University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Comparative study of the networked principal vs. the isolated principal

(USC Thesis Other)

Comparative study of the networked principal vs. the isolated principal

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE NETWORKED PRINCIPAL
VS. THE ISOLATED PRINCIPAL

by

Maria Covarrubias
_____________________________________________________________________

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

January 2014

Copyright 2014 Maria Covarrubias

ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, for their unwavering support
throughout the years. They came to this country with a dream in mind, and through their
hard work and dedication I was able to live out that dream. Thank you for teaching me to
dream big dreams and never give up. I will be forever grateful.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Any major accomplishment cannot be achieved without the hard work and
support of many individuals. As such, I am grateful for the vital role they have played in
my life.
First and foremost, I am grateful to God, for without His love and guidance I
would not be where I am today. I would also like to thank my father, who has been ever
present in my life and has supported me through every obstacle and hurdle that has come
my way. I love you.
My family, Sonia, Sergio, Luz, Jeanette, Yvonne and Daisy, thank you for your
constant encouragement. I love you all.
My best friends, Carol, Vero and Noelia, who have come to understand the central
role education plays in my life—thank you for your sincere dialogues, continued support
and encouragement. I love you and I am blessed to have friends like you.
Last but not least, I would like to thank the members of my dissertation
committee: Dr. Rudy Castruita, my dissertation chair, Dr. Pedro Garcia, and Dr. Christine
Levinson. Your guidance and mentoring throughout the dissertation process have been
invaluable. I had an enriching academic and intellectual journey because of each of you. I
have truly seen further by standing on the shoulders of giants like you.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ii

Acknowledgments iii

Table of Contents iv

List of Tables vi

Abstract vii

Chapter One: Overview of the Study 8
Introduction 8
Background of the Problem 9
Statement of the Problem 11
Purpose of the Study 12
Importance of the Study 13
Research Questions 13
Significance of the Study 14
Summary of Methodology 14
Assumptions 14
Limitations 15
Delimitations 15
Definitions of Related Terms 16
Organization of the Study 20

Chapter Two: Review of Literature 21
Introduction 21
State of the American Educational System 22
The Achievement Gap 24
Culture of Isolation 25
Anti-Isolation (Collaboration) Reform Efforts 27
Double Loop Learning and Transformational Leadership 28
Types of Networks in Education 29
Summary 31

Chapter Three: Research Methodology 33
Introduction 33
Restatement of the Purpose of the Study 33
Restatement of the Research Questions 34

v
Research Design: A Mixed Methods Approach 35
Sample and Population 36
Instrumentation 39
Data Collection 40
Data Analysis 42
Validity and Reliability 43
Ethical Considerations 43
Summary 44

Chapter Four: Findings 45
Introduction 45
Participants and Methodology 46
Research Findings 47
Summary and Discussion of Findings 74
Triangulation 78

Chapter Five: Conclusions 81
Background and Overview of the Study 81
Limitations 82
Implications 83
Summary 84
Recommendations for Future Research 84
Conclusion 86

References 88

Appendices 91

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Gender of Participating Principals 48
Table 2 Ethnicity of Participating Principals 49
Table 3 Number of Years as Principal 49
Table 4 Type of Institution 50
Table 5 Type of Grade Level School 51
Table 6 School Size 51
Table 7 Demographics of Interviewed Participants 52
Table 8 Element 1: Level of Agreement on Principal Networking Beliefs 54
Table 9 Element 2: Networking With Other Principals 57
Table 10 Element 3: Principal and Staff in the Decision Making Process 61
Table 11 Element 4: Level of Agreement on Principal Networking Practices 64
Table 12 Descriptors of a Professional Network 69
Table 13 Members of an Established Principal Network 70
Table 14 Indicators Principals Use to Evaluate Their Performance 72
Table 15 Membership in Principal Network Lead and Stronger Principalship 74

vii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to better understand the practices of principal networks and
networked learning, specifically looking at the impact on student performance from
principals who are members of an established principal network from those who are not
members of an established network. More specifically, this study set out to determine: 1)
how membership to a professional network supports a principal’s capacity to improve
student achievement, 2) what perceptions principals have on accountability and
collaboration, and 3) how principals from an established professional network produce
better academic results than principals who are not part of an established professional
network. This study implemented a mixed-methods approach in which 46 principals from
the state of California completed a survey, five of these surveyed principals also
participated in an interview, and provided relevant school documents that were also
analyzed as part of a document review. Through the process of triangulation, the study’s
findings indicate that the majority of the interviewed participants believed that
participation in a principal network did positively impact their performance, and thus
increased student achievement at their school sites. Furthermore, principals also believed
that participation in a principal network raised the bar for their performance and led to a
stronger principalship, stronger instructional leadership role and improved student
achievement. Overall, this study provides hope for principals that improved student
learning and achievement can be found in creating collaborative learning environments in
which its members forge the conditions that give rise to growth and learning.

8
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

“Isolation is the enemy of improvement”

(Elmore, 2000)

Introduction
Recent education discourse indicates that the American education system is not
being successful in its academic outcomes in comparison to other countries across the
world. The American education system once stood as a beacon of progress and success.
Now, its future is a bit obscure with no certainty of higher levels of growth and
achievement.
The American educational system was designed to become the key agent in
socialization for all American students (Harper & Row, 1970). Ironically, today, the
American educational system has become the paradigm of isolation. Schooling has
become one of the most secluded professions of our time. For decades, superintendents,
principals, teachers and even students have learned to work in isolation. Much is due in
part to the culture that permeates within schools and school districts. While in other
professions there is an atmosphere of collaboration, transparency and candor, schools and
school districts live in a “land of nice” (Elmore, 2000). A land in which it is not
acceptable to go against the established status quo, even if it brings about positive
change; a land in which criticism is accepted if it comes in small doses; a land in which
isolation is the norm. There is no doubt that a solid track record for improving student

9
learning can be found in creating collaborative environments in which its members
forge the conditions that give rise to growth and learning, leaders that develop a common
knowledge and core practices that are proven to enhance student achievement (Darling-
Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995; Slater, 2008).

Background of the Problem
Literature on successful schools confirms that collaboration is an effective
strategy for improving student achievement (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995;
Little, 1990; Lortie, 1975). Further, collaboration in not happening in many schools and
districts across the country (Murphy & Lick, 2005). The American school system has
long been fragmented, separated and resistant to lateral learning. For several decades,
schools have fallen short from exceeding the academic goals they have set out to achieve.
Part of the problem is due to its inability to morph, its inability to change. The American
education system was designed on factory production principles, “the system is tiered—a
hierarchy of school, school district, state, and national agency…policy is mandated,
practices are prescribed, [and] outcome targets specified” (Jackson and Temperley,
2006). The logical route to improvement has been to “strengthen delivery mechanisms
and to tighten accountabilities through targets, inspection, financial incentives and
consumer choice” (Jackson and Temperley, 2006). Ultimately rendering negative results.
The American educational system was designed to fail. These “top-down outside-in”
reform approaches may work well in the short-term, but do not yield the necessary results
to improve student outcomes and achievement in the long run.

10
This top-down approach to education has left schools with an atmosphere of
mistrust. This lack of trust, transparency and candor, the societal values and aspirations
that lead to a weak accountability system, ultimately lead to poor outcomes and
achievement. Accountability systems “embody prevailing societal values and aspirations”
(Anderson, 2005). Schools and school districts have chosen to put cordial feelings and
relationships above results. In an effort to maintain “healthy” relationships alive,
superintendents, principals and teachers across America have chosen to play in the “land
of nice” rather than explicitly address the attitudes, behaviors and practices that have
yielded negative results.
Over the past years, a new wave of reform has emerged pushing superintendents,
principals and teachers to carefully look at their practice; pushing them away from living
in a “land of nice” towards venturing to live in a “land of candor.” However, as with
every reform effort, there has been some resistance. Some have found that living in a
“land of transparency” has not been beneficial, mainly to their ego, and have taken refuge
in laws, union contracts, and agreements to protect themselves and others from reflecting
on their practice, their role, and their contribution to student achievement.
“Throughout the years, leaders from all professions, from all economic sectors,
and from around the globe, continue to say…leadership is not a solo act, it’s a team
performance” (Kousez & Posner, 2003). One of the strategies commonly attributed with
the success of a leader is that of networking. Building relationships is a foundational
element to being a transformational leader (Northouse, 2007). In order to create and lead

11
effective schools, principals need quality professional development, and the best way
to do that is through an ongoing professional network. A network that forges the
conditions that give rise to growth and learning; a network of reflective education leaders
who develop and refine a common language and set of core practices that are proven to
enhance student achievement. “The school as a unit has become too small-scale and too
isolated to provide rich professional learning for its adult members in a knowledge-rich
and network world—A new unit of meaning, belonging and engagement—the network is
required” (Jackson & Temperley, 2006). Two major changes need to occur. First, we
must shift from factory production principles to an era of knowledge and innovation
(Allen & Cherrey, 2000). Second, we must veer from a system of confinement and
isolation to one of connectivity and integrated networks (Jackson & Temperley, 2006).
By propelling these changes we will be able to give the American education system a
platform once again, in which it can morph and become successful in its academic
outcomes and stand as a beacon of progress and success once again.

Statement of the Problem
The aim of this study is to determine if networked principals, who collaborate
with other principals, have a stronger influence and impact on student outcomes and
achievement in comparison to principals who are not members of an established principal
network and do not collaborate with other principals. The following chapters will argue
that the American education system, which has been fragmented, separated, and isolated,

12
is able to demonstrate that a network of committed, passionate and reflective principals
can scale positive academic impact across several schools.
There are pockets of excellence within the American school system. “The
students lucky enough to be in these pockets are well prepared to make a good life for
themselves and for their community. The students left out of these pockets are not so
fortunate” (City, et al, 2010). The challenge is for networked leaders to bring those
pockets of excellence to scale, to provide to all what the system currently provides to
some.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine if networked principals positively
impact student performance in comparison to those who are not members of an
established principal network. Unfortunately, there are several gaps in literature regarding
the use of professional principal networks. We currently still know too little about the
dynamics and relationships of networks and networked learning and its impact on student
achievement. There has not been much research conducted on how networked principals
positively impact student performance in comparison to principals who are not part of an
established network. By exploring current networking practices, it is hoped that this
research will fill in some of these gaps in literature in an attempt to more fully understand
professional principal networks and network learning practices.

13
Importance of the Study
This study is significant as it adds to the growing body of literature on principals,
particularly to the discussion of principal networks and networked learning. As such,
practitioners in the form of current and aspiring principals benefit from the information
provided. In addition, by answering the research questions and identifying best practices
for supporting principals, formal organizations such as state and national networks,
professional organizations, schools of education, and school boards may glean
information useful in supporting principals. Finally, the implications and
recommendations provided within this study yield information to researchers on creating
supportive environments for principals to network with other principals, thereby
increasing student achievement and reducing the current achievement gap.

Research Questions
The research questions that guide the study are:
1. How does membership to a professional network support a principal’s
capacity to improve student achievement?
2. What perceptions do principals have on accountability and collaboration?
3. Do principals, who are part of an established professional network,
produce better academic results than principals who are not part of an
established professional network?

14
Significance of the Study
This study is significant as it adds to the growing body of literature on networked
learning and how it can impact student achievement. Furthermore, this study will attempt
to determine whether principals who are members of a professional network have a
stronger magnitude of impact on student outcomes and achievement than principals who
are not part of an established principal network. This study will provide guidance to
principals across the state of California in demonstrating the effectiveness of networked
learning and its impact on student outcomes and achievement.

Summary of Methodology
A mixed-methods design will be employed to examine the research questions.
This method was utilized to take advantage of the support that quantitative data provides
to more naturalistic data gathered through qualitative means (Patton, 2002). Quantitative
data will be collected via a 36-item survey fielded to principals who met the selection
criteria. Qualitative data will be collected via interviews with 5 principals who will
participate in the quantitative survey and who have held a position as principal for more
that two years. The interview protocol consisted of 16 questions fundamentally guided
by the research questions.

Assumptions
The study assumed the following:
1. The chosen procedures and methods are appropriate.

15
2. The information gathered will sufficiently address the research questions.

Limitations
The study included the following limitations:
1. The validity of the data was reliant upon the chosen instruments of measurement.
2. Inherent challenges to isolating the impact of a networked principal over an
isolated principal from other variables.
3. The ability and willingness of principals to provide accurate responses.

Delimitations
The delimitations of this study were:
1. Data collection will be limited to principals across the state of California.
2. Limitations are present in the time available, the small sample of principals, and
principals’ self-reporting data.
These two limitations reduce the generalizability of the findings due to the small sample
as well as the depth of perspective, with only principal perspectives captured through the
data-collection process.

16
Definition of Terms
The terms below are used throughout the study:

Academic Performance Index (API):

The California Department of Education (CDE) defines API as the
following: The numeric index (or scale) that ranges from a low of
200 to a high of 1000. A school’s score on the API is an indicator
of a school’s performance level. The statewide API target for
schools is 800. A school’s API base is subtracted from its API
growth to determine how much the school improved in a year.
(CDE Website).
Achievement Gap:

The Achievement Gap is defined by the researcher of this study as
the observed and persistent disparity on a number of educational
measures between the performance of groups of students,
especially groups defined by gender, race, ethnicity, and
socioeconomic status. Such measures include standardized tests,
grade point average, dropout rates, and college enrollment and
completion rates.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP):

The California Department of Education (CDE) defines AYP as
the following: The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act of

17
2001 requires that California determine whether or not each
public school and Local Educational Agency (LEA) is making
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). AYP criteria encompass four
areas: participation rate, percent proficient, Academic Performance
Index (API) and graduation rate. Each of these areas has specific
requirements. Participation rate and percent proficient criteria must
be met in both English-Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics
(CDE Website).
California Standards Test (CST):

The California Department of Education (CDE) defines CST as the
following: CST Tests in English/Language Arts, Mathematics,
Science, and History-Social Science are administered only to
students in California public schools. Except for a writing
component that is administered as part of the 4
th
grade and 7
th

grade English/Language Arts test, all questions are multiple-
choice. Test assesses students’ performance on the California State
Standards. (CDE Website).
Instructional Rounds:

The researcher of this study defines Instructional Rounds as a
network approach to improving teaching and learning through a

18
four-step process: identifying a problem of practice, observing,
debriefing, and focusing on the next level of work.
Isolated Leader:

An isolated leader is defined by the researcher of this study as a
school principal that manages and operates a school independently
without any collaboration or support from other (principal)
colleagues, within a given school, district and/or region.
Network:
The researcher of this study defines network as a group of
principals that work in collaboration with one another holding each
other accountable for managerial, operational and academic
decisions made for improved student academic achievement. It is a
practice with systemic impact.
Networked Principal:

A Networked Principal is defined by the researcher of this study as
a school principal that manages and operates in close connection
with other principals (in a network), within a given school, district
and/or region.
Network Learning:

Network Learning is defined by the researcher of this study as the
learning that takes place when principals, from different schools

19
within a network, come together in groups to engage in
purposeful and sustained developmental activity and learning
informed by the public knowledge base, utilizing their know-how
and constructing knowledge together. In doing so, they learn with
one another, from one another, and on behalf of others.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB):

The U.S. Department of Education (US DOE) defines NCLB as
the following: No Child Left Behind is the latest reauthorization of
ESEA and requires states to set goals for all students to be at least
proficient on statewide standardized assessments based on
statewide academic content standards by the 2013-2014 school
year. (U.S. Department of Education’s Website).
Professional Learning Communities (PLC’s):
Refers to the practice of teachers meting frequently to discuss
student achievement and answer three key questions (1) What do
we want students to learn? (2) How will we know if they learned it
and (3) What will we do if they do not learn it? (DuFour & Eaker,
1998).

20
Social Networking Theory:
Social Network Theory is used to explain the relationships,
communication, and flow of information between and within
relationships.
Student Academic Achievement:

Student Academic Achievement is defined by the researcher of this
study as the extent to which a student, teacher or institution has
achieved their educational goals measured by examination or
continuous assessments.

Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters, with an overview, context, and purpose
of the study in the first chapter. A review of current literature on education sector
networking, networked learning, and collaboration is included in the second chapter. The
methodology for surveying and interviewing principals is outlined in chapter three and
the data gathered through this process is discussed in chapter four. The study concludes
in chapter five with a discussion of findings, implications, and recommendations
regarding the establishment and leveraging of principal networked-approached
collaboration in connection to student outcomes and achievement.

21
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

“…the problems of education transcend the capacity of one school working alone.”

(Smith & Wohlstetter, 2001)

Introduction
“Urban school districts in the United States have come under increasing scrutiny
and criticism for failing to prepare students adequately for entering the internationally
competitive economy of the 21
st
century” (Smith & Wohlstetter, 2001). What once made
the Unites States a beacon of progress and success has now made it a lantern of academic
decline and underachievement.
According to the 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
and trends in the 2011 International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) the
American education system has been found to be performing below other countries in
areas of Math, Science and Critical Thinking Skills. The United States performed near
the middle of the pack. It is difficult to imagine that the United States is in the “middle of
the pack” when the United States is revered as one of the top nations, and the place to
increase one’s chances of having and living a better life. However, the world has shifted
so much that in comparison to the other countries, the United States has stood still and is
no longer on top. Unfortunately, our American educational system has chosen to put
cordial feelings and relationships above results. In an effort to maintain “healthy”

22
relationships alive, it has sacrificed an honorable placement in world and national
academic rankings.
This chapter will describe the origins and current state of the American education
system in order to provide the context for why it is necessary for the American
educational system to change from a system of confinement and isolation to one of
connectivity and integrated networks. Second, the chapter will provide an overview of the
research that has been conducted regarding the relationship between a “culture of
isolation” and a “culture of networked learning” and their impact on student achievement.
Since there is limited research on “networked learning,” this chapter will review the types
of networks in education, including professional learning communities. Finally, this
review will highlight gaps in the current research and discuss how this dissertation helps
enhance our understanding of the effect of principal networks and networked learning on
student outcomes and student achievement.

State of the American Educational System
Recent education discourse indicates that United States is not being successful in
its academic outcomes in comparison to other nations across the world. In 1749,
Benjamin Franklin stated, “Nothing can more effectually contribute to the Cultivation
and Improvement of a Country, the Wisdom, Riches, and Strength, Virtue and Piety, the
Welfare and Happiness of a People, than a proper Education of youth, by forming the
Manners, imbuing their tender Minds with Principles of Rectitude and Morality, [and]

23
instructing them in…all useful Branches of liberal Arts and Science” (Hochschild &
Scovronick, 2003). Benjamin Franklin, and current school leaders and reformers share
the same vision, “ ‘the proper education of youth’ [is] the most important American
social policy” (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). Yet, as a nation we have failed to push
forward the agenda of “proper education” and have settled for the implementation of
programs with lesser value and rigor.
Since its inception, the early American educational system began as a private and
religious service that brought mass schooling and literacy to children during their
developmental years in one-room schools. It was in these one-room schools where
teachers learned to work in isolation, providing education to students of all ages and
grades in a specific town or province. Public education rose to influx in the early 1900’s
when immigrants from various parts of the world came into this country with different
religious beliefs and cultures. Due to the mass amount of immigrants, the one-room
school model was no longer meeting the American education systems’ needs, so a new
structure was needed. This new structure was set similarly to that of the model of factory
production principles. Such principles include “ringing bells, isolated teachers, students
sorted by ‘age of manufacture,’ and taught in batches of forty to fifty students per class”
(Ash, 2013). Students were offered identical curricula and were graded by identical
standards. Today, we can see some variation between districts and higher-grade levels;
however the same structure of a “one size fits all” model is still applied. Even with all the

24
reform initiatives to date, they have not changed the fact that schools were, and are, in
a very real sense, educational factories (Wolferman, 2011).

The Achievement Gap
Former Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, stated that the “The achievement gap
has become the civil rights issue of our time.” The Achievement Gap, as defined by the
researcher of this study, is the observed and persistent disparity on a number of
educational measures between the performance of groups of students, especially groups
defined by gender, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Such measures include
standardized tests, grade point average, dropout rates, and college enrollment and
completion rates. In the United States, it is most often used to describe the troubling
performance gaps between African-American and Hispanic students, at the lower end of
the performance scale, and their non-Hispanic white peers, and the similar academic
disparity between students from low-income families and those who are financially
privileged.
With the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), closing the achievement gap
has become the focal point of education reform efforts. In order to close the achievement
gap, the NCLB Act has delineated various structures to keep schools and districts across
the country accountable by requiring them to disaggregate student test scores and other
performance data to enable better comparisons between groups. Efforts to combat the gap
have been numerous but fragmented, and have ranged from affirmative action and

25
multicultural education to finance equalization, improving teacher quality, and school
testing and accountability programs to create equal educational opportunities. However,
even with all the research studies conducted and ambitious endeavors in education
reform, the American education system has not yet succeeded in reducing the
achievement gap that currently exists. The prevailing societal values in the U.S. and its
educational system have embodied the efforts mentioned above. It is imperative that there
be a shift in value away from testing and focus on connectivity and networks of learning
across all levels, principals, teachers and students.

Culture of Isolation
“For more than 30 years, any serious study of the culture of [education] has
received the same conclusion: Educators work in isolation,” (Dufour, Dufour & Eaker,
2008). Overcoming this norm of isolation has been one of the most formidable barriers in
the American educational system. Richard Elmore (2003) argues that the existing
structure of schools not only allows for, but actually fosters isolation and serves to
“buffer” from accountability. The design of work in schools is fundamentally
incompatible with the practice of improvement. Teachers spend most of their time
working in isolation away from each other in self-contained classrooms with no
opportunity to engage in continuous and sustained learning about their practice in the
setting in which they actually work. This disconnect between the requirements of

26
learning to teach well and the structure of teachers’ work life is fatal to any sustained
process of instructional improvement (Elmore, 2006).
This culture of isolation stems from an environment that reinforces self-
absorption and a lack of trust. As Barth (2006) states in Improving Relationships Inside
The School House, the culture found at most schools is that of “parallel play,” rather than
meaningful collaboration. Parallel play, a concept from preschool literature, is thought to
be a primitive stage of human development through which 2 and 3 year olds pass on their
way to more sophisticated forms of interactions. To illustrate imagine:
“Two 3-year-olds busily engaged in opposite corners of a sandbox. One has a
shovel and a bucket; the other has a rake and a hoe. At no time do they share
their tools, let alone collaborate to build a sand castle. They may inadvertently
throw sand in each other’s face from time to time, but they seldom interact
intentionally. Although in close proximity for a long period of time, each is so
self-absorbed, so totally engrossed in what he or she is doing, that the two of them
will go on for hours working in isolation. Parallel play offers, of course, a perfect
description of how teachers interact at many elementary, middle, and high
schools.”
This scenario among other research findings have repeatedly drawn the same conclusion,
though educators work in close proximity to each other, the structures, environment and
culture established in American schools condone the practice of teacher isolation.
Additionally, Dufour, Dufour & Eaker (2008) point out that isolation has adverse

27
consequences for students, for teachers, for principals, and on any reform efforts to
improve schools. Unless educators and school leaders confront this challenge directly, the
American education system will continue to decline and descend our “middle of the
pack” status to “bottom of the pack.”

Anti-Isolation (Collaboration) Reform Efforts
Building a collaborative culture in which people work together interdependently
to fulfill their shared purpose and achieve their common goals is an essential strategy for
sustained school improvement (Dufour, Dufour & Eaker, 2008). At the start of every
school year, principals across the country start the school year with an ambitious agenda,
to improve student achievement. Some begin with a strategic improvement plan at hand,
others with elaborate ideas, and yet others simply begin with good intentions. But rarely
do you see a group of principals coming together to develop a similar plan and support
each other in the pursuit of improving student achievement. Instead of working together,
principals also end up working in isolation. A perfect analogy to capture the reality of our
current state is described below as the “Marathon Runners”:
“Every fall 40,000 runners participate in the Chicago marathon. They are a
group of people working together in close proximity, all striving to achieve a
common goal—completing the race in a good personal time. Despite the fact that
they share the same goal and are working very hard in close proximity to one
another, they are not a team. An individual runner can achieve his or her goal
regardless of what happens to the rest of the participants. The same is true of

28
most educators. Teaches can be working together in close proximity in rooms
adjacent to one another. They can be working very hard in pursuit of the same
goals—[achieving API, AYP, meeting state and national standards],” (Dufour,
Dufour & Eaker, 2008).
Schools and principals can all be working hard, in close proximity, but still miss
the goal because they are not working with each other. The missing elements in this
equation are interdependence, collaboration and networking. “A precondition for doing
anything to strengthen our practice and improve a school is the existence of a collegial
culture in which professionals talk about practice, share their craft, [challenge each
other’s practice] and observe and root for the success of one another. Without these in
place, no meaningful improvement—no staff or curriculum development, no teacher
leadership, no student appraisal, no team teaching, no parent involvement, and no
sustained change—is possible” (Barth, 2006). When teams, rather than individuals, are
the main units of implementing curriculum, instruction, and assessments, they facilitate
the development of shared purpose and practice for student learning and have a collective
responsibility to achieve it, (Newmann & Wehlage, 1995).

Double Loop Learning and Transformational Leadership

In 1978, Argyris and Schon introduced to the world the concept of “double-loop
learning,” in which an individual, organization, or entity is able to modify a goal in light
of feedback and reflection. Double-loop learning is not simply a function of how people
feel, it is a reflection of how they think—“that is, cognitive rules or reasoning they use to

29
design and implement their actions,” (Argyrys, 1991). Reflection is a key ingredient to
the success of an individual, organization or entity in their pursuit towards success.
“[Principals] need to reflect critically on their own behavior, identify the ways they often
inadvertently contribute to the organization’s problems, and then change how they act,”
(Argyrys, 1991). Reality is, without principals critically looking at their practice, they
will not yield the necessary results to impact their school system with positive change. As
mentioned above, reflection is the key ingredient to success. It is imperative that
principals, through an ongoing professional network, take the opportunity to reflect on
their contributions, both good and bad, to student’s academic progress and achievement.
Single loop learning is not enough. Principals, through a supportive network, must
partake in double loop learning (results and reflection) in order to change their
assumptions and practices to affect positive change.

Type of Networks in Education
The most common definition of a network is a “professional learning community”
that seeks to promote collaboration and networking among educators. According to
Dufour, Dufour & Eaker (2008) a “professional learning community” is defined as the
composition of collaborative teams whose members work interdependently to achieve
common goals linked to the purpose of learning for all. However, due to the growing
popularity of this term, a “professional learning community” has become so common that
it has been used so “ambiguously to describe virtually any loose coupling of individuals

30
who share a common interest,” it has lost most, if not all its meaning (Smith &
Wohlstetter, 2001).
A second type of network is a policy issue network. These networks are often
formed to “push a single issue or a small menu of issues onto the agenda of policy
makers” (Smith & Wohlstetter, 2001). The agent in this type of network is usually an
organization or group of organizations that seeks to influence the agenda of individual
schools, school districts, local government or states.
The third type of network in education is between schools and an external partner,
where the network forms to provide additional support and services to students. Such
partnerships usually develop on a school-by-school basis and are not integrated into the
district bureaucracy. Examples include, a teen mom center at a school site. Often times,
especially in urban communities, to tackle the problem of high school dropouts, external
agencies, such as teen mom agencies, establish a partnership with the school to provide
day care centers for high school teen moms. These centers support the teen moms
physically, emotionally and academically, so they can get back on their feet (after giving
birth) and complete the requirements for their high school diploma or G.E.D.
The fourth type of network, the one presented in this comparative study, is called
an affiliation network. Affiliation networks arise when actors are related to each other on
the basis of membership in the same voluntary organizations or in various committees. In
this type of network, people representing different organizations can work together to
solve high-leverage problems that are too large for an organization to handle on its own.

31
The norms associated with professional networks serve as the foundation on which
network structures are built, but the focus is on interorganizational collaboration and
professional advancement. Members affiliated voluntarily agree in serving on cross-site
teams that plan and implement improvements collaboratively in an effort to increase
student outcomes and achievement across all schools within the network.

Summary
There is evidence that suggests that collaborative learning can increase school
capacity, can help forge relationships across previously isolated schools, and can be an
effective way of engineering collaborative learning (Harris & Thompson 2005; Datnow,
2003). Networking is a critical strategy for success. A Network provides a platform for
high-quality, job embedded professional development for principals.
There has been research conducted on how schools that transition from a “culture
of isolation” to a “culture of collaboration” enhance student achievement. Yet, many
schools and districts continue to struggle in implementing what has been found in both
research and practice. Meanwhile there is a scarcity of research on network, network
leadership, and networked learning. The few research studies that do describe how
networks can either directly or indirectly influence student outcomes and achievement
only provide general descriptions of how they achieved this. Additional information such
as a deeper analysis is needed in order for other principals and school leaders to replicate
these methods and results. Chapter 3 will describe the specific methods used in this study

32
in order to provide a deeper analysis of how principal networks and principal
networked learning enhance student outcomes and achievement.

33
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

“When teams, rather than individuals, are the main units of implementing curriculum,
instruction, and assessments, they facilitate the development of shared purpose and
practice for student learning and have a collective responsibility to achieve it”

(Newmann & Wehlage, 1995)

Introduction
This chapter describes the specific research methodology used in this study. First,
this section will restate the purpose of the study and the research questions. Next, the
research design as well as the sample and population will be described. Additionally, this
chapter will include details about the study’s instrumentation, data collection, and data
analysis. This chapter concludes with a summary and a preview of chapters four and five.

Restatement of the Purpose of the Study
Building a collaborative culture in which people work together interdependently
to fulfill their shared purpose and achieve their common goal(s) is believed to be an
essential strategy for sustained school improvement. However, there is limited research
on the specific ways that principal-to-principal and school-to-school collaboration can
positively impact student achievement. Thus, the purpose of this study was to better
understand the role of networked learning in principal networks by analyzing the critical
aspects that must be employed to improve student achievement. In particular, the purpose

34
of this study is to determine if networked principals positively impact student
performance and achievement in comparison to principals who are not members of an
established network and choose to work independently. Since we currently still know too
little about the dynamics and relationships of principal networks and networked learning,
this study will enhance our understanding and will further the research on network
principals, collaboration and its impact on student achievement.
This study is significant as it adds to the growing body of literature on principals,
particularly to the discussion of professional networks and networked learning. As such,
practitioners in the form of current and aspiring principals benefit from the information
provided.
Restatement of the Research Questions
The study focuses on how networked principals positively impact student performance in
comparison to principals who are not members of an established network and choose to
work independently. The research questions that guide the study are:
1. How does membership to a professional network support a principal’s
capacity to improve student achievement?
2. What perceptions do principals have on accountability and collaboration?
3. Do principals, who are part of an established professional network,
produce better academic results than principals who are not part of an
established professional network?

35
Research Design: A Mixed Methods Approach
Prior research on how professional networks, networked leadership, and
networked learning have impacted student outcomes and achievement mainly provided
an overview of how these results were achieved. In order to provide a richer detailed
description of specific strategies and methods that current and future principals can
implement to improve student outcomes and achievement, this study implemented a
mixed methods approach that included both quantitative and qualitative methods.
According to Creswell and Clark (2011), a mixed methods approach “provides strengths
that offset the weaknesses of both quantitative and qualitative research.”
Creswell (2008) identified six steps for conducting a research study, which
included the following: 1) “identifying a research problem,” 2) “reviewing the literature,”
3) “specifying a purpose for research,” 4) “collecting data,” 5) “analyzing and
interpreting data,” and 6) “reporting and evaluating research” (p. 7-8). This study has
been built around these six steps, with chapter three specifically addressing steps four,
five and six.
A web-based survey consisting of open and closed-ended questions was
distributed to obtain quantitative data and interviews were conducted to collect
qualitative data. The quantitative survey allowed participants to respond at times in
which the response window was most convenient to them. The data collected provided an
overview of a variety of principal attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors regarding their
collaborative reform efforts. In order to provide more descriptive details behind the

36
survey results, in-depth interviews provided a more “behind-the-scenes” look at how
principals were intimately involved with collaboration as well as a “step-by-step” guide
for what principal’s specifically did to encourage collaboration and school-by-school
networking. Another qualitative method used was document review. Documents related
to district and schools instructional plans, programs, and student achievement data were
analyzed and evaluated in comparison to the information collected via the surveys and
interviews. As a result, triangulation was conducted to provide richer data analysis
(Patton, 2002).
Sample and Population
The unit of analysis in this study was school principals in the state of California.
This aligned with Patton’s (2002) model of people-centric studies, using individuals, who
share a common experience, within the same state. Sampling and population of principals
in California included multiple phases. The first phase was a review of documents
regarding current principals throughout the state, including resources such as the
California School District Directory (California Department of Education, 2013) and
district websites. Documents were reviewed to generate a list of principals representing
various urban cities and counties across the state of California.
The second phase began with an email sent out to all principals on the previously
generated list. Participants received an email about the nature of the survey, including a
direct link to the website of the survey, Qualtricts.com, on September 17, 2013.
Participants then responded to the survey items on the survey website.

37
An email invitation was sent to all participants within the population, followed
by reminder emails one and two weeks after the initial email contact (October 1
st
and
October 8
th
). The website remained open for responses for a total of five weeks, with the
survey closing on October 22, 2013.
A number of factors could inhibit the ability of the researcher to make valid
inferences (Creswell, 2005) from this population. One factor that could inhibit the ability
of the researcher to make valid inferences was that of non-response error. A reminder
email was sent at one and two week intervals to all principals in the population.
Additionally, survey-fatigue could inhibit valid inferences due to the length of the survey.
The researcher tried to overcome this factor by creating an instrument that had a minimal
number of open-ended responses.
Of the 150 potential participants, 52 school principals started the survey.
However, respondents who failed to complete 15% of the survey were eliminated from
data analysis, leaving the total survey pool at 46 respondents (31% of potential
participants). Though this response is low, a low response rate is typical for a web-based
survey (Nair & Adams, 2009; Shih & Fam, 2009). In a meta-analysis of several dozen
large studies, Shih and Fan (2009) found that the average response rate to email surveys
was 33% with a low response rate of 11% within one standard deviation of the mean.
Trouteaud (2004) found that the optimal number of reminders for web-based
surveys was two, and this is the same number of reminders that were employed as part of

38
this research study. Further, Trouteaud (2004) found that the response rate reached as
high as 24% with the correct style of invitation and two reminder emails.
Finally, the high power (Beta) associated with each of the elements show that a
larger sample is unlikely to significantly change the outcome of the results of this study.
Hence, given the nature of web-based surveys having a lower response rate in general
(Nair & Adams, 2009, Shih & Fan, 2009), the fact that the optimum number of reminder
emails were used (Trouteaud, 2004), and the fact that power (Beta) remains high for each
element of the study provides re-assurance that the results can be accurately used to
describe if principal networks positively impact student performance and achievement.
The third phase for selection of candidates to be interviewed, included purposeful
sampling for information-rich cases. Information rich-cases maximize a researcher’s time
by providing much detail on the topic of study and answering the research questions in-
depth (Patton, 2002). While purposeful sampling limits the generalizability of findings,
the data gained provides a depth of understanding in selected cases that otherwise has not
been available in the literature. After reviewing the data from survey responses, trends
were identified and criteria was generated for selection of participants to interview. One
criterion included the participant identifying a willingness to be contacted for a follow-up
interview, as indicated by the email sent. Additional criteria included intensity sampling
with participants who indicated significant participation in networked learning being
selected as potentially information-rich cases. Participants were also selected from a
range of demographic characteristics who lead schools of various sized and populations.

39

Instrumentation
This study conducted a mixed methods approach that included a survey, in-depth
interviews, and document review. Both the survey and interview questions were created
by the researcher based on the study’s research questions. The actual survey questions
can be found in Appendix B, the actual interview questions can be found in Appendix C.
For the purpose of this study, quantitative data was collected through a 46-item
questionnaire generated through qualtics.com. This survey instrument was designed as a
cross-sectional survey to collect trend data, which might be reported using descriptive
statistics. In alignments with Creswell’s (2008) recommendations for creating survey
instruments, the instrument included different types of questions, clear language, and was
field-tested by other educational administrators. Survey questions were generated based
on the review of literature and in alignment with the research questions. Question types
included mostly structured responses and selected open-ended prompts and ranged from
demographic questions to questions regarding perceptions and behaviors on networked
learning and principal networks. The open-ended prompts added depth to closed
responses and provided some qualitative data.
The qualitative data collection was enhanced through open-ended interviews
conducted using a semi-structured, open-ended interview protocol. This type of interview
protocol has been recommended for situations in which single interview sessions take
place within a fixed time frame (30 minutes) and enable the researcher and participant to

40
stay focused and allow the data more easily analyzed (Creswell, 2008; Patton, 2002).
Question probes were included to ensure a full discussion of the topics, and the entire
interview protocol was field tested to ensure question alignment and effectiveness in
gathering complete data in reference to the research questions. Probing questions were
also asked to allow for some flexibility in obtaining additional insight as well as provide
the opportunity to follow up on responses given to questions asked during the structured
portion of the interview. Patton (2002) recommends this study’s approach of
administering structured interviews when studying multiple sites so that the responses
can be compared across the sites.
Finally, the documents analyzed for the document reviews included schools’
mission and vision statements, school-wide (and district-wide, if applicable) instructional
plans and programs, implementation documents, student achievement data, professional
development agendas and handouts. According to Patton (2002), documents “can provide
a behind-the-scenes look at program processes and how they came into being” and they
can reveal “the enormous complexity of the logistics” behind the preparation and
implementation of programs.

Data Collection
This study sought to obtain school-wide as well as an across-school perspective about the
role collaboration and principal networks play on student achievement. Thus, the study
began by first soliciting school principals in California to complete an online survey

41
consisting of 31 questions. Out of the 150 principals who were sent the survey, 46
completed the entire survey, for a response rate of 31%. Next, the study used purposeful
sampling to select five principals to participate in both the online survey and in-depth
semi structured interview. Three of the interviews were concluded at the principal’s
workplace and the other two were over-the-phone conversations. All interviews lasted an
average of 30 minutes each. Each interview was audio-recorded and the researcher took
notes during the interviews as well.
For the online survey, an initial email with background information, an invitation
to participate, and a link to the instrument was emailed to each identified participant (see
Appendices A and B). Principals spent an average of 15 minutes completing the survey.
In order to achieve a high response rate, a contributing factor to reliable results (Creswell,
2008), follow-up procedures included email reminders as necessary (see Appendix C).
After each principal completed the survey, each received a message and follow-up email
thanking him or her for their participation.
For the open-ended interviews, an initial phone call was made to five of the
principals (or their secretaries) selected to participate. In this call, the researcher
identified herself, restated the background and purpose for the interview, and scheduled a
time to meet or phone with the principal. All five selected principals were available to
meet either in person (3) or by phone (2). With the permission of each principal, an
electronic voice recorder was used to ensure a quality recording of the interview and
allow the researcher to focus on the participant during the interview rather than on

42
detailed note taking (Creswell, 2008; Patton, 2002). Recordings were then transcribed
to a Microsoft Word document for analysis and coding.

Data Analysis
After data collection from the online survey and open-ended interviews, separate
reports were written documenting findings from each data source. The findings were
then compared with each other through a process of triangulation, in order to determine
convergent and divergent findings.
The first step was analyzing the survey results. A table was created to see any
patterns that were found among the responses obtained from the participating principals.
The interview responses were then analyzed. The recorded interview responses were first
transcribed. Then, the researcher reviewed the transcribed interviews and coded the data
using both an inductive and deductive method. The deductive method included coding
the data based on the pre-determined research questions. The inductive method included
coding the data after finding patterns and themes among the interview data. Transcripts of
the survey responses and of the interviews were read through multiple times, with the
researcher using cascading levels of labeling, sorting, and condensing categories. In this
inductive method of analysis, the researcher was immersed in the data in order to
“generate general explanation…that explains a process, action, or interaction among
people” (Creswell, p.61; Patton). Since the inductive methods brought out new patterns
and themes that emerged form the data, these newly coded categories were distributed

43
among the three research questions that the researcher found to be the best fit.
Documents from the five selected principals were also analyzed and triangulation of the
survey data, interview data and data obtained from the document review increased the
credibility of the study’s findings. A more detailed analysis of these results is described
in Chapter 4.

Validity and Reliability
Field-testing of the survey and interview questions was conducted with a group
three principals. This allowed the researcher to determine in advance whether the study’s
subjects would understand each question and whether questions needed to be changed or
provided with certain context in order to obtain valid data from instruments. Additionally,
the reliability of the study’s results was strengthened since different principals were
surveyed and interviewed in order to obtain a more well-rounded perspective of how
networks and networked learning impacted student outcomes and achievement.

Ethical Considerations
In order to protect participants’ identities, pseudonyms were used for all
individual participants’ names and the names of their respective schools and districts. All
participants were also informed in writing that their participation was voluntary and their
responses would be kept confidential. Any participants who were interviewed were also
informed at the beginning of the interview that their participation was voluntary, that they

44
could stop the interview at any moment, and that their verbal permission was required
in order to audio-record the interview, but they would still be able to participate in the
interview if they requested not to be audio-recorded.
In addition the researcher successfully completed the CITI training offered by the
University of Southern Californias’ (USC’s) Institutional Review Board (IRB). No
information has been published without the consent of the individuals from whom it was
elicited. All transcribed interviews were stored in a secure location, access to which was
limited to the researcher, their chairperson and USC’s IRB. Transcriptions and audio
recordings will be destroyed in 2016.

Summary
This chapter described the methods used in this study to examine and compare the
similarities and differences between the networked principal and the isolated principal
and their impact on student outcomes and achievement. In particular, the chapter
described the study’s mixed methods instrumentation, data collection, and the data
analysis process that included how data obtained via surveys, interviews, and document
review were analyzed via triangulation methods. The study’s conceptual framework and
how the framework relates to the study’s research questions were also described.
Furthermore, the study’s validity, reliability, and ethical consideration were discussed.
Chapter 4 will build upon this chapter by describing the results obtained from the mixed
methods study, and recommendations for further research follow in chapter five.

45

CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS

“[accountability systems] embody prevailing societal values and aspirations”

(Anderson, 2005)

Introduction
Even though there has been increasing pressure over the years for schools to
improve student achievement, there has not been much research available on principal
networks and networked learning. Even less prevalent, is research on principal networks
and on successful practices of networked learning that enhances student achievement.
The purpose of this study was aimed to explore the use of principal networks and
networked learning and their impact on student achievement. Through the use of a mixed
methods approach that included surveys, interviews, and document review, this chapter
presents the findings that address the following three research questions.
1. How does membership to a professional network support a principal’s
capacity to improve student achievement?
2. What perceptions do principals have on accountability and collaboration?
3. Do principals, who are part of an established professional network,
produce better academic results than principals who are not part of an
established professional network?

46
Participants and Methodology
This study used a mixed methods approach that included surveys, interviews, and
document review. The quantitative data was collected from a survey using electronic
questionnaires and qualitative data was collected from open-ended questions on the
survey and interviews. Surveys were distributed to 150 principals across the state of
California. Fifty-two school principals started the survey, however respondents who
failed to complete 15% of the survey were eliminated from data analysis, leaving the total
survey pool at 46 respondents (31% of potential participants). Of these respondents, five
principals were selected and interviewed. These principals have been referred to as
Principals A-E, and no identifiable information has been reported in these findings.
Though the response rate of 31% may appear low, a low response rate is typical
for a web-based survey (Nair & Adams, 2009; Shih & Fam, 2009). In a meta-analysis of
several dozen large studies, Shih and Fan (2009) found that the average response rate to
email surveys was 33% with a low response rate of 11% within one standard deviation of
the mean.
The quantitative data provided a current description of the demographic
networking, and student data results of principals in California, and the qualitative data
further explored their practices in their respective principal networks and the networked
learning that took place. The mixed methods approach of triangulating the findings was
used in checking for consistency of findings between the existent literature, survey data,
and interview data.

47
Research Findings
Participant Demographics
The pool of participating principals was composed of 23 male (50%) and 23
female (50%). Out of the 46 participants, 65% identified themselves as Caucasian, 24%
Hispanic/Latino, 9% African American, 2% Other, and 0% had indicated being
Asian/Pacific Islander. When asked about the specific number of years as principal, 44%
responded with 5 years of less, 24% indicated 6-10 years, 24% state that they had been a
principal for 11-20 years, and 8% indicated had held position for over 20 years.

Table 1
Gender of Participating Principals
Gender
a
f %

Male 23 50
Female 23 50
a
n = 46

48
Table 2
Ethnicity of Participating Principals
Ethnicity
a
f %

Caucasian 30 65
Hispanic/Latino 11 24
African American 4 9
Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0
Other 1 2
a
n = 46

Table 3
Number of Years as Principal
Years as Principal
a
f %

>5 20 44
6-10 Years 11 24
11-20 Years 11 24
20< 3 8
a
n = 45

49
Participant Background Experience
The majority, 69% of the principals serve in public schools. Further, 67% lead an
elementary school, 40% lead a middle school, and 24% lead high schools. When asked
about the amount of students at their school site, 22% of the respondents shared they have
less than 200 students in their building, 22% have 201-500, 40% have 501-1000 and 16%
have over 1,000 students. Finally, when asked if they were members of an established
professional learning network, 74% said yes, and 26% said no.
Table 4
Type of Institution
Type of Institution
a
f %

Public 31 69
Private 14 31
a
n = 45

50
Table 5
Type of Grade Level School
Grade Level School
a
f %

Elementary 19 44
Middle School 12 28
High School 11 26
K-12 3 1
a
n = 45

Table 6
School Size
School Size
a
f %

>200 10 22
201-500 10 22
501-1000 18 40
1000< 7 16
a
n = 45

Interviewed Participants
The interviewed participants were purposefully selected for information-rich
cases in order to provide a depth of understanding on the research questions. From the

51
five participants interviewed, 3 identified participating in a professional principal
network and 2 identified themselves as non-members of a professional principal network.

Table 7
Demographics of Interviewed Participants
Name Sex Ethnicity Type of
School
School
Size
Years as
Principal
Member of
a
Professional
Network
Principal
A
M Caucasian High
School
413 7 Yes
Principal
B
M Latino Elementary 500 7 Yes
Principal
C
F Latino/Hispanic Elementary 200 10 No
Principal
D
F Caucasian Middle
School
375 5 Yes
Principal
E
F African
American
K-12 450 20 No

52
Research Question 1: How does membership to a professional network support a
principal’s capacity to improve student achievement?

Professional Principal Networking Beliefs

Table 8 focused on the beliefs principals have regarding a principal network.
Element 1, Professional Principal Network Beliefs, included five Likert-scale statements
that identified the level of agreement participants had on the beliefs of networked
participation and learning.

53
Table 8
Element 1: Level of Agreement on Principal Networking Beliefs
Statement Level of Agreement
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither
Agree of
Disagree
Agree Strongly
Agree
f % f % f % f % f %
As a principal I
must learn from
other principals

0

0

0

0

4

9

26

58

15

33
As a principal I
must plan with
other principals

1 2 1 2 16 36 16 36 11 24
As a principal I
must focus on
improving
instructions with
other principals
1 2 0 0 7 16 23 52 13 30

As a principal I
must focus on
improving student
achievement with
other principals

1

2

1

2

6

13

24

53

13

30
As a principal I
must be
accountable to
other principals
for my school’s
student
achievement
1 2 11 24 19 43 9 21 4 9
a
n = 45
The participants’ responses from Element 1, as demonstrated in Table 8, ranged
from “Strongly Agree” to Strongly Disagree.” In the first statement, “As a principal I

54
must learn from other principals,” 33% of the participants strongly agreed with the
statement. Additionally, 58% indicated that they agreed with the statement. Nine percent
indicated that they “Neither Agree or Disagree” with the statement, and there were zero
participants that disagreed with the statement.
The results of the second statement in Element 1, “As a principal I must plan with
other principals,” revealed that there was a tie in the majority percentile of results. Thirty-
six of participants indicated that they “Agreed” with the statement as well as 36%
indicated that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. Similarly, 2% of
participants also indicated that they “Disagree” and “Strongly Disagree” with the
statement. Only 24% of participants were in agreement with the statement.
The third statement in Element 1, “As a principal I must focus on improving
instruction with other principals,” the majority of the participants (82%) indicated that
they were in agreement with the statement. Sixteen percent were neither in agreement or
disagreement, and only 2% of the participants strongly disagreed with the statement.
In the fourth statement of Element 1, once again, the majority of the participants
were in agreement with the statement; 53% agreed and 30% strongly agreed with the
statement. Out of the remaining participants, 13% were indifferent and 4% indicated that
they disagreed with the statement.
The fifth statement in Element 1 asked participants to respond to the following
statement, “As a principal I must be accountable to other principals for my school’s
student achievement.” The highest response rate from participants demonstrated that 43%

55
were indifferent to being accountable to other principals regarding their schools’
student achievement. A total of 26% demonstrated that they disagreed with the statement
and 30% shared that they were in agreement with the statement.
Through the results shown in Table 8, it is evident that the majority of the
participants agreed with the statements in Element 1. For the most part, all the principals
who participated in this survey agreed that principals must plan, learn and focus on
instructional improvement with other principals for the benefit of their schools’ student
achievement.

Networking With Other Principals
Element 2, “Professional Networking With Other Principals,” included six Likert-
scale questions that asked participants to identify how often they engaged in professional
network learning practices.

56
Table 9
Element 2: Networking With Other Principals
Statement Level of Agreement
Never Rarely Sometimes Often All of the
Time
f % f % f % f % f %
How often do you
meet with other
principals?

2

4

2

4

13

29

22

50

6

13
How often do you
consult with other
principals?

3 7 1 2 16 36 14 31 11 24
How often do you
give/receive
feedback from
other principals?
3 7 6 13 16 36 17 38 3 7

How often do
other principals
visit your school?

7

16

13

29

19

42

6

13

0

0
How often do
other principals
comment on your
school’s student
achievement?
6 13 12 27 16 36 10 22 1 2

How often do
other principals
comment on your
leadership?

7

16

9

20

20

44

7

16

2

4
a
n = 45
The participants’ responses from Element 2, as indicated in Table 9, ranged from
“Never” to “All of the Time.” In the first question, “How often do you meet with other

57
principals?” half of the participants (50%) indicated that they “Often” met with other
principals. The second highest response, 29%, indicated they “Sometimes” met with
other principals. 13% of participants indicated that they met with other principals “All of
the Time.” There was a 4% tie on the last two items, participants indicating that they
“Rarely” and “Never” met with other principals.
Principal C, during the interview, indicated that one of disadvantages of not
belonging to a principal network were the missed opportunities she had to socialize with
other principals. She added:
“Given that I am at a private school, I have never considered or taken the time to
seek out and socialize with other principals. I am just so overwhelmed with
responsibilities that by the end of the day, seeking out principals to ‘mingle’ with
is just not a priority.”

In the second question of Element 2, “How often do you consult with other
principals?” the highest response rate was 36%, indicating that they “Sometimes consult
with other principals. The second highest response was “Often” with 31% of participants.
The third highest response was 24% indicating that one fourth of participants consulted
with other principals “All of the Time.” Lastly, 9% of the remaining participants
indicated that the “Rarely” and “Never” consult with other principals.
When asked, “How often do you give/receive feedback from other principals?”
the data indicated various responses. Thirty-six percent of participants agreed that they
“Sometimes” gave and/or received feedback from other participants. Thirty-seven percent
indicated that they “Often” gave and received feedback in their network. Thirteen percent
responded that they “Rarely” received/gave feedback and 7% of participants, from both

58
spectrums, “Never” and “Always” agreed to the statement that they never or always
gave/received feedback from other principals.
The fourth question in Element 2, “How often do other principals visit your
school?” revealed that the majority of responses (42%) fell in the middle category
indicating that they “Sometimes” have other principals visit their schools. Forty-five of
the participants leaned towards the left side of the scale indicating that they “Never”
(16%) and “Rarely” (29%) had principals visit their school. The remaining participants,
13% indicated that they “Often” had other principals visit their school.” From all
participants surveyed, zero percent of participants shared that they “Always” had
principals visit their school.
In the fifth question in Element 2, “How often do other principals comment on
your school’s student achievement?” the responses varied. Thirty-six percent of
participants fell in the middle of the spectrum indicating that other principals
“Sometimes” comment on their schools’ student achievement. Forty percent of
participants agreed that they “Never” (13%) or “Rarely” (27%) have other principals
comment on their schools’ student achievement. On the other spectrum, however, 22%
of participants stated that they “Often” have other principals comment on their schools’
student achievement and 2% indicating that they “Always” have other principals
comment on their schools’ student achievement.
Principal A, stated during the interview that receiving feedback on student
achievement was very challenging:

59
“At first you want to hear (feedback) because you want to improve student
achievement, but when the feedback is harsh and you look at yourself and you
realize you have not done enough and that what you thought you were doing is
not working, it can be a bit harsh. But, at the end of the day, as harsh as it is, I
need to hear it. I want to be the best principal I can be and I realize I won’t be the
best until I hear the truth and make positive changes in my school and
leadership.”

Lastly, in the sixth question in Element 2, “How often do other principals
comment on your leadership?” the responses varied. Forty-four percent stated that other
principals “Sometimes” comment on their leadership. Twenty percent indicated that they
“Rarely” have other principals comment on their leadership and 16% added that they
“Never” had other principals comment on their leadership. On the other spectrum, 16%
mentioned that they “Often” have other principals comment on their leadership and 4%
stated that they “Always” have other principals comment on their leadership.

Research Question 2: What perceptions do principals have on accountability and
collaboration?

Principal and Staff Collaborative in the Decision Making Process

In the online survey provided to participating principals, Element 1 asked
participant to identify with statements that mirrored their school in regards to the decision
making process they went through with their staff at their respective school sites. Element

60
3 was composed of four Likert-scale statements and participating principals had to
identify their level of agreement with the statement.

Table 10
Element 3: Principal and Staff in the Decision Making Process
Statement Level of Agreement
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither
Agree or
Disagree
Agree Strongly
Agree
f % f % f % f % f %
Principals must
involve staff in the
decision making
process

5

11

1

3

3

6

13

29

23

51
Principals must
provide
opportunities for
staff input in the
decision making
process

4 9 0 0 0 0 14 31 27 60
Principals must
encourage staff
input in the
decision making
process
4 9 0 0 1 3 16 35 24 53

Principals must
expect staff input
in the decision
making process

4

8

1

3

8

18

12

27

20

44
a
n = 45

61
As Table 10 indicates, the highest response rate of participants for each of the
statements fell in the “Strongly Agree” category. The category with the lowest response
rate was the “Disagree” category. For the first statement in Element 3, “Principals must
involve staff in the decision making process,” 51% stated that they “Strongly Agree” with
the statement, followed by 29% who stated they “Agree.” It was apparent that the
majority of respondents (80%) were in agreement with the statement. Out of the
remaining 20% of participants, 11% stated that they “Strongly Disagree,” 3% stated they
“Disagree,” and 6% indicated that they “Neither Agree or Disagree.”
The second statement in Element 3, “Principals must provide opportunities for
staff input in the decision making process,” majority (91%) of the participants agreed
with the statements, while 9% strongly disagreed. During my interview with Principal D,
when discussing this topic, she stated:
“It is imperative to get your staff on board on any initiative you are attempting to
push through. By getting teachers involved in the decision making process, you
build teacher capacity—they take on a leadership role and learn how to lead.”

When asked about including staff in the decision making process Principal A added:

“I lead through a collaborative distributive leadership approach. I try to get teams
of teachers onboard to problem solve, to critically asses, to find ways to impact
student achievement. I can’t do this job alone, I need them. Together we can do
more.”

In the third statement of Element 3, principals were asked to indicate the level of
agreement to the following statement, “Principals must encourage staff input in the
decision making process,” once again participants were in agreement, 53% stating they
“Strongly Agree” with the statement and 35% stated they “Agree.” Only 9% strongly

62
disagreed and small percentage, 3%, of participants indicated that they neither agreed
nor disagreed with the statement.
The last statement of Element 3, “Principals must expect staff input in the
decision making process,” once again, participants indicated that they were in agreement.
27% stated they agreed, and 44% stated they strongly agreed. Out of the remaining
participants, 18% indicated that they “Neither Agree or Disagree” and 8% indicated they
disagreed and 18% strongly disagreed with the statement.
Overall, it is quite evident that the majority of participants were in agreement with
all four statements in Element 3. The majority of participants agree that principals must
provide opportunities for staff members to participate in the decisions making process at
the school.

Professional Principal Networking Practices
Element 4 in Table 11, Professional Principal Network Practices, included eight
Likert-scale questions that identified the level of agreement participants had on the
networked practices of principal networks and networked learning.

63
Table 11
Element 4: Level of Agreement on Principal Networking Practices
Statement Level of Agreement
Not at all
Important
Very
Unimportant
Neither
Important
nor
Unimportant
Very
Important
Extremely
Important
f % f % f % f % f %
How important is
it for principals to
find time to meet
with other
principals?

0

0

0

0

3

7

27

60

15

33
How important is
it for principals to
collaborate with
other principals
from neighboring
schools?

0 0 0 0 6 13 26 58 13 29
How important is
it for principals to
collaborate with
other principals
from across the
city/state?
0 0 0 0 15 33 26 56 5 11

How important is
if for principals
(from different
schools) to plan
together?

1

2

2

4

14

32

18

40

10

22
How important is
it for principals
(from different
schools) to think
together?
0 0 0 0 6 13 27 60 12 27

64

How important is
it for principals
(from different
schools) to talk
about professional
issues together?

0

0

0

0

3

7

26

58

16

35
How important is
it for principals
(from different
schools) to share
their school
achievement/
testing results
with other
principals?

0 0 3 7 14 31 19 42 9 20
How important is
it for principals
(from different
schools) to reflect
on their
leadership?
0 0 1 2 1 2 24 54 19 42
a
n = 45
The participants’ responses from Element 4, as demonstrated in Table 11, ranged
from “Not At All Important” to Extremely Important.” In the first question, “How
important is it for principals to find time to meet with other principals?” The majority of
the principals, 93%, agreed that it is extremely important for principals to find more time
to meet with other principals. The 7% remaining participant stated that they were neither
in agreement or disagreement with the statement.
The second question in Element 4 asked participants, “How important is it for
principals to collaborate with other principals from neighboring schools?” Participants

65
were once again in agreement with the statements indicating that 87% find
collaborating with other principals from neighborhood schools important. Thirteen
percent of the remaining participants indicated that meeting with other principals from
neighboring schools was “Neither Important nor Unimportant.”
In the third question of Element 4, “How important is it for principals to
collaborate with other principals from across the city/state?” Once again participants
(67%) determined that collaborating with other principals across the city/state was “Very
Important, 56% and “Extremely Important,” 11%. Thirty-three of participants found
collaborating with principals from across the city/state as “Neither Important nor
Unimportant.”
The fourth question asked participants, “How important is it for principals to plan
together?” Six percent of principals determined that this was very and extremely
unimportant. Thirty-two of the principals stated that this was neither important nor
unimportant and 62% indicated that planning with other principals was very and
extremely important. Interestingly, Principal C, who is not a member of an established
network, when asked about planning with other principals, stated:
“You know, I am not part of a principal network, but I do see the benefit of
having the opportunity to plan with other principals. I guess, it allows you the
opportunity to receive feedback. I would assume that just having a space to share
with other principals one would learn through someone’s else’s
experience…running ideas with someone and improving ideas. I think it would be
a great benefit.”

The next question in Element 4, participants were asked, to determine the
importance of principals getting together to think together. Eighty-seven percent of the

66
principals that responded to the survey indicated that it was very and extremely
important to get together with principals to think together. Thirteen-percent indicated that
they neither felt that it was important or unimportant. There were no responses from
participating principals that agreed that having principals together to think was very or
extremely unimportant.
The sixth question in Element 4 asked participants, “How important is it for
principals to talk about professional issues together?” From the participating principals,
93% indicated that they believed that it was very (58%) and extremely (35%) important
for principals to talk about professional issues together. Seven percent responded that
having principals talk about professional issues together was neither important nor
unimportant.
The following question in Element 4 asked participating principals, “How
important is it for principals to share their school achievement/testing results with other
principals?” Sixty-two percent believed it was important. The remaining 7% of
participants responded that it was “Neither important nor unimportant” for principals to
share their school achievement/testing results with one another.
The last question in Element 4, asked participants, “How important is it for
principals to reflect on their leadership?” to which the majority of participants, 96%,
stated that it was important for principals to reflect on their leadership. Only 2% indicated
that it was not “Very Important” and another 2% that it was “Neither important nor
unimportant.”

67
It is evident that the majority of participating principals found the statements in
Elements 4 important. This indicates that the principals felt that the network practices
performed during network meetings such as collaboration, planning, thinking together,
talking about professional issues, sharing achievement results and reflecting on their
leadership are significant practices. There seems to be a hunger within the principal
community to work together. They no longer desire to work in silos. They long to create
a collaborative environment in which they forge the conditions that give rise to growth
and learning.

Research Question 3: Do principals, who are part of an established professional
network, produce better academic results than principals who are not part of an
established professional network?

Professional Learning Network
When asked the open-ended question on the online survey “Please describe what
you consider a professional learning network to be” participants provided several types of
descriptions. The responses ranged from short responses such as “a group of individuals
working together” to more elaborate ones like, “a group of practitioners belonging to a
common profession who span multiple sites, departments, and/or organizations who
come together to collaborate for the purpose of learning about and improving their
professional practice.” Further analysis revealed that, 69% stated that a professional
learning network was a group of professionals that met for the purpose of
“collaboration,” 48% mentioned that is was group of professionals that helped each other

68
“learn” and “grow,” 38% stated that is was a group of professionals that met to
“support” one another, 7% person said it was a group to “problem solve,” and 7% stated
that a professional learning network was a group of professionals that met together to
“improve student achievement.”
Table 12
Descriptors of a Professional Learning Network
Descriptors
a
f %

Collaborate 10 24
Community 8 19
Learn and Grow 7 16
Support 6 14
Establish/Reach Goals 5 11
Goal Accomplishment 3 7
Improve Student Achievement 3 7
a
n = 42

Membership to a Professional Network
In the online survey provided to participating principals a professional network
was defined as “group of like-mined professionals gathering to meet under the auspices
of an organization”. Defined further, participants were informed that in an established
principal network, principals come together in groups to engage in purposeful and

69
sustained developmental activity informed by the public knowledge base, utilizing
their know-how and constructing knowledge together. In doing so, they learn with one
another, from one another, and on behalf of others. To this end, Table 13 provides
information on how many participating principals identified being part of an established
principal network.
Table 13
Members of an Established Principal Network
Membership
a
f %

Yes 32 74
No 11 26
a
n = 43

While many principals noted membership to a formal principal network,
interviews were used to gather rich, descriptive information regarding the structure and
inner workings of these networks. For example, as Principal A stated during the
interview:
“These professional networks are a great place to use each other as a sounding
board, where we can share ideas and get input on plans and goals we are trying to
accomplish at our respective schools.”

Similarly, Principal B stated:
“I find my network extremely helpful…being a principal is a very lonely
job…there are many things you can’t talk about with close friends and relatives—

70
I appreciate the opportunity to talk to people who are in my same shoes and
understand what I am going through.”

Principal E, however, found the principal network she was a part of to be less
helpful and stated:
“Here’s what I’ve noticed: I find myself losing time and interest—honestly, I
don’t find any of the meetings beneficial to my day-to-day practice and learning. I
make an effort but find that at the end of the day, the meetings did not support me
in becoming a better principal.”

In these statements, two of the three principals who were interviewed and participated in
a professional network shared positive results of being a member of an established
principal network, while the other, shared concerns over the efficacy of principal
networks and networked learning.

71

Evaluating the Principalship
Table 14
Indicators Principals Use to Evaluate Their Performance
Indicators
a
f %

Student Achievement 19 43
Staff Morale and Perception 18 41
Formal Evaluation from
Immediate Supervisor
11 25
Parents and Community 9 20
Self Reflection/Student
Perception
6 14
Peer Evaluation 3 7
School Alumni 2 5
District Union 1 2
a
n = 44
When principal participants were asked the open-ended question, “How do you
evaluate your Principalship?” the responses varied. Some of the most common short
responses were “data,” and “student achievement.” Other responses were more elaborate
and covered other indicators used to evaluate their principalship such as “self reflection,”
“school culture,” and “parental involvement.”
The most popular response given by participants regarding what they used to
evaluate their principalship was student achievement data. According to 43% of

72
participants, they used student formative and summative test scores, achievement
results from standardized tests and state rankings such as API and AYP to evaluate and
assess their role as principal.
Additionally, 41% of participants also indicated that they used staff culture,
perception, and morale to determine their effectiveness as principal. As one survey
participant indicated, “success at my school is determined by teacher retention.”
A quarter of the principals also indicated that evaluation on their principalship
was determined by their immediate supervisor’s formal evaluation and their district’s
administrative expectations. A fifth of participants also mentioned that they use
community morale and parental involvement as an indicator to their effectiveness as a
principal.
Fourteen percent of principals gave the following two indicators as elements they
look at to determine the effectiveness of their role as principal. One was self-reflection
and the other was student perception. Participants shared that reflection on their goals and
continuous learning were used to support and improve their leadership. Six other
participants indicated that student morale, attendance and enrollment were the indicators
they used to shed light on their leadership and role as principal.
Interestingly, early in the survey, participants were asked if they were members of
a principal network. Seventy-four percent of principals indicated that they were part of a
professional network (see Table 13), however, only 7% indicated that peer evaluation on
their principalship was a factor in determining their effectiveness. Though they are

73
members of an established principal network, 67% do not see the evaluation of their
fellow peers as a data point to use in determining their effectiveness.

Principal Network
The last item on the survey sent to principals asked them to respond to the
question, “Do you believe that participation in a principal network will support your in
becoming a stronger principal?” Overwhelmingly, 91% of participants stated that they do
in fact believe that participation in a principal network will make them a stronger
principal.

Table 15
Membership in a Principal Network Leads to a Stronger Principalship
Stronger Principalship
a
f %

Yes 42 91
No 4 9
a
n = 46

Interestingly, all five interviewed participants, were part of the 91% who stated
that they believed participation in a principal network made their principalship stronger,
even the two principals who were not part of a principal network. These responses

74
indicate that the participating principals undoubtedly believed that networking with
other principals does positively impact their performance.

Summary and Discussion of Findings
This chapter presented and analyzed the research findings from online surveys,
interviews and document review that were conducted with principals across the state of
California. The analysis provided additional insight into the following four research
questions:
1. How does membership to a professional network support a principal’s
capacity to improve student achievement?
2. What perceptions do principals have on accountability and collaboration?
3. Do principals, who are part of an established professional network,
produce better academic results than principals who are not part of an
established professional network?

Based on this data analysis, the participating principals believed that participation in a
principal network did lead to a stronger principalship, stronger instructional leadership
role, and improved student achievement.
Findings gathered through interviews and document review showed that
Principals A and B, who were members of a principal network, had improved student
achievement results than Principals C and E who were not members of a network.

75
Student achievement data remained stagnant for Principal D. Principal A, during his
interview shared that he began participating in a principal network in his 2
nd
year as
principal. Now, in his 7
th
year and 5 years after joining his principal network, the student
achievement results at his school have soared. In 2008, the school’s API score was 610.
In 2010, the API score increased by 30 points, giving the school an API score of 640. In
2011 once again the API score grossed to 691. Now, his school’s API score is 711, the
largest gained API score in the city in which the school resides. He attributed the growth
of his schools’ API score primarily to the hard work his staff and students do on a daily
basis. When asked if he felt his API score was a result of his participation in a principal
network, Principal A responded:
“Absolutely. My network focuses on instructional rounds, instructional rounds
focus on instruction.”

He continued to add that he greatly values his principal network. The practices of rounds
and consultancies have made him a reflective leader, which in turn has made him a
stronger principal.
Additionally, Principal B had similar results as Principal A. Principal B has also
seen a growth in student achievement and API scores at his school over the years. Since
his role as principal began, Principal B has participated in a principal network. In 2008,
Principal B’s school’s API score was 644. The score continued to grow. In 2009 the API
score was 652, in 2010 it was 674, in 2011 it reached 699 and in 2012, the school’s API
score reached its highest peak of 724.

76
Similarly to Principal A, Principal B states he believes that the gains in scores
are a reflection of what he is learning at his principal network:
“I feel I’m learning a lot from it (network). I put in practice a lot of things I can
learn from other principals. I can only imagine that it’s going to continue to be
beneficial to my leadership and my students achievement.”

Findings gathered through the interview of the five participating principals
revealed that membership (or potential membership) to a professional network raised the
bar for their performance. Simply being in a space in which principals addressed issues
that were not commonly up for discussion in other settings allowed them to think about
their practice, performance and the desired outcomes for their particular schools. As
Principal A stated during the interview:
“These professional networks are a great place to use each other as a sounding
board, where we can share ideas and get input on plans and goals we are trying to
accomplish at our respective schools.”

Similarly, Principal B stated:
“I find my network extremely helpful…being a principal is a very lonely
job…there are many things you can’t talk about with close friends and relatives—
I appreciate the opportunity to talk to people who are in my same shoes and
understand what I am going through.”

Additional findings gathered through the online survey completed by the 46
participants showed that participants identified and agreed with most of the statements
made throughout the survey. Majority of participants agreed that is was essential to
collaborate with staff members and involve them in the decision making process (see

77
Table 10). In addition to statements regarding staff collaboration, participants were
also asked to determine their level of agreement on principal networking beliefs and
practices. In regards to beliefs on principal networks and networked learning, majority of
participants once again believed that it was “Very Important” for principals to meet,
collaborate, plan, think together, share achievement results with one another and reflect
on their leadership (see Table 12). There was no disagreement on the fact that all the
participating principals believed that the practices mentioned above were necessary
practices within principal networks.
The level of agreement changed, however, when participants were asked to
provide input on whether principals “must” partake in these practices during their
networks (see Table 13). It was interesting to see their level of agreement shifted from
very important to agreeable. This of course had much to do with the way principals have
perceived these networks. Though these networks were originally established to enhance
student achievement, they have evolved to become more of a support group for its
members. (Newman & Wehlage, 1995). Given that the principalship is a very isolated
leadership position, most principals have found solace in these networks, particularly in
an age of high stakes testing.
From the three interviewed principals who were members of a network, two,
Principal B and Principal D disclosed that one of the main reasons they were part of a
network was more due to the emotional support they received from fellow members
rather than the academic support. Principal A was the only participant that indicated that

78
his involvement in a principal network was mainly for academic purposes.
Interestingly, as mentioned above, two of these principals have had gains in their student
achievement. It may be fitting to say that an emotionally healthy principal is a productive
principal.

Triangulation

Points of Convergence
The process of triangulation requires the researcher to compare data from multiple
sources, identifying points of convergence and divergence. In this way, a more rich
understanding of the data becomes possible. With regard to principal networks and
networked learning, much of the findings from the survey and interviews converge with
the literature on the subjects. In some areas the literature is silent, especially in regard to
principal networks and its benefits, and convergence between survey data and interview
data may indicate key patterns. It is in the divergence, however, that questions arise, often
prompting further research to determine the cause(s) for the differences between data
sets. In the discussion below, points of convergence are explored, followed by points of
divergence. Implications for future research are addressed in chapter five.
Data gathered through surveys, interviews and document review aligned with
much of the research on professional learning communities, networks and networked
learning. As expected, a principal network provided ongoing benefits to participants
while they were in the position of principal. The isolation of the position led them to

79
appreciate the camaraderie, trust and emotional support, in which they could receive
both professional and personal support.
Points of Divergence
There were several areas of divergence between the literature and study findings
regarding principal networks and networked learning. Survey and interview data showed
the importance and prominence of professional networks supporting principals; however,
these network were not evident in the literature, perhaps due to the fact that the studies
available did not focus on principal networks. As identified in the literature review in
chapter two, the research is largely silent on the topic of principal networks. Study
findings, however, found networks to largely be professional learning communities of
teachers who met frequently over a period of time to support their instructional
development.
Data from this study provided additional insight into professional principal
networks and networked learning, beyond what has been anticipated through the review
of literature. While it was known that professional learning communities foster a culture
in which people work together interdependently to fulfill shared purpose and achieve
their common goals interview data showed that participation in a principal network not
only fostered a collaborative culture but also raised the bar for their performance and lead
to a stronger principalship, stronger instructional leadership role, and improved student
achievement. Principal networks and networked learning is an essential strategy for

80
sustained school improvement. Additional analysis, implications, and
recommendations for future research are described in Chapter 5.

81
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS
“The proper education of youth [is] the most important American social policy”
(Hochschild & Scovroick, 2003)

Background and Overview of the Study
“For more than 30 years, any serious study of the culture of [education] has
received the same conclusion: [principals] work in isolation,” (Dufour, Dufour & Eaker,
2008). Overcoming this norm of isolation has been one of the most formidable barriers in
the American educational system. Richard Elmore (2003) argues that the existing
structure of schools not only allows for, but actually fosters isolation and serves to
“buffer” from accountability. The design of work in schools is fundamentally
incompatible with the practice of improvement. Principals spend most of their time
working in isolation away from each other in self-contained [schools] with no
opportunity to engage in continuous and sustained learning about their practice in the
setting in which they actually work. This disconnect, between the requirements of
learning to teach well and the structure of [principals’] work life is fatal to any sustained
process of instructional improvement (Elmore, 2006).
The purpose of this study was to understand the role principal networks and
networked learning play in student achievement among principals in the state of
California and the benefits they perceived to gain from these networks and their practices.

82
A mixed methods approach was used to gather data in response to those
questions. Quantitative data was collected from a survey using an electronic
questionnaire, and a qualitative data was collected from open-ended questions from the
survey and interviews. Data from the sources, along with that from available research,
were triangulated in order to find convergent and divergent themes.
Through a triangulation analysis of data from surveys completed by 46 principals
across the state of California, interviews conducted with five principals and documents
provided by the five interviewed principals helped answer the following research
questions:
1. How does membership to a professional network support a principal’s
capacity to improve student achievement?
2. What perceptions do principals have on accountability and collaboration?
3. Do principals, who are part of an established professional network,
produce better academic results than principals who are not part of an
established professional network?

Limitations
Since the principals who participated in both the surveys and interviews were located
across the state of California, the data might not be reflective of other states across the
United States. Also, since the interviewed participating schools’ sizes were between 200
and 500 students, the data might not be reflective of smaller or larger schools.

83
Implications
The information obtained from the surveys, interviews, and document review
conducted as part of this study indicate that principals believe that principal networks and
networked learning do positively impact their performance as instructional leader and
principal. Consequently, this positive impact transcends classroom ultimately impacting
and increasing student achievement. In particular, the interviews provided specific
examples of how principal networks and networked learning played an instrumental role
in enhancing the principal role, allowing principals to reflect on their leadership and see
themselves as transformational leaders positively impacting student achievement.
More specifically, the following 3 findings were obtained:
1. Principals understand that they play a valuable role in improving
instruction at their schools.
2. Principals believe that participation in a principal network raised the bar
for their performance and lead to a stronger principalship, stronger
instructional leadership role, and improved student achievement.
3. Principals agreed that it was essential to collaborate with staff members
and involve them in the decision making process for increased student
achievement.

84
Summary
While principals have numerous responsibilities to oversee, their main
responsibility is to provide quality education to the students that their schools serve.
However, this task can be daunting. Therefore, this study provides both current and
aspiring principals, with examples of how they can use principal networks and networked
learning to improve instruction and thereby increase student achievement.
In addition to learning about the principal role and impact as an instructional
leader, some interesting insights were also gained from this study regarding other aspects
of how principal networks improve instruction. For instance, all five participating
principals interviewed in this study talked about the importance of collaborating with
staff members and involve them in the decision making process for increased student
achievement. Furthermore, principals believe that participation in a principal network
raised the bar for their performance and lead to a stronger principalship, stronger
instructional leadership role, and improved student achievement.
Overall, this study provides hope for principals that their work does not have to be
in vain and that the principal networks and networked learning can ultimately improve
their performance as principals and ultimately lead to increased student achievement.

Recommendations for Future Research
The purpose of this mixed methods study was to add to the body of knowledge on
principal networks and networked learning. There are many groups, including

85
professional organizations, district-level support staff, intermediate service agencies,
and institutions of higher learning, which work either directly or indirectly with future,
current, and or aspiring principals who may find the results of this study to be of value in
guiding their work.
While this study added to the body of research on principals and especially on
principals as networked and instructional leaders, additional research is still needed in the
following areas in order to better understand how principals networks and networked
learning can play a significant role in improving instruction and student achievement.
1. Expand the current study to include more schools and school districts.
2. Further explore the nature of principal networks and networked learning
practices for principals.
3. Explore the potential organizational gaps related to the mentoring of
principals and the networked learning process for principals.
This mixed methods study focused on principals across the state of California. As
such, an obvious place for continuing research is the same state with larger numbers of
populations to fully understand the landscape of principal networks and networked
learning. Further, studies of a similar nature in other sates will provide a more general
sense of the beliefs and effective practices of networks and networked learning for
principals in other regions of the country.
In addition to conducting research that is focused specifically on principal
networks and networked learning, additional research is also needed on the following:

86
1. What are better ways to determine success in student achievement besides
measuring standardized test scores?
2. Are there specific principal networks that work better than others in
supporting principals and increasing student achievement at their schools?
3. Since students are the most important stakeholders (their lives are the most
affected by whether they do well academically) additional research is needed
in the students’ point of view regarding what will help them increase their
own academic achievement.
One of the most significant differences in knowledge between demographic
populations was that of private and public school principals. The difference in
participation in principal networks, and the possible reasons for such differences, could
be interesting areas for further research, particularly given some of the national
conversations regarding vouchers, charter schools, and other ways to improve student
learning by way of student choice.

CONCLUSION
While principals have numerous responsibilities to oversee, the main
responsibility is to provide a quality education to the students that their schools serve.
However, this task can be daunting. Therefore, this study provides both current and
aspiring principals, with specific examples on how they can use their position as their

87
schools’ main instructional leader to improve instruction and thereby increase student
achievement district-wide.
In addition to learning about the principal’s role and impact as an instructional
leader, some interesting insights were also gained from this study regarding principal
networks and networked learning. For instance, 91% of interviewed participants indicated
they believe that participation in principal network does positively impact their
performance, and thus increase student achievement at their school sites. All five
interviewed principals also agreed on that fact that collaborating with staff members and
involve them in the decision making process for increased student achievement.
Furthermore, principals believe that participation in a principal network raised the bar for
their performance and lead to a stronger principalship, stronger instructional leadership
role, and improved student achievement.
There is no doubt that a solid track record for improving student learning can be
found in creating collaborative environments in which its members forge the conditions
that give rise to growth and learning. We must learn to veer away from a system of
confinement and isolation to one of connectivity and integrated networks (Jackson &
Temperley, 2006). By propelling these changes we will be able to give the American
educational system a platform to transform itself and become a beacon of progress and
success once again.

88
REFERENCES
Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds) (2001). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. New
York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Barth, R. (1986). On sheep and goats and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(4), 293-
296.
California Department of Education. (2013). California school district directory.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/sd/
Clark, R.E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Creswell, J.W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating
qualitative and qualitative research. Columbus, OH: Pearson-Merrill-Prentice
Hall.
Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that
work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M.W. (1995). Policies that support professional
development in an era of reform. In M.W. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (eds),
Teacher learning: New policies, new practices. New York: Teachers College
Press.

89
Dufour, R., & Eaker, R.E. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Alexandria VA: National Education
Service Association for Supervision & Curriculum, Development.
Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by Doing: A handbook
for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Elmore, R.F. (2003, November). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership,
61(3), 6-10.
Kousez, J., & Posner, B. (1996). Seven lessons for leading the voyage to the future. IN F.
Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, & R. Beckhard (Eds.), The leader of the future. San
Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of Privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’
professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
McLaughlin, M.W., & Talbert, J.E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning
communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Murphy, C. U., & Lick, D. W. (2005). Whole-faculty study groups: Creating professional
learning communities that target student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Nair, C. S., & Adams, P. (2009). Forum survey platform: A factor influencing online
survey delivery and response rate. Quality in Higher Education, 15(3), 291-296.

90
Newman, F. M., King, M.B., & Youngs, P. (2000). Professional development that
addresses school capacity: Lessons form urban elementary schools. American
Journal of Education, 108(4), 259-299.
Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to
the public and educators. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring
of Schools, Wisconsin Center for Educational Research, University of Wisconsin.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Shih, T., & Fan, X. (2009). Comparing responses rate in e-mail and paper surveys: A
meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 4(1), 26-40.
Slater, L. (2008). Pathways to building leadership capacity. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 36(1), 55-69.
Trouteaud, A. R. (2004). How you ask counts: A test of internet-related components of
response rates to a web-based survey. Social Science Computer Review, 22(3),
385-393.
Wohlstetter, P., Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2008). Creating a system for data-driven
decision-making: Applying the principal-agent framework. School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, 19(3), 239-259.

91
APPENDIX A:
RECRUITMENT LETTER
Dear Principal,
My name is Maria L. Covarrubias, and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of
Education at University of Southern California. I am conducting a research study as part
of my dissertation, which examines if networked principals have a stronger influence and
impact on student outcomes and achievement in comparison to isolated school Principals.
You are cordially invited to participate in the study. If you agree, you are invited to
complete an online survey that contains multiple choice and short answer questions.
The online survey is anticipated to take no more than 15 minutes to complete. Depending
on your responses to the survey and your availability, you may be asked to be
interviewed via Skype or in-person. The interview is voluntary, and anticipated to last
approximately 1 hour and may be audiotaped. Participation in this study is completely
voluntary. Your identity as a participant will remain confidential at all times during and
after the study.
If you have questions or would like to participate, please contact me at
mlcovarr@usc.edu.
Thank you for your participation,
Maria L. Covarrubias
Doctoral Candidate - Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

92
APPENDIX B:
PRINCIPAL SURVEY
Q2 Are you a male or female?
m Male
(1)

m Female
(2)

Q17 What is your ethnicity?
m Caucasian
(1)

m Hispanic/Latino
(2)

m African
American
(3)

m Asian/Pacific
Islander
(4)

m Other
(5)

Q16 What is you age group?
m 30
and
under
(1)

m 31-‐40
(2)

m 41-‐50
(3)

m 51-‐60
(4)

m 61
and
over
(5)

Q3 How many years have you been a Principal (including this year)?

Q6 What type of grade-level school do you lead?
q Elementary
(1)

q Middle
School
(2)

q High
School
(3)

93
Q15 Is your school in an urban, suburban or rural setting?
m Urban
(1)

m Suburban
(2)

m Rural
(3)

Q4 Is your organization public or private?
m Public
(1)

m Private
(2)

Q16 Based on your school's latest Annual Performance Index (API) score, would you
classify your school as low-performing, mid-performing, or high-performing school?
m Low-‐performing
(1)

m Mid-‐performing
(2)

m High-‐performing
(3)

m My
school
does
not
have
an
API
score
(4)

Q8 How many students attend your school?

Q9 Please describe what you consider a professional learning network to be.

Q13 Are you a member of a professional learning network?
m Yes
(1)

m No
(2)

94
Q10 Of the following items, please select the responses that you, as a Principal, most
closely align with:

Strongly

Disagree
(1)

Disagree
(2)
Neither

Agree
nor

Disagree
(3)

Agree
(4)
Strongly

Agree
(5)

Principals

must
involve

staff
in
the

decision

making

process
(1)

m
m
m
m
m

Principals

must
provide

opportunities

for
staff
input

in
the

decision

making

process
(2)

m
m
m
m
m

Principals

must

encourage

staff
input
in

the
decision

making

process
(3)

m
m
m
m
m

Principals

must
expect

staff
input
in

the
decision

making

process
(4)

m
m
m
m
m

95
Q11 Of the following items, please select the responses that you, as a Principal, most
closely align with:

Never
(1)
Rarely
(2)
Sometimes

(3)

Often
(4)
All
of
the

Time
(5)

How
often
do

you
meet

with
other

Principals?

(1)

m
m
m
m
m

How
often
do

you
consult

with
other

Principals?

(2)

m
m
m
m
m

How
often
do

you

give/receive

feedback

from
other

Principals?

(3)

m
m
m
m
m

How
often
do

other

Principals

visit
your

school?
(4)

m
m
m
m
m

How
often
do

other

Principals

comment
on

your
school's

student

achievement?

(5)

m
m
m
m
m

How
often
do

other

Principals

comment
on

m
m
m
m
m

96
your

leadership?

(6)

97
Q12 Of the following items, please select the responses that you, as a Principal, most
closely align with:

Not
at
all

Important

(1)

Very

Unimportant

(2)

Neither

Important

nor

Unimportant

(3)

Very

Important

(4)

Extremely

Important

(5)

How
important
is
it

for
Principals
to
find

time
to
meet
with

other
Principals?
(1)

m
m
m
m
m

How
important
is
it

for
Principals
to

collaborate
with

other
Principals

from
neighboring

schools?
(2)

m
m
m
m
m

How
important
is
it

for
Principals
to

collaborate
with

other
Principals

from
across
the

city/state?
(3)

m
m
m
m
m

How
important
is
it

for
Principals
(from

different
schools)
to

plan
together?
(4)

m
m
m
m
m

How
important
is
it

for
Principals
(from

different
schools)
to

think
together?
(5)

m
m
m
m
m

How
important
is
it

for
Principals
(from

different
schools)
to

talk
about

professional
issues

together?
(6)

m
m
m
m
m

How
important
is
it
m
m
m
m
m

98
for
Principals
(from

different
schools)
to

share
their
school

achievement/testing

results
with
other

Principals?
(7)

How
important
is
it

for
Principals
(from

different
schools)
to

reflect
on
their

leadership?
(8)

m
m
m
m
m

99
Q13 Of the following items, please select the responses that you, as a Principal, most
closely align with:

Strongly

Disagree
(1)

Disagree
(2)
Neither

Agree
nor

Disagree
(3)

Agree
(4)
Strongly

Agree
(5)

As
a

Principal
I

must
learn

from
other

Principals

(1)

m
m
m
m
m

As
a

Principal
I

must
plan

with
other

Principals

(2)

m
m
m
m
m

As
a

Principal
I

must
focus

on

improving

instruction

with
other

Principals

(3)

m
m
m
m
m

As
a

Principal
I

must
focus

on

improving

student

achievement

with
other

Principals

(4)

m
m
m
m
m

As
a

Principal
I

m
m
m
m
m

100
must
be

accountable

to
other

Principals

for
my

school's

student

achievement

(5)

Q14 How do you evaluate your Principalship?

Q14 Do you believe that participation in a (Principal) professional learning network will
support you in becoming a stronger Principal?
m Yes
(1)

m No
(2)

101
APPENDIX C:
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Date
of
Interview:

Date:

Place:

Interviewer:
Maria
Covarrubias

Interviewee:

School/District:

Introduction

First
of
all,
thank
you
so
much
for
participating
in
this
interview.
Your
valuable
time

and
support
is
greatly
appreciated.

I’m
a
graduate
student
at
the
University
of
Southern
California
working
on
my

dissertation
and
studying
the
about
principal
networks
and
networked
learning.
As

a
school
principal,
you
are
in
a
unique
position
to
describe
how
a
principal
network

and/or
networked
learning
has
affected
you
and
your
school.
And
that’s
what
the

interview
is
about:
your
experiences
in
networks
and
networking
and
your
thoughts

about
your
experiences.

Let’s
get
started.

1. How
long
have
you
been
a
principal?

2. How
long
have
you
been
a
principal
at
your
present
school
site?

3. Is
your
organization
public
or
private?

4. Are
you
part
of
a
principal
network?
If
so,
please
describe.
If
not,
please

explain
what
has
prevented
you
from
participating
in
a
network?

5. What
type
of
work/activities/conversations
take
place
in
your
network?

6. Would
you
classify
your
district/school
as
a
district
or
school
that
works
in

collaboration
or
isolation?
Why?

102
7. What
is
your
schools
API
score?

8. Since
your
principalship,
have
you
seen
a
growth
in
student

performance/test
scores?

9. What
do
you
think
contributes
to
this
score?

10. Do
you
believe
that
participation
in
a/your
network
is
a
direct
result
of
this?

11. Is
you
effectiveness
a
direct
result
of
a
collaborative
environment?

12. How
many
students
attend
your
school?

13. Tell
me
about
your
leadership
style.
How
do
you
lead?

14. Do
you
prefer
to
work
independently
or
in
groups?

15. Does
your
staff
prefer
to
work
independently
or
in
groups?

16. Would
you
classify
yourself
as
a
principal
who
works
in
collaboration?

17. Do
you
believe
principals
should
collaborate
with
other
Principals?

18. Do
you
believe
principals
should
be
part
of
a
network?

19. Do
you
participate
in
a
professional
learning
network?
If
so,
describe
your

network.

20. Do
you
value
other
people’s
comments
about
your
leadership?

21. How
do
you
evaluate
your
performance?

22. Do
you
believe
that
participation
in
a
principal
network
team
will
support

you
in
becoming
a
stronger
principal?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to better understand the practices of principal networks and networked learning, specifically looking at the impact on student performance from principals who are members of an established principal network from those who are not members of an established network. More specifically, this study set out to determine: 1) how membership to a professional network supports a principal’s capacity to improve student achievement, 2) what perceptions principals have on accountability and collaboration, and 3) how principals from an established professional network produce better academic results than principals who are not part of an established professional network. This study implemented a mixed‐methods approach in which 46 principals from the state of California completed a survey, five of these surveyed principals also participated in an interview, and provided relevant school documents that were also analyzed as part of a document review. Through the process of triangulation, the study’s findings indicate that the majority of the interviewed participants believed that participation in a principal network did positively impact their performance, and thus increased student achievement at their school sites. Furthermore, principals also believed that participation in a principal network raised the bar for their performance and led to a stronger principalship, stronger instructional leadership role and improved student achievement. Overall, this study provides hope for principals that improved student learning and achievement can be found in creating collaborative learning environments in which its members forge the conditions that give rise to growth and learning.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

The secondary school principal's role as instructional leader in teacher professional development

PDF

Female superintendents in California and the role that mentoring and networking have played in their sucess

PDF

Data-driven decision-making practices that secondary principals use to improve student achievement

PDF

The teacher evaluation: key components that positively impact teacher effectiveness and student achievement

PDF

Let's hear it from the principals: a study of four Title One elementary school principals' leadership practices on student achievement

PDF

Secondary school counselor-principal relationships: impact on counselor accountability

PDF

Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

The leadership skills, knowledge, and training required of high school principals to effectively evaluate classroom teachers

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Digital teacher evaluations: principal expectations of usefulness and their impact on teaching

PDF

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

PDF

Elementary principal perceptions of teacher to student bullying within classroom management practices

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Model leadership: discovering successful principals' skills, strategies and approaches for student success

Asset Metadata

Creator Covarrubias, Maria L. (author)

Core Title Comparative study of the networked principal vs. the isolated principal

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/22/2014

Defense Date 01/14/2014

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

Tag education networks,Leader,networked learning,networked principal,OAI-PMH Harvest,Principal,principal networks

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy Max (committee chair), García, Pedro Enrique (committee member), Levinson, Christine (committee member)

Creator Email mlc283@mail.harvard.edu,mlcovarr@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-382163

Unique identifier UC11296425

Identifier etd-Covarrubia-2389.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-382163 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Covarrubia-2389.pdf

Dmrecord 382163

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Covarrubias, Maria L.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA