address (2)

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

213
Appendix G
CASA Interview Protocol
Interviewer: Date:

Name of School/Department: Role: Years of Service:

Interviewer will introduce self and give the information sheet to the participant.
The purpose of this interview is to allow you to provide feedback on your thoughts about
collaboration around student achievement at your site. There are no right or wrong answers to
any of these questions. The purpose of the interview is to gain your perceptions and feedback,
not to evaluate anything that you say. In fact, your identity will be kept confidential as the results
are analyzed.

We find it helpful to audiotape our conversation. Taping ensures that we have an accurate record
of your responses. Are you okay with us taping our conversation? The tape recording will not
reveal your name and will only be reviewed by the interviewers and University committee
members. All tapes will be kept in a locked safe with no identifiable information. Again, we
want to stress that there is no right or wrong response. Your insight is crucial to gathering
meaningful data to build greater capacity within our teams.

We may need to seek clarification throughout the discussion to ensure that we have accurately
captured your perspective.

Do you have any questions? Are you ready to begin?

Lead statement: We are interested in learning about how your team collaborates and what work
you do together during your meetings.

1. What team do you consider to be your primary collaboration team and how long have
you been a member?

2. If I was to drop in on a routine collaborative meeting, can you describe in some detail
what I would observe?
Possible Follow-up Questions:
• What is the structure of the meeting?
• Who is part of the meeting?
• Is there a lead?
• How is student achievement data used?
• How does it guide the instruction of your department or classroom?
• Is there time to work jointly on assignments?
• Assessments?
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

214
Appendix G (continued)

• What do you feel happened in the implementation of CLCs?
• Can you provide me anything that would demonstrate this?

3. What does the team do when a student(s) is (are) performing below/above expectations?
(Or is this the responsibility of the individual teacher/department?)

4. Can you describe a time since the beginning of this year when you felt your collaborative
team worked together exceptionally well?
Possible Follow-up Questions:
• What did you do?
• How did this impact you and students?
• Why was it such a positive experience?

5. Tell me about structured ways in which your team has worked together to gain
knowledge and/or skills in areas that directly affect your work.

6. How do your team members learn from each other in structured ways?

Lead Statement: The district has been engaged with collaborative teams for several years now.

7. In what ways do you feel that your collaborative team is improving student outcomes?

8. What factors seem to be sustaining the collaborative work in your school?

9. What might be getting in the way of sustaining collaboration in your school and/or
district?

Lead Statement: Working with diverse students is a challenge.

10. What opportunities have you had to learn how to be an effective collaborative team?
Possible Follow-up Questions:
• What could the district, site leader, teacher leader do differently?
• What do you see is working?

Lead Statement: The next topic I would like to explore is leadership.

11. How is leadership distributed in your collaborative team?
Possible Follow-up Question:
• What are the assigned roles?

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

215
Appendix G (continued)

12. Share a time when members of your team felt empowered to implement their own
decisions.

Possible Follow-up Question:
• How was administration involved in that process?

13. In what ways does the administrator help collaborative teams to be at their best?
Possible Follow-up Question:
• Are there administrative practices that diminish the work of the team?

14. What support structures would make your collaboration time more meaningful and
productive?
Possible Follow-up Questions:
• How can leadership support this?

15. What have been the pros and cons of collaborating with your team?

16. Please describe how being on a team, rather than working on your own, has impacted
your ability to raise student achievement.

17. To what extent does administration demonstrate their trust in the collective capabilities of
your team to organize and execute a course of action that positively impacts student
achievement?

18. To what extent do you feel your team is provided opportunities to create clear actionable
steps necessary to impact student achievement?
Possible Follow-up Questions:
• To what extent do you feel your team values taking the clear actionable steps
necessary to close the achievement gap?
• To what extent were you involved in the creation of documents such as the Single
School Plan or the Strategic Plan or WASC accreditation?

19. If you had three wishes for making your collaborative team more effective, what would
they be?

20. Do you have any final comments or anything else you want to add?

Thank you for your time on this project.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

216
Appendix H

Tri-Level Data (n=281)

Table H1

Tri-Level Demographic Characteristics of Sample

Characteristic n (%)
Gender
Male 60 21.4
Female 221 78.6
Totals 281 100.0
Age
21-28 12 4.3
29-34 27 9.6
35-40 49 17.4
41-46 52 18.5
47-52 60 21.4
53-58 46 16.4
59 or older 35 12.5
Totals 281 100.0
Ethnicity
Caucasian 147 52.3
African American 37 13.2
Hispanic 52 18.5
Asian 21 7.5
Native American 1 .4
Multiracial 13 4.6
Other 10 3.6
Totals 281 100.0
Highest level of education attained
Bachelor’s degree 27 9.6
Some master’s work 32 11.4
Master’s degree 180 64.1
Some doctoral work 22 7.8
Doctoral degree 20 7.1
Totals 281 100.0

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

217
Appendix H (continued)
Table H2

Tri-Level Demographics of Current Work Setting

Characteristic n (%)
Current position
Teacher 224 79.7
Assistant principal 10 3.6
Elementary principal 15 5.3
Secondary principal 9 3.2
Coordinator 17 6.0
Director 1 .4
Executive director 1 .4
Chief 4 1.4
Superintendent 0 0
Totals 281 100.0
Years served in current position
1-5 67 23.8
6-10 72 25.6
11-15 65 23.1
16-20 43 15.3
21-25 20 7.1
26-30 9 3.2
31 or longer 5 1.8
Totals 281 100.0

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

218
Appendix H (continued)

Table H2 (continued)

Tri-Level Demographics of Current Work Setting

Characteristic n (%)
Current work setting
Preschool 7 2.5
K-5 elementary 103 36.7
K-8 span school 20 7.1
6-8 middle school 51 18.1
6-12 span school 25 8.9
9-12 high school 44 15.7
Alternative school 8 2.8
District office 23 8.2
Totals 281 100.0
Years served at current work setting
1-5 138 49.1
6-10 70 24.9
11-15 40 14.2
16-20 25 8.9
21-25 5 1.8
26-30 1 .4
31 or longer 2 .7
Totals 281 100.0

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

219
Appendix H (continued)

Table H3

Tri-Level Models of Collaboration

Characteristic n (%)
Training on particular models of collaboration
Professional learning communities 110 39.1
Communities of practice 12 4.3
Purposeful communities 2 .7
Other 34 12.1
No 123 43.8
Totals 281 100.0
Implementation of a particular model of collaboration
Professional learning communities 89 31.7
Communities of practice 17 6.0
Purposeful communities 11 3.9
Other 33 11.7
No 131 46.6
Totals 281 100.0
Number of collaborative teams
One team 80 28.5
Two teams 71 25.3
Three teams 76 27.0
Do not belong to team 54 19.2
Totals 281 100.0

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

220
Appendix H (continued)
Table H4

Tri-Level Competency Questions, Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=281)

Mean Std. Deviation
Competency #1 M SD
My team members know the specific knowledge
and skills required for our team to achieve the
outcomes for which we are accountable.
67.37 25.49
My team knows how to engage in team learning
activities that raise our capacity to achieve the
outcomes for which we are accountable.
64.13 26.28
It is important to my team to make all members feel
that their contribution is vital to our success.
72.81 29.04
My team is committed to developing our
professional knowledge and skills so that we can
achieve the outcomes for which we are
accountable.
70.64 26.50
My team is provided the necessary time to learn
and grow professionally.
50.32 30.44
My team is provided the necessary resources to
learn and grow professionally.
51.32 28.72
Competency #2 M SD
My team has been given the responsibility and
authority for determining how to meet the goals set
by central office.
57.58 29.41
My team values being given the responsibility and
authority for determining how to meet district
goals.
69.22 28.02
Intentional communication occurs between central
office and school sites regarding clear, non-
negotiable goals for learning and instruction.
50.39 29.69
Central office sets clear goals and expectations for
site performance.
52.53 28.62
Competency #3 M SD
My team knows how to prioritize resources that
benefit student achievement outcomes.
66.90 26.26

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

221
Appendix H (continued)

Table H4 (continued)

Tri-Level Competency Questions, Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=281)

It is important that my team can make decisions
about how to spend allocated resources that provide
the greatest benefit to student achievement
outcomes.
81.00 24.46
Intentional communication occurs between central
office and school sites regarding clear, non-
negotiable learning and instruction.
52.70 29.05
Resource allocation criteria are consistently applied
and managed.
49.89 27.55
Competency #4 M SD
My team has clarity about the essential learning
outcomes that all students are expected to achieve.
71.42 26.38
It is important for my team to develop clarity about
the essential learning outcomes that all students are
expected to achieve.
82.74 23.38
My team is provided with the time to develop
clarity about the essential learning outcomes that all
students are expected to achieve.
50.71 29.80
My team is provided with processes and resources
that enable us to develop clarity about the essential
learning outcomes that all students are expected to
achieve.
53.02 28.08
Competency #5 M SD
My team knows how to develop high quality
assessments that produce useful data about whether
students have met essential learning outcomes.
62.85 27.58
My team knows how to use a data management
system (e.g. DataDirector) to store, analyze and
communicate assessment data.
70.07 25.55
My team values having access to a data
management system that can communicate to all
team members the extent to which students are
achieving essential learning outcomes.
72.67 26.76

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

222
Appendix H (continued)

Table H4 (continued)

Tri-Level Competency Questions, Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=281)

My team has access to a data management system
that communicates to all stakeholders the extent to
which students are achieving essential learning
outcomes.
68.36 27.83
Competency #6 M SD
My team knows how to identify struggling students
in need of remediation.
78.97 23.25
My team knows how to identify proficient and
advanced students in need of enrichment
opportunities.
78.58 23.68
My team knows how to connect students with
interventions for remediation and enrichment when
there is a demonstrated need.
67.40 26.79
It is important that students are provided with
interventions for remediation and enrichment
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
91.32 17.24
My team makes a concerted effort to connect
students with interventions for remediation and
enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need.
74.59 26.20
My team is provided the systems, processes and/or
resources necessary to provide students with
interventions for remediation and enrichment
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
55.02 28.70
Competency #7 M SD
My team knows how to collect various data to
determine how effective a particular intervention
has been.
64.59 27.61
It is important to use data to determine how
effective an intervention has been.
85.59 19.62
Protocols, models, and/or other resources for
determining the effectiveness of interventions, have
been made available to my team.
56.37 29.73

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

223
Appendix H (continued)

Table H4 (continued)

Tri-Level Competency Questions, Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=281)

Competency #8 M SD
My team knows how to establish the tasks and
purposes for working together.
71.74 25.86
My team values the time we spend together
collaborating.
77.12 26.42
Administration supports and / facilitates collaboration
time through helpful scheduling arrangements.
62.17 30.54
Competency #9 M SD
My team works together to gather, analyze, and
implement best practices.
69.86 26.78
My team understands that there are inherent tensions
embedded in the collaborative process but we
implement strategies to overcome these interpersonal
challenges.
69.36 26.25
My team values feedback from colleagues when
identifying and implementing best practices.
73.70 25.13
My team respectfully addresses group tension when
working collaboratively to gather, analyze and transfer
best practices across all team members.
66.83 27.63
My team consistently uses norms and protocols for
working collaboratively to gather, analyze, and
transfer best practices across all team members.
64.84 28.29
Competency #10 M SD
Members of my team know how to organize and
execute a course of action to positively impact student
achievement.
71.14 25.15
My team is committed to the belief that, working
collectively, we have the ability to produce the student
achievement results we truly desire.
75.41 25.92
My team believes that all members of our team play an
essential role in positively impacting student
achievement.
76.33 26.37

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

224
Appendix H (continued)

Table H4 (continued)

Tri-Level Competency Questions, Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=281)

School culture fosters the notion that, working
collectively, we have the ability to produce the
student achievement results we truly desire.
73.24 27.04
My team is provided structured opportunities to
develop the clear actionable steps (i.e., action plans)
necessary to produce the student achievement
results we truly desire.
61.67 28.84
Competency #11 M SD
My team knows how to use common assessment
data to refer students for interventions for
remediation and enrichment.
71.67 26.22
Using common assessment data to refer students for
interventions for remediation and enrichment is
important to my team.
74.52 25.39
My team has specific protocols and processes for
analyzing common assessment data.
64.84 28.32
My team uses a systematic, collaborative process to
develop common assessments that are aligned with
essential learning outcomes.
60.25 28.13
Competency #12 M SD
My team analyzes student achievement data in
order to identify instructional strengths and
weaknesses as part of ongoing improvement.
69.79 27.95
My team values comparing assessment results and
sharing instructional strategies to identify strengths
and weaknesses in individual and collective
teaching.
69.50 27.01
My team is provided an environment where we can
safely share and examine strengths and weaknesses
in individual and collective teaching.
63.63 30.20
Collective Team Efficacy
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole, can do the
following:

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

225

Appendix H (continued)

Table H4 (continued)

Tri-Level Competency Questions, Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=281)

Supportive and Shared Leadership M SD
Identify the specific knowledge and skill deficits
that inhibit our team from achieving the outcomes
for which we are accountable.
70.07 23.92
Engage ourselves in knowledge- and skill-building
activities that raise our team’s capacity to achieve
the outcomes for which we are accountable.
73.45 24.46
Agree to be held accountable to clear, non-
negotiable goals for learning and instruction set by
site and/or district leadership.
71.49 26.50
Accept and carry out the responsibility and
authority for determining how to meet the clear,
non-negotiable goals set by site and/or district
leadership
73.13 26.00
Learning as the Fundamental Purpose. M SD
Make resource allocation decisions that provide the
greatest benefit to student achievement outcomes.

75.37 24.65
Develop clarity among all team members regarding
the essential learning outcomes that all students are
expected to achieve.
76.58 24.14
Provide students with additional time and support
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
70.28 25.99
Provide students with enrichment opportunities
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
70.18 26.01
Use data to measure the impact of interventions. 75.52 25.65
Culture of Collaboration. M SD
Make use of available time to hold productive
collaboration meetings.
73.77 25.43

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

226
Appendix H (continued)

Table H4 (continued)

Tri-Level Competency Questions, Mean (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) (N=281)

Collaborate interdependently to gather, analyze
and determine best practices and transfer best
practices across all team members.
74.16 24.56
Focus on Results. M SD
Use common assessment data to identify needs for
intervention and enrichment.
75.27 24.66
Identify strengths and weaknesses in our collective
and individual practice as part of an ongoing cycle
of improvement.
73.38 25.01
Note. Items are ranked in ascending order within each characteristic.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

227
Appendix H (continued)
Table H5
Tri-Level Competency Overall Mean and Standard Deviation (SD)
Competency Tri-Level Competency Overall Mean Grand Mean SD
Competency #2 Defined Autonomy 57.43 28.93
Competency #3 Resource Allocation 62.62 26.83
Competency #1 Capacity Building 62.76 27.75
Competency #4 Building collective knowledge regarding
essential learning outcomes
64.48 26.91
Competency #12 Using assessment data to identify strengths and
weaknesses in individual and collective teaching
as part of a continuous improvement cycle
67.64 28.39
Competency #11 Using common assessment data to identify needs
for intervention and enrichment
67.82 27.02
Competency #5 Developing and deploying an assessment and
monitoring system
68.49 26.93
Competency #7 Evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in
producing the essential learning outcomes
68.85 25.65
Competency #9: Collaborative teams work interdependently to
gather analyze and determine best practices and
transfer best practices across all team members
68.92 26.81
Competency #8 Collaborative teams are given time to meet 70.34 27.61
Collective
Efficacy
Collective Team Efficacy
73.28 25.15
Competency #10 Shared belief that they can organize and execute
a course of action that positively impacts
achievement
74.03 26.12
Competency #6 Developing timely, directive, systematic
interventions for remediation and enrichment
74.31 24.31
Note. The 12 competencies were ranked by ascending order of their grand mean.
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

228
Appendix H (continued)
Table H6
Overall Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of Tri-Level Competency Questions Organized by
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization
Knowledge Mean SD
My team has been given the responsibility and authority for
determining how to meet the goals set by central office.
57.58 29.41
My team knows how to develop high quality assessments that
produce useful data about whether students have met essential
learning outcomes.
62.85 27.58
My team knows how to engage in team learning activities that
raise our capacity to achieve the outcomes for which we are
accountable.
64.13 26.28
My team knows how to collect various data to determine how
effective a particular intervention has been.
64.59 27.61
My team knows how to prioritize resources that benefit student
achievement outcomes.
66.90 26.26
My team members know the specific knowledge and skills
required for our team to achieve the outcomes for which we are
accountable.
67.37 25.49
My team knows how to connect students with interventions for
remediation and enrichment when there is a demonstrated
need.
67.40 26.79
My team understands that there are inherent tensions
embedded in the collaborative process but we implement
strategies to overcome these interpersonal challenges.
69.36 26.25
My team analyzes student achievement data in order to identify
instructional strengths and weaknesses as part of ongoing
improvement.
69.79 27.95
My team works together to gather, analyze, and implement
best practices.
69.86 26.78
My team knows how to use a data management system (e.g.
DataDirector) to store, analyze and communicate assessment
data.
70.07 25.55
Members of my team know how to organize and execute a
course of action to positively impact student achievement.
71.14 25.15
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

229
Appendix H (continued)
My team has clarity about the essential learning outcomes that
all students are expected to achieve.
71.42 26.38
My team knows how to use common assessment data to refer
students for interventions for remediation and enrichment.
71.67 26.22
My team knows how to establish the tasks and purposes for
working together.
71.74 25.86
My team knows how to identify proficient and advanced
students in need of enrichment opportunities.
78.58 23.68
My team knows how to identify struggling students in need of
remediation.
78.97 23.25
Motivation Mean SD
My team respectfully addresses group tension when working
collaboratively to gather, analyze and transfer best practices
across all team members.
66.83 27.63
My team values being given the responsibility and authority for
determining how to meet district goals.
69.22 28.02
My team values comparing assessment results and sharing
instructional strategies to identify strengths and weaknesses in
individual and collective teaching.
69.50 27.01
How certain are you that your team, working together as a
whole, can do the following: Identify specific knowledge and
skill deficits that inhibit our team from achieving the outcomes
for which we are accountable.
70.07 23.92
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole
can do the following: Provide students with enrichment
opportunities whenever there is a demonstrated need.
70.18 26.01
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole
can do the following: Provide students with additional time and
support whenever there is a demonstrated need.
70.28 25.99
My team is committed to developing our professional knowledge
and skills so that we can achieve the outcomes for which we are
accountable.
70.64 26.50
How certain are you that your team, working together as a
whole, can do the following: Agree to be held accountable to
clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction set by
site and/or district leadership.
71.49 26.50
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

230
Appendix H (continued)
My team values having access to a data management system that
can communicate to all team members the extent to which
students are achieving essential learning outcomes.
72.67 26.76
It is important to my team to make all members feel that their
contribution is vital to our success.
72.81 29.04
How certain are you that your team, working together as a
whole, can do the following: Accept and carry out the
responsibility and authority for determining how to meet the
clear, non-negotiable goals set by site and/or district leadership.
73.13 26.00
How certain, working together as a whole, can your team:
Identify strengths and weaknesses in our collective and
individual practice as part of an ongoing cycle of improvement.
73.38 25.01
How certain are you that your team, working together as a
whole, can do the following: Engage ourselves in knowledge-
and skill-building activities that raise our team’s capacity to
achieve the outcomes for which we are accountable.
73.45 24.46
My team values feedback from colleagues when identifying and
implementing best practices.
73.70 25.13
How certain, working together as a whole, can your team: Make
use of available time to hold productive collaboration meetings.
73.77 25.43
How certain, working together as a whole, can your team:
Collaborate interdependently to gather, analyze and determine
best practices and transfer best practices across all team
members.
74.16 24.56
Using common assessment data to refer students for
interventions for remediation and enrichment is important to my
team.
74.52 25.39
My team makes a concerted effort to connect students with
interventions for remediation and enrichment whenever there is a
demonstrated need.
74.59 26.20
How certain, working together as a whole, can your team: Use
common assessment data to identify needs for intervention and
enrichment.
75.27 24.66
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole
can do the following: Make resource allocation decisions that
provide the greatest benefit to student achievement outcomes.
75.37 24.65

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

231
Appendix H (continued)
My team is committed to the belief that, working collectively,
we have the ability to produce the student achievement results
we truly desire.
75.41 25.92
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole
can do the following: Use data to measure the impact of
interventions.
75.52 25.65
My team believes that all members of our team play an essential
role in positively impacting student achievement.
76.33 26.37
How certain are you that your team, working together as a whole
can do the following: Develop clarity among all team members
regarding the essential learning outcomes that all students are
expected to achieve.
76.58 24.14
My team values the time we spend together collaborating. 77.12 26.42
It is important that my team can make decisions about how to
spend allocated resources that provide the greatest benefit to
student achievement outcomes.
81.00 24.46
It is important for my team to develop clarity about the essential
learning outcomes that all students are expected to achieve.
82.74 23.38
It is important to use data to determine how effective an
intervention has been.
85.59 19.62
It is important that students are provided with interventions for
remediation and enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated
need.
91.32 17.24
Organization Mean SD
Resource allocation criteria are consistently applied and
managed.
49.89 27.55
My team is provided the necessary time to learn and grow
professionally.
50.32 30.44
Intentional communication occurs between central office and
school sites regarding clear, non-negotiable goals for learning
and instruction.
50.39 29.69
My team is provided with the time to develop clarity about the
essential learning outcomes that all students are expected to
achieve.
50.71 29.80
My team is provided the necessary resources to learn and grow
professionally.
51.32 28.72

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

232
Appendix H (continued)
Central office sets clear goals and expectations for site
performance.
52.53 28.62
Intentional communication occurs between central office and
school sites regarding clear, non-negotiable goals for learning
and instruction.
52.70 29.05
My team is provided with processes and resources that enable us
to develop clarity about the essential learning outcomes that all
students are expected to achieve.
53.02 28.08
My team is provided the systems, processes and/or resources
necessary to provide students with interventions for remediation
and enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need.
55.02 28.70
Protocols, models, and/or other resources for determining the
effectiveness of interventions, have been available to my team.
56.37 29.73
My team uses a systematic, collaborative process to develop
common assessments that are aligned with essential learning
outcomes.
60.25 28.13
My team is provided structured opportunities to develop the
clear actionable steps (i.e., action plans) necessary to produce the
student achievement results we truly desire.
61.67 28.84
Administration supports and facilitates collaboration time
through helpful scheduling arrangements.
62.17 30.54
My team is provided an environment where we can safely share
and examine strengths and weaknesses in individual and
collective teaching.
63.63 30.20
My team consistently uses norms and protocols for working
collaboratively to gather, analyze, and transfer best practices
across all team members.
64.84 28.29
My team has specific protocols and processes for analyzing
common assessment data.
64.84 28.32
My team has access to a data management system that
communicates to all stakeholders the extent to which students
are achieving essential learning outcomes.
68.36 27.83
School culture fosters the notion that, working collectively, we
have the ability to produce the student achievement results we
truly desire.
73.24 27.04
Note. These items were ranked by ascending order.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

233
Appendix H (continued)
Table H7
Tri-Level Overall Means and Standard Deviations (SD) of Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organization

Overall Mean SD
Knowledge 69.02 21.40
Motivation 74.71 20.05
Organization 57.85 22.43

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

234
Appendix I
Central Office Data (n=18)
Table I1
Demographic Characteristics of Central Office
Characteristic n (%)
Gender
Male 5 27.8
Female 13 72.2
Totals 18 100.0
Age
21-28 0 0.0
29-34 0 0.0
35-40 5 27.8
41-46 3 16.7
47-52 4 22.2
53-58 2 11.1
59 or older 4 22.2
Totals 18 100.0
Ethnicity
Caucasian 8 44.4
African American 3 16.7
Hispanic 2 11.1
Asian 5 27.8
Totals 18 100.0
Education
Bachelors 1 5.6
Master’s degree 8 44.4
Some doctoral work 4 22.2
Doctoral degree 5 27.8
Totals 18 100.0
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

235
Appendix I (continued)
Table I2.
Demographics of current work setting: Central Office
Characteristic n (%)
Current position
Coordinator 12 66.7
Director 1 5.6
Executive director 1 5.6
Chief 4 22.2
Totals 18 100.0
Years served in current position
1-5 13 72.2
6-10 1 5.6
16-20 2 11.1
26-30 1 5.6
31 or longer 1 5.6
Totals 18 100.0
Current work setting
District office 18 100.0
Totals 18 100.0
Years served at current work setting
1-5 16 88.9
6-10 1 5.6
16-20 1 5.6
Totals 18 100.0
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

236
Appendix I (continued)
Table I3
Models of collaboration: Central Office
Characteristic n (%)
Training on particular models of collaboration
Professional learning communities 7 38.9
Communities of practice 4 22.2
Purposeful communities 1 5.6
Other 2 11.1
No 4 22.2
Totals 18 100.0
Implementation of a particular model of collaboration
Professional learning communities 5 27.8
Communities of practice 2 11.1
Other 1 5.6
No 10 55.6
Totals 18 100.0
Number of collaborative teams
One team 1 5.6
Two teams 3 16.7
Three teams 9 50.0
Do not belong to team 5 27.8
Totals 18 100.0
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

237
Appendix I (continued)
Table I4
Competency Questions, Means and Standard Deviation (n=18)
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Competency #1
My team members know the specific knowledge and
skills required for our team to achieve the outcomes
for which we are accountable.
76.11 11.95
My team knows how to engage in team learning
activities that raise our capacity to achieve the
outcomes for which we are accountable.
71.11 15.30
It is important to my team to make all members feel
that their contribution is vital to our success.
77.78 18.96
My team is committed to developing our
professional knowledge and skills so that we can
achieve the outcomes for which we are accountable.
76.67 13.72
My team is provided the necessary time to learn and
grow professionally.
56.11 22.79
My team is provided the necessary resources to learn
and grow professionally.
52.22 23.65
Competency #2
My team has been given the responsibility and
authority for determining how to meet the goals set
by central office.
69.44 20.14
My team values being given the responsibility and
authority for determining how to meet district goals.
78.33 17.90
Intentional communication occurs between central
office and school sites regarding clear, non-
negotiable goals for learning and instruction.
67.78 23.90
Central office sets clear goals and expectations for
site performance.
69.44 23.38
Competency #3
My team knows how to prioritize resources that
benefit student achievement outcomes.
66.11 18.52
It is important that my team can make decisions
about how to spend allocated resources that provide
the greatest benefit to student achievement
outcomes.
82.22 14.37
Intentional communication occurs between central
office and school sites regarding clear, non-
negotiable learning and instruction.
64.44 22.02
Resource allocation criteria are consistently applied
and managed.
56.11 26.15
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

238
Appendix I (continued)
Competency #4
My team has clarity about the essential learning
outcomes that all students are expected to achieve.
66.67 22.75
It is important for my team to develop clarity about
the essential learning outcomes that all students are
expected to achieve.
86.67 16.80
My team is provided with the time to develop clarity
about the essential learning outcomes that all
students are expected to achieve.
55.56 30.14
My team is provided with processes and resources
that enable us to develop clarity about the essential
learning outcomes that all students are expected to
achieve.
55.56 26.62
Competency #5
My team knows how to develop high quality
assessments that produce useful data about whether
students have met essential learning outcomes.
58.33 29.15
My team knows how to use a data management
system (e.g. DataDirector) to store, analyze and
communicate assessment data.
61.67 30.92
My team values having access to a data management
system that can communicate to all team members
the extent to which students are achieving essential
learning outcomes.
77.22 30.83
My team has access to a data management system
that communicates to all stakeholders the extent to
which students are achieving essential learning
outcomes.
57.78 33.70
Competency #6
My team knows how to identify struggling students
in need of remediation.
75.00 24.07
My team knows how to identify proficient and
advanced students in need of enrichment
opportunities.
70.56 24.61
My team knows how to connect students with
interventions for remediation and enrichment when
there is a demonstrated need.
66.11 27.89
It is important that students are provided with
interventions for remediation and enrichment
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
93.33 9.07

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

239
Appendix I (continued)
My team makes a concerted effort to connect
students with interventions for remediation and
enrichment whenever there is a demonstrated need.
72.78 25.62
My team is provided the systems, processes and/or
resources necessary to provide students with
interventions for remediation and enrichment
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
60.00 26.79
Competency #7
My team knows how to collect various data to
determine how effective a particular intervention has
been.
67.22 28.66
It is important to use data to determine how effective
an intervention has been.
91.11 11.83
Protocols, models, and/or other resources for
determining the effectiveness of interventions, have
been made available to my team.
60.56 29.60
Competency #8
My team knows how to establish the tasks and
purposes for working together.
73.89 20.90
My team values the time we spend together
collaborating.
82.78 15.26
Administration supports and / facilitates
collaboration time through helpful scheduling
arrangements.
65.56 31.10
Competency #9
My team works together to gather, analyze, and
implement best practices.
68.33 26.84
My team understands that there are inherent tensions
embedded in the collaborative process but we
implement strategies to overcome these interpersonal
challenges.
74.44 16.17
My team values feedback from colleagues when
identifying and implementing best practices.
80.00 15.34
My team respectfully addresses group tension when
working collaboratively to gather, analyze and
transfer best practices across all team members.
71.67 17.90
My team consistently uses norms and protocols for
working collaboratively to gather, analyze, and
transfer best practices across all team members.
65.56 22.02
Competency #10
Members of my team know how to organize and
execute a course of action to positively impact
student achievement.
65.56 28.74
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

240
Appendix I (continued)
My team is committed to the belief that, working
collectively, we have the ability to produce the
student achievement results we truly desire.
77.22 24.69
My team believes that all members of our team play
an essential role in positively impacting student
achievement.
81.11 18.11
School culture fosters the notion that, working
collectively, we have the ability to produce the
student achievement results we truly desire.
75.00 20.07
My team is provided structured opportunities to
develop the clear actionable steps (i.e., action plans)
necessary to produce the student achievement results
we truly desire.
57.22 29.27
Competency #11
My team knows how to use common assessment data
to refer students for interventions for remediation
and enrichment.
65.56 31.29
Using common assessment data to refer students for
interventions for remediation and enrichment is
important to my team.
77.22 26.30
My team has specific protocols and processes for
analyzing common assessment data.
62.78 30.83
My team uses a systematic, collaborative process to
develop common assessments that are aligned with
essential learning outcomes.
55.56 26.62
Competency #12
My team analyzes student achievement data in order
to identify instructional strengths and weaknesses as
part of ongoing improvement.
64.44 28.12
My team values comparing assessment results and
sharing instructional strategies to identify strengths
and weaknesses in individual and collective
teaching.
68.89 28.47
My team is provided an environment where we can
safely share and examine strengths and weaknesses
in individual and collective teaching.
58.89 30.27
Collective Team Efficacy
Supportive and Shared Leadership.
How certain are you that your team, working together as a
whole, can do the following:

Identify the specific knowledge and skill deficits
that inhibit our team from achieving the outcomes
for which we are accountable.
66.11 25.24
TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

241
Appendix I (continued)
Engage ourselves in knowledge- and skill-
building activities that raise our team’s capacity
to achieve the outcomes for which we are
accountable.
71.11 25.18
Agree to be held accountable to clear, non-
negotiable goals for learning and instruction set
by site and/or district leadership.
75.56 20.36
Accept and carry out the responsibility and
authority for determining how to meet the clear,
non-negotiable goals set by site and/or district
leadership
78.89 12.78
Learning as the Fundamental Purpose.

Make resource allocation decisions that provide
the greatest benefit to student achievement
outcomes.
73.33 17.49
Develop clarity among all team members
regarding the essential learning outcomes that all
students are expected to achieve.
73.89 24.29
Provide students with additional time and support
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
67.22 24.69
Provide students with enrichment opportunities
whenever there is a demonstrated need.
65.56 25.95
Use data to measure the impact of interventions. 76.11 26.15
Culture of Collaboration.
Make use of available time to hold productive
collaboration meetings.
71.11 26.10
Collaborate interdependently to gather, analyze
and determine best practices and transfer best
practices across all team members.
71.11 26.32
Focus on Results.
Use common assessment data to identify needs
for intervention and enrichment.
68.89 26.76
Identify strengths and weaknesses in our
collective and individual practice as part of an
ongoing cycle of improvement.
67.22 25.39

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

242
Appendix I (continued)
Table I5

Competency Overall Mean (n = 18)

Competency Grand Mean SD
Competency #5 63.75 31.15
Competency #12 64.07 28.95
Competency #11 65.28 28.76
Competency #4 66.11 24.08
Competency #3 67.22 20.27
Competency #1 68.33 17.73
Competency #10 71.22 24.18
Collective Efficacy 71.24 23.59
Competency #2 71.25 21.33
Competency #9 72.00 19.66
Competency #6 72.96 23.01
Competency #7 72.96 23.36
Competency #8 74.07 22.42
Note. Ranked by ascending order.

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

243
Appendix I (continued)
Table I6
Overall Means of Knowledge, Motivation and Organization (n = 18)
Overall Mean Std. Deviation
Knowledge 68.27 18.67
Motivation 75.90 15.17
Organization 60.90 19.70

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

244
Appendix J
Tri-Level Competency Means: District Administrators, Site Administrators, and Teachers

TRI-‐LEVEL
COLLABORATION:
CENTRAL
OFFICE
LEADERSHIP
FACTORS

245
Appendix K
Common Tri-Level Causes
Validated high-priority causes in knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors at the Teacher, School
Site Administrator, and Central Office Administrator levels. Shaded cells indicate causes that were validated
and deemed high-priority at more than one level.
Teachers School Site Administrators Central Office
Administrators
Knowledge
and Skills
• Team knows how to use data
management system
• Knowledge and skill to
create high quality
assessments
• Knowledge and skill to
create high quality
assessments
• Knowledge and skill to create
high quality assessments
• Responsibility and authority
to meet goals

• Identify essential learning
outcomes

Motivation
• Respectfully address
group tesnsion
• Respectfully address
group tesnsion

• Identify deficits
inhibiting essential
learning outcomes
• Identify deficits inhibiting
essential learning outcomes

• Team values responsibility
& authority to meet goals

Organizational Factors
• Time for professional
development
• Time for professional
development

• Intentional
communication
• Intentional
communication

• *Intentional Communication
• Time to clarify outcomes
for students
• Time to clarify outcomes
for students
• Time to clarify outcomes for
students
• Resource allocation criteria
consistently applied and
managed

• Provide students with
enrichment opportunities as
needed
• Necessary resources to
learn and grow
professionally

• Provided processes & reources
to develop clarity about
essential learning goals
• Uses systematic, collaborative
process to develop common
assessment
Note. * = Not in top 4, but considered an important organizational cause.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Using the Gap Analysis problem-solving framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), this study examined collaboration around student achievement at the central office leadership level in the Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD). This study is one of three concurrent studies focused on collaboration around student achievement in the PUSD that include the teacher level conducted by Carruthers (2013) and the site administrator level conducted by Salinas (2013). The purpose of this study was to identify the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization challenges that contribute to PUSD’s gap in accomplishing its organizational goal for collaboration around student achievement from the perspective of the central office leadership. Mixed methods were used to collect survey data from 18 participants and interview data for 4 participants to identify and validate the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization root causes that may contribute to the PUSD’s central office role in achieving the District’s goal. Findings show that in general central office administrators are highly motivated and have the necessary knowledge and skills to meet the goals of the district but are impeded by issues related to resources specifically the to time for professional development, creation of job aides, structures and processes to encourage and implement collaboration across the district. Based on the findings, solutions drawn from the research literature are offered to address these challenges. This study is part of a larger study, in which two concurrent studies related to site leaders and teacher leaders, demonstrates how various stakeholders can systematically apply the Gap Analysis framework to address performance issues when implementing district-wide collaboration around student academic achievement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: School site leadership factors

PDF

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: teacher factors

PDF

Improving student achievement at a restructured high school academy of health sciences using an innovation gap analysis approach

PDF

Increasing student performance on the Independent School Entrance Exam (ISEE) using the Gap Analysis approach

PDF

The impact of elementary school leadership on student achievement: a gap analysis

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readinesss gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on goals and parent involvement

PDF

A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English learners in literacy at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model

PDF

A gap analysis inquiry project on district-level reform implementation for Rowland Unified School District

PDF

Examining the adoption of electronic health records system in patient care and students’ education using the GAP analysis approach

PDF

Increasing parent involvement at the high school level using the gap analysis framework

PDF

Increasing parent involvement in social-emotional learning workshops in high school using the gap analysis approach

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on college affordability and student grades

PDF

Examining teachers' roles in English learners achievement in language arts: a gap analysis

PDF

A capstone gap analysis project of English learners' achievement at a suburban high school: a focus on teaching strategies and placement options

PDF

Winning the organizational leadership game through engagement: a gap analysis

PDF

Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: making two high schools highly effective

PDF

Addressing the challenges for teachers of English learners in a California elementary school using the gap analysis approach

PDF

Comprehensive school reform implementation: A gap analysis inquiry project for Rowland Unified School District

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

A-G course completion percentage upon high school graduation. A gap analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Llamas, Sonia Rodarte (author)

Core Title An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: central office leadership factors

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/18/2013

Defense Date 03/07/2013

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

Tag central office leadership,collaboration,gap analysis,OAI-PMH Harvest,Pasadena Unified School District

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Yates, Kenneth A. (committee chair), McDonald, Brian (committee member), Rueda, Robert (committee member)

Creator Email sonia.rodarte@sbcglobal.net,srodarte@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-239061

Unique identifier UC11295301

Identifier etd-LlamasSoni-1563.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-239061 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LlamasSoni-1563.pdf

Dmrecord 239061

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Llamas, Sonia Rodarte

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