Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
(USC Thesis Other)
Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
1
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY K–12 URBAN SUPERINTENDENTS TO
IMPROVE THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
by
Raul C. Ramirez
_______________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2014
Copyright 2014 Raul C. Ramirez
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
2
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Sonia, and my sons, Adrian and Julian, who are
my inspiration every day. You are the purpose to my life.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
3
Acknowledgements
I would like to begin by expressing my sincerest gratitude to all of the individuals who
have supported and encouraged me during my entire doctoral experience at the University of
Southern California. These include those with whom I have had the privilege of working with at
the Rossier School of Education, those who have supported my professional growth, as well as
those in my closest circle of family and friends.
First, I want to acknowledge the significant contribution of my dissertation chair, Dr.
Rudy Castruita, and my committee members, Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. John Roach. Through
their vast expertise and experience, each has challenged and developed my thinking as an
educational leader. In their own unique ways, they have all made an immense impact on my
understanding of school leadership and what it means to be an advocate for all children.
I also want to thank my writing partners: Gretchen Janson, Charles Smith, and Tiffani
Curtis. Their tremendous support throughout this journey has made it possible for me to reach
this conclusion. Our journey together has been arduous and intense, but ultimately wonderfully
fulfilling. Moreover, they have served as respected colleagues and confidantes whose friendship
I will always value.
Above all, I want to acknowledge the support of my closest family and friends, without
whom I could never imagine having reached the conclusion of this journey. I want to begin by
acknowledging the support of my family. First, I want to thank my wife, Sonia, for her
unparalleled support. I am incredibly appreciative for her personal sacrifice and dedication,
which have allowed me the opportunity to pursue my professional and academic ambitions. I
also want to acknowledge the inspiration I received from my children, Adrian and Julian
Ramirez, my parents, Ruben and Maria Ramirez, and my siblings, Ruben Ramirez and
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
4
Esmeralda Rojas. Their influence has been fundamental to my desire to further my education
and develop as an individual. I can only hope to instill in them the same level of pride they have
instilled in me.
Furthermore, I want to acknowledge the immense influence and support I have received
from my closest friends. All of these individuals are akin to family and have played a significant
role in allowing me to persist and reach this juncture. For their invaluable support, I will always
be thankful to Gilberto Negrete, Nick Sanchez, Juan Martin, Jesus Torres, Rene Negrete, Alex
Negrete, Gilberto Negrete, Sr., Luz Negrete, Dr. Maneka Brooks, Dr. Norman Sauce, Dr. Jairo
Arellano, Victor Farias, Cindy Escobar, and Mayra Naranjo.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the influence of professional colleagues and
mentors. These individuals serve as personal and professional exemplars whose support has
allowed my career to unfold. For their tremendous influence, I will always be appreciative to
Xochitl Avellan, Dr. Lori Pawinski, and Kristin Botello.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
5
Table of Contents
List of Tables 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 10
Introduction 10
Statement of the Problem 13
Purpose of the Study 14
Research Questions 14
Significance of the Study 14
Assumptions 15
Limitations 15
Delimitations 16
Definition of Terms 16
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 18
Introduction 18
The Role of the Superintendent 20
Leadership Theoretical Framework 23
Equity and Access for English Language Learners 25
Creating a Collaborative Culture 33
Building Leadership Capacity 34
Conclusion 36
Chapter Three: Methodology 37
Introduction 37
Purpose of the Study 38
Research Questions 39
Rationale for Mixed-Methods Study Design 39
Research Design 41
Sample and Population 41
Instrument Validity 42
Instrumentation 42
Quantitative Instrumentation 42
Qualitative Instrumentation 43
Data Collection 44
Quantitative Data Collection 44
Qualitative Data Collection 44
Data Analysis 45
Quantitative Data Analysis 45
Qualitative Data Analysis 45
Summary 46
Chapter Four: Results 47
Introduction 47
Purpose 48
Response Rate 48
Quantitative Demographic Data 49
Qualitative Demographic Data 54
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
6
Research Question One 57
Teacher Expectations for ELL Performance 59
Access to Highly Qualified Teachers 60
Instructional Leadership 62
Discussion 64
Research Question Two 64
Teachers 66
District-Level Personnel 66
School-Level Administrators 67
Discussion 68
Research Question Three 69
High Expectations for Student Achievement 71
Clearly Defined District-Wide Academic Goals for ELL Students 72
On-Site Teacher Collaboration 73
Discussion 74
Research Question Four 75
Valid and Reliable Assessment Instruments 77
Analyzing Subgroup Assessment Data 78
Established Instructional Norms 79
Discussion 80
Summary 80
Chapter Five: Conclusions 82
Introduction 82
Statement of the Problem 82
Purpose of the Study 83
Research Questions 83
Review of the Literature 84
Methodology 85
Findings 86
Implications 90
Recommendations for Future Study 91
Conclusions 92
References 93
Appendix A: Research Question/Instrument Connection 99
Appendix B: Survey Instrument 102
Appendix C: Interview Protocol 105
Appendix D: Survey Cover Letter 106
Appendix E: Interview Letter 107
Appendix F: Information Letter 108
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
7
List of Tables
Table 1: Quantitative Survey: Response Rate 49
Table 2: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Gender 49
Table 3: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Ethnicity 50
Table 4: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Age 50
Table 5: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Education 51
Table 6: Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Experience in Current District 52
Table 7: Quantitative Survey: Overall Superintendent Experience 52
Table 8: Quantitative Survey: District Characteristics 54
Table 9: Qualitative Interview: Characteristics of Superintendents and Districts 56
Table 10: Superintendent Rating of Factors Important to ELL Academic Achievement 59
Table 11: Superintendent Rating of Stakeholders Important to ELL Academic 65
Achievement
Table 12: Superintendent Rating of Factors Important in Implementing Plans to 70
Improve ELL Academic Achievement
Table 13: Superintendent Rating of Factors that are Important in Monitoring and 76
Evaluating Plans to Improve ELL Academic Achievement
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
8
Abstract
As organizational leaders, superintendents face extraordinary pressure to close the academic
achievement gap that persists among student demographic groups, particularly those classified as
English language learners (ELLs). To improve the academic achievement of English language
learners in their districts, superintendents must identify and adopt effective leadership strategies.
This mixed-method study design was developed to determine the successful leadership strategies
employed by K–12 urban superintendents to positively impact the academic achievement of
students classified as English language learners. Specifically, the study sought to answer 4
research questions related to this topic. Collection of data was based upon purposeful, criterion-
based sampling and conducted through quantitative surveys of 14 superintendents and qualitative
interviews of 8 superintendents.
Research findings are presented and discussed according to the 4 research questions of
the study. First, key factors that superintendents considered in developing strategies to improve
academic achievement for ELL students included teacher expectations, access to high quality
teachers, and instructional leadership. Second, critical stakeholders whom superintendents
involved in developing plans and processes to achieve the desired academic outcomes for ELL
students included teachers, district-level personnel, and school-level administrators. Third, key
strategies urban superintendents utilized to implement plans for improving academic
achievement included high expectations for student achievement, clearly defined district-wide
academic goals for ELL students, and on-site teacher collaboration. Fourth, to appropriately
monitor and evaluate plans to improve the academic outcomes of ELL students, superintendents
utilized valid, reliable assessment instruments, analyzed subgroup assessment data, and
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
9
established instructional norms.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
10
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
As the United States encounters increased pressure to maintain its standing in a global
economy, its public education system faces mounting expectations to successfully prepare its
students to compete in this economic climate. Facing a range of complex demands, district
leaders throughout the country are charged with increasing the academic performance of all
students in order to ensure that the nation has sustainable human capital to compete globally.
Nevertheless, according to several indicators, students in the United States are falling behind
other developed countries in the areas of literacy, science, and mathematics, leaving a significant
disparity in academic achievement compared to their counterparts in other countries (Schmidt &
McKnight, 1998; Schneider, 2009).
While facing the pressure of producing a better educated populous to stay in-step with
global demands, public education is at a precarious point due to shifting demographics in the
United States. Specifically, recent patterns of immigration have led to a dramatic surge in
students classified as English language learners (ELLs). While the overall student population has
remained almost unchanged, the nation’s ELL population has risen by over 60% (American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 2009). Furthermore, students classified as English language
learners are failing in schools at disproportionally high rates, which has contributed to a
considerable achievement gap among student groups in this country.
Nowhere are the effects of demographic shifts and changes more clearly visible than in
large urban cities (Lauen & Gaddis, 2012). The dense concentration of minority students in large
urban cities, coupled with education’s inability to appropriately meet their unique needs, have
widened the achievement gap between English language learners and other student groups.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
11
Superintendents in these districts confront formidable challenges leading organizations
attempting to meet the unique learning needs of ELL students in order to satisfy stringent
accountability measures for student academic outcomes. Meanwhile, urban superintendents
must contend with political pressure created by school boards and stakeholder groups, in
conjunction with intense media attention on achievement results. This climate of intense
demands has eroded the longevity of school superintendents in the nation’s largest school
districts to the point where the average superintendent tenure in 2010 was 3.6 years (Casserly,
Lewis, Uzzell, Horwitz, & Simon, 2010).
Federal and state accountability systems mandate a standard for expected student learning
outcomes and invest external agencies with the authority to impose sanctions on local education
agencies for their inability to meet that standard. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB), in particular, mandates that all students meet minimum proficiency levels in English
language arts and mathematics by the year 2014, establishing yearly performance growth targets
to measure progress toward that end (Menken, 2010). Furthermore, NCLB disaggregates
academic achievement according to significant student subgroups, such as ELL students and
students deemed socioeconomically disadvantaged, thus preventing schools and districts from
ignoring traditionally underserved populations (Lauen & Gaddis, 2012).
Within the bureaucratic accountability system of NCLB, districts and schools are
responsible for meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets for student academic
performance on an annual basis. AYP targets are based on the percentage of students achieving
“proficient” status on state standardized testing in English language arts and mathematics.
Inability to meet these standards triggers incrementally punitive sanctions, including corrective
actions intended to establish a pathway toward ensuring that all student subgroups meet AYP.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
12
For urban schools and districts that serve a disproportionately higher number of minority and at-
risk students—including ELL students—the challenge of meeting AYP on a yearly basis is
daunting.
An added dimension of the current system of accountability introduced by NCLB is the
emphasis on public awareness of student achievement results. NCLB requires that every school
publish an annual School Accountability Report Card (SARC) for its community, which captures
a range of information on student academic performance, school expenditures, teacher-student
ratios, and teacher qualifications. Furthermore, NCLB requires that schools and school districts
that repeatedly fail to meet AYP inform their communities about their status in program
improvement. Although these public documents ensure a greater level of transparency about the
school’s overall performance to its stakeholders, they also serve to bring into focus the
significant disparity in achievement among student subgroups. In turn, demands for immediate
results exponentially increase. For urban school districts, in particular, community scrutiny is
heightened in light of both the disproportionate achievement among student groups and the large
number of students impacted by this inequality.
Despite the substantial pressure to increase academic achievement, students in the United
States continue to underperform. As educational leaders, superintendents occupy a critical role
in the pursuit to increase achievement levels for all students, as they have the power and
influence to affect the direction of the organization, as well as the means to allocate resources to
reach desired outcomes (Waters & Marzano, 2007). However, accountability for the academic
achievement of all students has dramatically impacted the expectations of the superintendent’s
position. Superintendents are required to extend their roles beyond the traditional managerial
capacity and demonstrate sound instructional leadership. This increased expectation has proven
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
13
difficult in urban school districts with large numbers of students with challenging learning needs.
Superintendents continue to be judged based on their ability to sustain high levels of student
achievement, proving all too aware that positively affecting the achievement of an ever-growing
number of English language learners is critical if the country is to improve its global standing.
Statement of the Problem
As accountability measures in public education have increased in scope and demand, so
too has the public pressure placed upon schools and school districts to ensure a high level of
academic achievement for all students. Large urban school districts show startlingly
disproportionate levels of achievement among demographic groups. Critical to addressing this
achievement gap are the long-term implications and future prospects of students who
consistently fail to meet expected learning outcomes. The increasing number of minority
students and students from disadvantaged backgrounds present urban districts with unique
challenges that must be addressed to ensure a significant increase in academic achievement.
One numerically significant group of particular concern to leaders of large urban K–12
school districts is comprised of students classified as English language learners. A marked
achievement gap persists between ELL students and their English-speaking counterparts
(California Department of Education [CDE], 2010). Furthermore, the literature yields limited
information about strategies that superintendents in large urban districts employ to ensure the
academic success of English language learners, despite overwhelming external pressure to
improve their achievement. Analysis of the literature revealed abundant information directed at
teachers and school site leadership regarding support for ELL students; but a dearth of research
exists about the role of the superintendent in improving district learning outcomes.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
14
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to identify superintendent leadership strategies that positively
impact the academic achievement of students identified as English language learners in large
urban K–12 school districts. Specifically, the study considered approaches employed by
superintendents developing, implementing, and monitoring improvements to ELL student
academic outcomes.
Research Questions
The research questions that guided this study are as follows:
1. What factors do urban superintendents consider when developing strategies to
improve the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
2. Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban superintendents to assist in
improving academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
3. What strategies do urban superintendents execute when implementing plans to
improve the academic achievement of students classified as English Language
Learners?
4. What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor and evaluate the academic
achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Significance of the Study
This study adds to the body of scholarly literature by identifying and examining
leadership practices employed by urban superintendents in large districts to positively impact the
academic achievement of students classified as English language learners. It provides guidance
for current and aspiring urban superintendents who encounter a similar context. Furthermore,
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
15
the findings have the potential to support urban superintendents in developing an approach to
improve the learning of a growing population with distinct needs. Additionally, the study may
serve to provide guidance for district- and school-level staff in their efforts to implement
organizational plans directed at improving the academic outcomes of English language learner
students.
Assumptions
The study assumed the following:
1. Superintendent leadership can impact student achievement for students classified as
English language learners.
2. Superintendents can identify and communicate strategies used to improve student
achievement.
3. The chosen procedures and methods are appropriate.
4. The information gathered will sufficiently address the research questions.
Limitations
The study included the following limitations:
1. The validity of the data was reliant upon the chosen instruments of measurement.
2. Inherent challenges to the isolation of specific leadership strategies that impact
student achievement from other variables.
3. The ability or willingness of superintendents to provide accurate responses.
4. The ability to gain access to superintendents of large urban school districts.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
16
Delimitations
The delimitations of this study were:
1. Data collection was limited to urban superintendents in California with student
populations of more than 20,000.
2. Districts must serve populations with more than 20% ELL students.
3. Interviews were limited to 4 to 8 urban superintendents.
Definition of Terms
Academic Performance Index: Comprehensive annual measurement of the academic
performance of individual schools and districts in California.
Academic achievement: Quantifiable mastery of grade-level standards as measured by
mandated annual standardized tests.
Accountability: A means by which to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of an
agreement between a director and a provider.
Achievement gap: Disparity in achievement among various groups of students.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): A federal measure of students meeting or exceeding
“proficient” status on mandated annual standardized tests in English Language Arts and
mathematics.
Assessments: Tools to measure student achievement.
At-risk students: Minority students, students who are learning English as a second
language, and students from families with low socioeconomic status.
California Standards Test (CST): Annual standardized summative exam given to
California students in grades two through 11.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
17
English language learners (ELLs): Students from families that report that a language
other than English is spoken in the home.
Global economy: Interdependent economies of the world’s nations.
Instructional leadership: Leadership style that generates both the will and the capacity
for student achievement improvements within an institution.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): The most recent reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that ushered in an era of federal
accountability.
Program Improvement: A status assigned to schools that fail to meet federal student
achievement targets for two consecutive years under the provisions of NCLB.
Sanctions: Penalties designed to encourage compliance.
School Accountability Report Card: Annual public disclosure of school-level data.
Stakeholders: Individuals and groups that occupy formal and informal roles within an
organization.
Subgroup: An identifiable group of students within a student population.
Superintendent: The highest ranking administrator in a district.
Supplemental Educational Services: Services paid for by the district to outside
educational entities.
Urban schools: Schools serving a disproportionately high number of at-risk students.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
18
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
The public education system in the United States is under intense pressure to deliver on
society’s expectation of preparing all students to compete in a globalized economy (Glass, Bjork,
& Brunner, 2000; Lunenberg, 1992; Miller, Sen, Malley, & Burns, 2009). This sense of urgency
in the public consciousness is spurred by comparative studies conducted in literacy, mathematics,
and science, revealing that students in the United States have been consistently outperformed by
other industrialized nations (Miller et al., 2009). Further widening the achievement divide are
disproportionate gaps along socioeconomic, ethnic, and racial lines (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
With the nation’s prosperity at stake, significant improvements in academic achievement must
take effect, as failure to respond will only result in dire outcomes for future generations.
As organizational leaders, superintendents bear the burden of ensuring that schools
respond to the expectation of increased academic achievement for all students. Bureaucratic
accountability measures, such as No Child Left Behind federal legislation, require that districts
and schools meet pre-established growth targets in English language arts and mathematics not
only for students overall, but also for specific student groups (Lauen & Gaddis, 2012). Although
they have drawn attention to issues of equity and efficiency in the school system, these policies
have also dramatically heightened pressure on school and district leaders (Glass et al., 2000;
Lauen & Gaddis, 2012). The impact of accountability is consistent for all educational leaders but
the substantial challenge to educating students is greatest for urban school superintendents.
Urban schools face a litany of problems, chief among them is the achievement gap among
student groups, particularly those with limited English proficiency and classified as English
language learners (Lunenberg, 1992; Rumberger & Gándara, 2002. Therefore, the effort by
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
19
urban school leaders to improve the academic outcomes of their students is pivotal to the long-
term prospects of vast numbers of communities.
A review of the literature will provide context and background pertaining to urban
superintendents and the leadership strategies they employ to improve the academic achievement
of students classified as English language learners. This review of the literature has five sections.
The first section begins with an overview of the role of the superintendent, including analysis of
the evolution of the superintendency and impact of leadership on student achievement. The
second section presents a theoretical framework based on organizational theory and the four
frames detailed by Bolman and Deal (2008). The third section examines issues of equity and
access for students classified as English language learners, specifically reviewing the widening
achievement gap and detailing policies intended to improve academic outcomes for ELL
students. The fourth and fifth sections of the chapter focus on the leadership strategies urban
school superintendents use to establish a collaborative culture and build the capacity of others in
the organization. Specifically, the aforementioned sections explicate the role of the
superintendent in the process of goal-setting and data-driven decision-making, as well as in
principal selection and development.
Urban superintendents must employ a number of leadership strategies intended to
appropriately support students’ unique learning needs, particularly those of a growing population
of students classified as English language learners. The literature yielded three key themes,
which are (a) short- and long-term planning aligned to clearly defined goals to increase student
academic outcomes; (b) communication practices employed by superintendents to further a
vision for the entire organization; and (c) developing the capacity of all members of the school
organization to positively impact student achievement. These themes provide a broad
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
20
understanding of the essential elements of superintendent leadership and actions in light of the
demand for increased student achievement and will be further detailed throughout the chapter.
The Role of the Superintendent
In the United States today, approximately 14,500 public school districts are entrusted
with teaching America’s children (Bredeson & Kose, 2007). Consequently, a superintendent’s
work of leading each organization will likely vary according to a number of different factors,
including district size, local context, and history, as well as organizational and structural
differences (Bredeson & Kose, 2007). School districts can range dramatically in size and
demographics, from small rural districts with fewer than 300 students, to large urban districts
with enrollment figures well over 100,000 (Glass et al., 2000). These contextual influences
require superintendents to tailor leadership strategies to meet the specific needs of their
organizations (Bredeson, Klar, & Johansson, 2011). Superintendents in smaller districts, for
example, may be expected to perform a wide variety of operational duties, whereas their
counterparts in larger districts may perform strategic roles instead working through others to
accomplish intended results (Bredeson, Klar, & Johansson, 2011). This variation among districts
has a profound defining effect on the role of the superintendent and widens the continuum of the
superintendency (Glass et al., 2000).
The role of the public school superintendent has evolved over the decades as shifts in
societal concerns and priorities have impacted the educational context. Changes in the
superintendent role can be framed from a historical perspective and as an evolution of distinct
characterizations—through the reform movement in education in the 1980s and 1990s, up to the
current interpretation of the superintendency (Bredeson & Kose, 2007; Glass et al., 2000;
Kowalski, 2005). Ultimately, however, all characterizations have played a critical role in the
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
21
current iteration of the superintendency. According to Kowalski (2005), four historical
conceptualizations have shaped the school superintendency: superintendent as teacher of
teachers, superintendent as statesman, superintendent as manager, and superintendent as applied
social scientist. The reform movement that spanned the 1980s and 1990s and culminated in the
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 served not only to raise accountability on school
organizations to drastically accelerate achievement for all students, but also redefined the role of
educational leaders (Byrd, Drews, & Johnson, 2006; Glass et al., 2000). Each of these roles
emerged from a rapidly evolving social context throughout the nineteenth century and
contributed significantly to the transformation of the superintendency.
More recently, the work of superintendents has shifted to focus on curricular,
instructional, and assessment practices with the goal of improving student learning outcomes
(Bredeson & Kose, 2007). The shift from educational inputs as a system of accountability to
educational outputs—primarily student learning outcomes—has already impacted what
superintendents prioritize (Bredeson & Kose, 2007). More importantly, superintendents are
increasingly expected to provide instructional leadership to their school organizations. In one
study of superintendents, approximately one-third of the superintendents indicated that
instructional leadership was the primary reason they had been hired (Glass et al., 2000).
Instructional leadership encompasses a wide array of characteristics and domains, including
resource allocation, facilitation of collaborative efforts among educators, use of instructional
research in decision-making, curriculum development and design, and procurement of effective
staff development (Marzano et al., 2005). Furthermore, superintendents in successful districts
adopt a hands-on approach to instructional matters, in turn directly impacting student learning
and achievement (Byrd et al., 2006).
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
22
For school superintendents, instructional leadership also implies the need to initiate and
sustain change in order to develop more skilled practice across the organization and meet the
expectation of increased student achievement (Marzano et al., 2005). As organizational leaders,
superintendents are responsible for regulating the overall capacity of the school system via their
influence on staff selection and recruitment, clearly articulated mission and goals with regard to
curricular issues, and financial planning that supports instruction (Byrd et al., 2006). Moreover,
research findings indicate that when superintendents address specific responsibilities, their work
can have a profound, positive impact on student achievement in their districts (Waters &
Marzano, 2006). In their meta-analysis of the effect of superintendent leadership on student
achievement, Marzano and Waters (2007) identified a positive correlation (.24) between district
leadership and average student achievement. The correlation between superintendent leadership
and student achievement only serves to validate the importance of the role for school
organizations.
The continuing evolution and expansion of the superintendent role has had a noticeable
impact on the longevity and tenure of district leaders. Although concerns over the vulnerability
of the superintendency are not a recent phenomenon, the complexity of demands on the office
from internal and external sources appears to have had an effect on longevity (Byrd et al., 2006;
Yee & Cuban, 1996). One research study found that the average tenure of superintendents was
estimated to be between 5 and 6 years (Byrd et al., 2006; Glass et al., 2000). Furthermore, the
reported tenure of urban superintendents was estimated between 4 and 5 years, with an average
tenure of 2.75 years for superintendents in big city districts (Byrd, Drews, & Johnson, 2006;
Glass et al., 2000; Marzano & Waters, 2007). The turnover in leadership within urban districts,
which serve high populations of at-risk students, only serves to impede growth in student
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
23
achievement (Glass et al., 2000). Finally, further review of the literature also reveals historically
shorter tenures for urban superintendents as compared to other superintendents (Byrd et al.,
2006).
Despite the decline in overall superintendent tenure and the sizeable difference in length
of tenure between urban superintendents and other counterparts, evidence supports a correlation
between longevity and student achievement. Academic improvement does not happen by chance,
but through effective leaders having ample time to implement broad and sustainable efforts
within their school organizations (Byrd et al., 2006). Conversely, short tenures create a public
perception of increased instability, as well as lowered morale and loss of organizational direction
and vision (Yee & Cuban, 1996). Specifically, Marzano and Waters (2007) found a significant
correlation (.19) between the longevity of the superintendent and a positive effect on the average
academic achievement of students in the district. Moreover, these positive effects can manifest as
early as 2 years into a superintendent’s tenure (Marzano & Waters, 2007). Although establishing
a cause-effect relationship between superintendent action and organizational outcomes can be
difficult due to the high intercorrelation of factors and potential effects, findings that link
superintendent leadership to student achievement are especially promising to urban districts
seeking to improve achievement outcomes for all students (Yee & Cuban, 1996).
Leadership Theoretical Framework
Due to the unique and crucial position superintendents hold within school districts,
critically examining the complex and dynamic interactions they encounter in leading school
organizations is imperative. One way to understand the work of school superintendents is
through the lens of the four-frame model, which is grounded in organizational theory. The four-
frame model presented by Bolman and Deal (2008) provides a conceptual framework to
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
24
understand the scope of responsibilities entrusted to superintendents as organizational leaders.
More importantly, they highlight the rationale and impetus for superintendents’ choices in
leadership strategies for guiding school districts through a complicated network of accountability
systems toward improved achievement for all students.
The four-frame model provides insight into superintendents’ leadership of organizations
situated in multifaceted social environments. The model consolidates four perspectives into a
comprehensive leadership framework. Bolman and Deal (2008) have described a frame as a
mental model—a set of ideas or assumptions—utilized to understand and negotiate a particular
context. The four major frames—structural, human resource, political, and symbolic—intend to
further thinking beyond narrow and mechanical approaches to management into expansive
thinking meant to increase organizational effectiveness (Bolman & Deal, 2008). As leaders of
school organizations, superintendents must navigate immense challenges, both internal and
external to the school district. Collectively, the four frames enable superintendents to reframe
issues and view them from multiple lenses or points of view.
Bolman and Deal’s four frames are heavily grounded in the principles of organizational
theory and serve to inform the work of superintendents as organizational leaders. Organizational
theory is a conceptual framework that focuses on identifying elements and characteristics
common among organizations in order to improve their overall effectiveness and productivity.
Earlier traditions of organizational theory focused on formal organizations across settings and
sectors, understanding their structures in order to better manage them (Lounsbery & Ventresca,
2003). Over time, organizational theory has increasingly concentrated on issues relevant to
managers and leaders on questions of internal structure and the relationship between
organizations and their resources. Contemporary research involves a shift that incorporates
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
25
broader societal issues and structures, including culture and politics (Lounsbery & Ventresca,
2003). Thus, organizational theory informs the work of superintendents as educational leaders
heading organizations influenced by the demands and expectations of stakeholders with often
diverging interests.
Equity and Access for English Language Learners
Numerous challenges confront urban superintendents in the twenty-first century;
however, one that requires immediate action is the academic underperformance of students with
limited English proficiency and classified as English language learners. Across the nation, the
number of students from non–English speaking backgrounds continues to rise and represent the
fastest growing segment of the student population by a wide margin (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary,
Saunders, & Christian, 2005; Verdugo & Flores, 2007). For example, from 1991–1992 through
2001–2002, the number of identified ELLs in public schools grew 95%, while total enrollment
increased by only 12% (Genesee et al., 2005). By the 2004–2005 academic year, an estimated
5.1 million ELL students were enrolled in preK–12 public schools, comprising 10.5% of the total
public school enrollment (Kohler & Lazarin, 2007). Moreover, ELL students are more likely to
be at risk of dropping out and more likely to perform poorly in school and on standardized
assessments than other students (Verdugo & Flores, 2007). The increasing number of students
for whom English is an additional language becomes of greater significance in light of
educational policy that sets a higher standard of academic performance for all students, as well as
strong accountability for schools and districts (Genesee et al., 2005). Improved education is,
therefore, key in narrowing the achievement gap for ELL students.
A number of statistical and demographic measures highlights the intense concentration of
students in urban school districts, as well as the disparity of ELL students attending urban
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
26
schools. Of the 16,850 public school districts in the United States, 100 serve 23% of all students
and are predominantly located in urban areas (Jackson, 2005). Furthermore, an estimated 91%
of English language learners live in metropolitan areas, compared to 79.5% of non-Limited
English Proficient (Kohler & Lazarin, 2007). In fact, nearly 70% of the country’s Limited
English Proficient elementary school students is enrolled in 10% of urban-area schools (Kohler
& Lazarin, 2007). For superintendents working in large urban school districts, the proliferation
of students with distinct language and learning needs poses a significant challenge that must be
addressed.
The achievement gap between ELL students and their English-only counterparts can be
attributed to a number of inequitable conditions that directly affect their opportunities to learn
(Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly, & Callahan, 2003). A review of the research yields seven
primary areas in which these students appear to receive a diminished learning experience, even
when compared to other low-income students in public schools (Gándara & Rumberger, 2002;
Gándara et al., 2005; Rumberger & Gándara, 2004). The first two areas pertain to the inequitable
access ELL students have to learning from appropriately trained teachers and to teachers with
adequate professional development opportunities to address the instructional needs of English
learners. While an increasing body of research has firmly established that teachers with good
professional preparation make a difference in student learning, ELL students are more likely than
any other children to be taught by teachers not fully credentialed or teaching with emergency
credentials (Gándara & Rumberger, 2002; Gándara et al., 2003; Rumberger & Gándara, 2004).
Compounding inequitable access to quality teaching for English learners is the inadequate level
of professional support and growth opportunities for teachers. For example, in one study, the
percentage of professional development time that teachers reported as focusing on the instruction
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
27
of English language learners was about 7% (Rumberger & Gándara, 2004). Even for teachers
with more than 50% English learners in their classrooms, the focus on instruction to meet their
academic needs rose only incrementally to 10% (Rumberger & Gándara, 2004). Although the
instructional demands placed on teachers of English learners are intense, the professional
development they receive and is dedicated to helping them instruct these students is minimal
(Gándara et al., 2003).
In addition to unbalanced access to instruction and quality teaching, ELL students
encounter a current system of accountability of little value for monitoring their academic
progress (Gándara et al., 2003; Rumberger & Gándara, 2004). These high-stakes tests can have
serious negative effects on the education of English learner students in at least two important
ways. First, educators can have the misperception that positive changes in test scores over time
actually reflect subject matter knowledge, when they may really reflect a rise in English
proficiency (Gándara et al., 2003; Rumberger & Gándara, 2004). Second, a consistently poor
outcome on standardized tests can lead educators to believe that students need low-level or
remedial education, when in fact, they may have content mastery in another language and simply
lack the competency to perform at a high rate on an English language test (Gándara et al., 2003).
As a result, current state accountability practices for ELL students are problematic in their
assessment and undermine the authenticity of the entire accountability system (Abedi &
Gándara, 2006).
A fourth area of inequity resides in the inadequate instructional time afforded ELL
students to accomplish learning goals. Significant research shows a clear relationship between
increased time engaged in academic tasks and increased achievement (Gándara et al., 2003).
However, for English learners, inadequate instructional time extends beyond simply time for
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
28
learning, encompassing their reduced experience on academic tasks. Specifically, a number of
program models includes removing ELL students from their regular classes and placing them in
classes in English language development. This approach has been demonstrated to create further
inequities in the education of those students, who then miss regular classroom instruction
(LaCelle-Peterson & Rivera, 1994). LaCelle-Peterson and Rivera (1994) have cited the
importance of access to a full range of content knowledge, coupled with meaningful interaction
with challenging subject matter as two prerequisites to attaining educational excellence and
equity for ELL students. Students who need the greatest exposure to schooling and to
comprehensive English language models often receive the least access to both instructional time
and challenging academic tasks in rigorous courses.
In addition to inequitable access to instructional time to achieve learning goals, a fifth
area that greatly impacts the achievement of English learners in public schools is unequal access
to instructional materials and curriculum intended to meet those goals. A preponderance of
research evidence demonstrates a clear link between appropriate materials and curriculum and
student academic outcomes (Genessee et al., 2005; Rumberger & Gándara, 2004). Furthermore,
ELL students need additional instructional materials due to their developmental language needs
in English. However, evidence suggests that not only are many English learners not gaining
access to such materials, but also they are more likely to cover less of the material than their
peers and are more prone to be placed in low academic groupings or tracks where educational
opportunities are limited (Gándara et al., 2003). This phenomenon likely results in negative
effects for students who enter the classroom already at a linguistic disadvantage and has the
potential to impact their learning overall.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
29
Beside the lack of full access to instructional and curricular resources, ELL students
encounter inequitable access to adequate school facilities. Whereas a definitive link between the
quality and condition of school facilities and educational outcomes for students is difficult to
establish, there is agreement that it is difficult to teach and learn in outdated, inadequate school
facilities (Gándara et al., 2003). Perhaps as importantly, the physical conditions of schools relate
to teacher turnover, especially for teachers of English learners who are more apt than teachers of
English speakers to lack facilities conducive to a high level of teaching and learning (Rumberger
& Gándara, 2004). Such inequities only make the experience for English learners more
challenging and impede the progress of closing the achievement gap.
The literature detailing the disadvantages to English learners in public schools identifies a
seventh area directly linked to ELL students in largely urban settings. The pronounced
segregation of English learners into schools and classrooms that place them at high risk for
educational failure is an inequity of dire proportions (Gándara et al., 2003). As mentioned
previously in this review, urban schools across the nation have a heavy concentration of ELL
students (Kohler & Lazarin, 2007). Although research on desegregation has established that
minority students who are schooled in desegregated settings tend to have better occupational
outcomes and overall life chances, ELL students are more likely to attend classes and schools
surrounded by other students who are not proficient in English (Gándara et al., 2003). The
learning context in deeply segregated schools and districts often impedes ELL students from
becoming proficient in English. Moreover, classrooms with high concentrations of ELL students
have higher number of students below grade level in reading and math, preventing ELL students
from accessing the positive influence of higher-performing peers (Gándara et al., 2003). Thus,
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
30
the heavy concentration of ELL students makes it not only more difficult to learn English, but
also more challenging to achieve academically.
Persistent and pervasive inequities in access to appropriate instructional and curricular
resources and appropriate assessments to monitor growth toward learning goals result in
considerable achievement gaps for ELL students. Prior studies have found significant differences
over time in the achievement growth of ELL students when compared to English-only students,
with ELL students demonstrating more growth in earlier years of schooling than later
(Rumberger & Gándara, 2004). According to one study in particular, only 29% of ELL 8th-grade
students scored at or above the basic achievement level for mathematics, compared to 71% of
non-ELL 8th-graders (Kohler & Lazarin, 2007). Additionally, only 29% of ELL 8th-graders
scored at or above the basic achievement level for reading, compared to 75% of non-ELL 8th-
grade students (Kohler & Lazarin, 2007). This data reflect the increasing difficulty of learning
higher levels of academic English for ELL students. More troubling is that the achievement gap
widens during the course of K–12 education and actually increases the longer students remain in
school (Sherman, 2008). In fact, educational achievement among ELL students is linked to high
school dropout rates. For example, among Latino ELL students, who comprise approximately
80% of the overall ELL student population, 59% are high school dropouts, compared to 15%
who are fluent in English (Kohler & Lazarin, 2007). Achievement and attainment gaps become
costly not only for these individuals, but also for the nation as a whole by diminishing human
capacity and productivity (Sherman, 2008).
The achievement gap between ELL students and other demographic groups is not a
recent phenomenon. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 brought unparalleled attention to
achievement gaps among student groups, while trying to ensure that all students reach
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
31
proficiency by the year 2014 (Menken, 2010; Sherman, 2008). Although it is viewed as a vital
piece of legislation whose civil rights agenda demonstrates explicit recognition of the
unacceptability of achievement gaps, NCLB has produced a heavy reliance on numbers, test
scores, and single measures to assess student achievement (Sherman, 2008). Specifically, NCLB
requires that all students make adequate yearly progress (AYP), as measured on standardized
tests (Menken, 2010). Thus, a single test score has become extremely high stakes under NCLB,
as it is utilized to evaluate individual students, teachers, schools, school systems, and states
(Menken, 2010).
NCLB holds ELL students to the same academic standards as all students. Although it
stresses the acquisition of the English language and academic performance, NCLB does not seem
to be concerned with developing the native language skills that can develop proper English skills
(Verdugo & Flores, 2007). This conundrum is of particular importance to ELL students, because
to fulfill the educational goals of the legislation, assessment systems must be able to address
developing language abilities as well as academic achievement in content areas (Verdugo &
Flores, 2007). Given that the assessments being used across the nation are linguistically complex
and administered in a foreign language, it is not surprising that ELL students do not perform well
(Menken, 2010). Nationally, ELL students score an average of 20–50% below native English
speakers on state assessments of English language arts and other content areas, thereby failing to
attain a score of proficient and thus meet adequate yearly progress goals (Menken, 2010).
Therefore, the achievement gap does not mean that ELL students are failing to acquire English or
learn content, but that language is posing a barrier in test performance.
As organizational leaders, superintendents must thoroughly understand the difficult
contextual challenges for ELL students while striving to successfully meet bureaucratic
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
32
mandates for their academic performance. In doing so, district superintendents must operate
with Bolman and Deal’s (2008) structural frame to shape the school organization into a learning
environment that can support the unique needs of this student population. By operating in the
structural frame, superintendents ensure that the organization has viable goals and that all
members of the organization align their efforts toward meeting them. Furthermore,
superintendents clearly articulate specific roles for all members of the organization and how they
will collaborate with one another toward a common end. In the context of a school district,
specifically, the structural frame would allow superintendents to make the academic achievement
of ELL students a priority and structure the organization to ensure their success.
Creating a Collaborative Culture
Successful superintendents are highly involved in the process of creating school district
cultures that support and maintain high levels of student success, focusing on teaching and
learning during the planning process (Dolph & Grant, 2010). Furthermore, they understand that
staff is critical to the success of the district and place great emphasis on their ability to influence
and motivate staff members by fostering positive relationships that promote higher levels of
success (Dolph & Grant, 2010). Successful superintendents recognize the importance of setting
goals, communicating a district and personal vision, and fostering a culture of collaboration
(Dolph & Grant, 2010; Fullan, Bertaini, & Quinn, 2004; Marzano & Waters, 2007; Petersen,
1999; Williams, Tabernik, & Krivak, 2009). In the process of developing a mission, vision, and
goal setting, effective superintendents engage all relevant stakeholders, making this process
inclusive of school district constituents (Dolph & Grant, 2010; Marzano & Waters, 2007).
Successful superintendents understand the importance of continually working with their
constituencies to further their vision and develop goals for the school organization that are
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
33
focused on the improvement of teaching and learning (Dolph & Grant, 2010). Although
communicating a vision is critical to the support of the instructional process and to establishing a
sense of possibility, vision alone is insufficient to promoting academic success (Petersen, 1999).
Superintendents must establish an organizational structure that facilitates and promotes
instruction in order to institutionalize the organizational vision (Petersen, 1999). In fact,
superintendents’ capacity to effectively address specific responsibilities facilitates district
leaders’ abilities to ensure a positive impact on student achievement (Marzano & Waters, 2007).
Skilled district leaders have the capacity to connect people to purpose and to sustain an
organizational culture that supports teaching and learning at the classroom level (Dolph & Grant,
2010). To ensure long-term success and viability, superintendents’ must successfully integrate
the vision of the district throughout the school organization. Doing so requires school district
leaders to operate within Bolman and Deal’s (2008) structural and political frames. The
structural framework calls for district leaders to logically implement an internal structure for the
organization, including clarifying organizational goals, and establishing effective lines of
authority and clear means of interacting with external entities (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Simultaneously, superintendents must operate within the political framework to achieve a highly
collaborative culture. Operating within the political framework involves having a full
understanding of competing interests operating within the organization, as well as the means by
which to mitigate the conflict that may arise from the competition over scarce resources (Bolman
& Deal, 2008). Therefore, superintendents’ focus on developing human capital through positive
relationships in turn leads to increased opportunities for school and organizational improvement
to support higher levels of success (Dolph & Grant, 2010).
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
34
Building Leadership Capacity
Superintendents believe that the hiring and placement of personnel is an essential aspect
of the instructional success of school organizations (Petersen, 1999). Furthermore, investing in
building capacity within districts and schools is also a significant priority for district leaders.
According to Fullan et al. (2004), capacity building is essential for everyone in order to connect
schools within a district and to develop new ideas, skills, and practices that increase the ability of
individuals and organizations to bring about improvements. Therefore, superintendents must not
only emphasize own ongoing professional development throughout their careers, but also
identify and facilitate the growth in practice of all professionals within the district or school
organization (Fullan et al., 2004).
Based upon their meta-analysis of 26 studies on superintendent leadership, Waters and
Marzano (2007) concluded that one of most important superintendent responsibilities entails the
use of resources to support organizational goals for achievement and instruction. Within those
responsibilities, providing access to professional growth opportunities—particularly to teacher
and principal staff—bears a strong correlation (.26) to student achievement (Marzano & Waters,
2007). According to Marzano and Waters (2007), a significant commitment of funding and
resources must be dedicated to professional development for teachers and principals as
individuals within the organization with the most direct influence on student learning (Marzano
& Waters, 2007). Additionally, professional development should focus on building the requisite
knowledge, skills, and competencies for district teachers and principals to successfully meet the
goals of the organization (Marzano & Waters, 2007). In meeting the responsibilities of this
domain, superintendents are not only ensuring that professional practices are consistent with
student learning needs, but also that the vision and goals are institutionalized across the district.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
35
Leading schools in ways that ensure that all students have access to and obtain
knowledge is critical (Fullan et al., 2004). Moreover, it is not a task that cannot be undertaken by
the district superintendent alone, but one that requires effective site-level leadership to carry out
a plan of action to meet district goals (Miller, 2004). To accomplish this task, superintendents
must build the capacity of site-level principals to develop into instructional leaders (Miller, 2004;
Spanneut & Ford, 2008). Superintendents can encourage and support their principals through
shared leadership and a focus on continued development as instructional leaders (Spanneut &
Ford, 2008). Specifically, superintendents must provide tools that principals can use to examine
their own growth in order to address gaps in their knowledge base (Spanneut & Ford, 2008).
With principal leadership significantly correlated to student achievement (.25), superintendents
must identify and implement ways to develop principal capacity and support their professional
growth (Miller, 2004).
Building capacity in personnel within a school organization requires superintendents to
operate within the human resources framework (Bolman & Deal, 2008). The human resource
framework locates people at the center of the organization and seeks to be responsive to their
needs in order to meet the district’s goals (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Superintendents working
within the human resources framework seek to empower members of the organization through a
distribution of their own positional power (Bolman & Deal, 2008). In doing so, they establish a
“defined autonomy,” which is the expectation and support to lead within the confines of district
goals (Marzano & Waters, 2007). Of particular importance to school superintendents in this
regard are principals and site-level leaders who are largely entrusted with the responsibility of
articulating and promoting the district vision for other stakeholder groups, including teachers.
Through the implementation of inclusive goal-setting processes that result in nonnegotiable goals
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
36
for achievement and instruction, superintendents can assure that schools align their use of district
resources for professional development with district goals (Marzano & Waters, 2007). As
importantly, when superintendents encourage strong, school-level leadership, they encourage
principals and others to assume responsibility for school success (Marzano & Waters, 2007).
Operating within the human resources framework, superintendents can ensure that they are
building the professional capacity of all personnel, while transforming site-level principals into
instructional leaders.
Conclusion
As the role of the superintendent continues to evolve to meet the increasing
accountability demands, the importance of the role as organizational leader will increase in
importance. Bureaucratic accountability, in the form of federal NCLB legislation and state-level
mandates, expects all students to achieve pre-established benchmarks of academic achievement.
Problematizing these expectations for student performance, however, are issues of equity and
access for subgroups of students who have historically failed at disproportionate levels. One of
the most significant subgroups is the ELL population of students, which is already one of the
largest and fastest growing in the public school system today (Genesee et al., 2005; Verdugo &
Flores, 2007). To ensure the academic achievement of all students, the unique learning needs of
this important student contingency must be addressed. Therefore, superintendents are obligated
to continue developing not only their own professional capacity, but also that of their
organizations’ to create highly collaborative cultures equipped with the requisite skills and
resources to meet these challenges.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
37
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
1
Introduction
Expectations to improve student academic achievement continue to present new and
added challenges to school leaders (Borkowski & Sneed, 2006). Researchers have posited that if
American students do not possess the skills needed for employment upon the completion of
compulsory education, the United States may not be able to effectively compete in the global
economy (Schmidt & McKnight, 1998). School leaders are obligated to address this concern to
ensure the nation’s future economic viability (Schneider, 2009). In considering student academic
achievement in the United States, a significant population whose needs must be addressed is the
group of students designated as ELL—a subgroup that has seen significant population growth
over the past 10 years, and continues to grow (ARRA, 2009). Coupled with the increase in the
ELL population is its distinct academic achievement gap (Gándara et al., 2005).
As a result, superintendents of large urban school districts are compelled to ensure the
academic success of their students, with clear consideration for the ELL student subgroup.
Although these leaders may be logistically and geographically distanced from classrooms, their
actions still have a direct impact on student achievement (Marzano et al., 2005). The
superintendent role has become the definitive instructional leader of the school district (Lauen &
Gaddis, 2012). A superintendent’s awareness of issues relating to ELL student equity and access,
increased stakeholder collaboration, and increased leadership capacity is vital to student success
(Fullan et al., 2004; Gándara et al., 2003; Marzano & Waters, 2007). In addition to these major
themes, superintendent actions in this study were analyzed through the theoretical framework on
1
Authors: Tiffani Gilmore, Gretchen Janson, Raul Ramirez, Charles D. Smith
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
38
leadership defined by Bolman and Deal (2008) to determine which leadership strategies were
related to structural, human resource, political, and symbolic frames.
The preceding chapters provided an overview of the study and a review of the literature
relating to the research topic. This chapter provides an outline of the study and the methodology
used, specifically the purpose of the study, research design, sample population, data collection
protocols, and the data analysis process.
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to identify the superintendent leadership strategies that positively
impact the academic achievement of students identified as ELL in large urban K–12 school
districts. Specifically, the study considered the approaches employed by superintendents in
developing, implementing, and monitoring improvements to ELL student academic outcomes.
The increasing focus on bureaucratic accountability for student academic outcomes has
created an exigent need for school leaders to improve student academic achievement. The media,
politicians, community members, school boards, and parents are demanding increases in high-
stakes assessment results (Borkowski & Sneed, 2006). Therefore, superintendents must navigate
this path and ensure support of the required improvements in student achievement.
Accountability demands create a critical contextual lens for this challenge. Thus, superintendents
must ensure that all student groups acquire the necessary knowledge to pass high-stakes
standardized exams and, ultimately, become educated and employable members of their
communities. The existing literature points superintendents in the right direction for improving
overall student achievement, but there is a lack of information on this leadership role’s impact on
ELL students specifically. This study aimed to identify tangible strategies that can be employed
to support this significant subgroup.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
39
Research Questions
The following questions guided this study:
1. What factors do urban superintendents consider when developing strategies to
improve the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
2. Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban superintendents to assist in
improving the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
3. What strategies do urban superintendents execute when implementing plans to
improve the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
4. What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor and evaluate the
academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Rationale for Mixed-Method Study Design
For the purpose of this study, a mixed-methods approach was utilized, which employed
triangulation through sequential data collection and analysis (Maxwell, 2013). Quantitative data
provided the means for identifying the strategies urban superintendents in large districts employ
to improve the academic achievement of ELL students. This data set allowed the formulation of
certain assertions about the work of superintendents in addressing the academic outcomes of this
student subgroup; however, it failed to provide the depth of knowledge required to fully address
the purpose of the study. The compiled qualitative data provided insight into the school district
context and the relationships required to gain a full understanding of the actions undertaken by
superintendents. Qualitative data provided rich information, allowing the researcher to
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
40
understand the underlying elements of superintendent responses to the demand for increased
achievement for students classified as ELL. The joint use of quantitative and qualitative methods
served to ensure complementarity and expansion within the study (Maxwell, 2013).
Triangulation afforded a more robust understanding of the issues under investigation by allowing
the researcher to align the data from the closed-ended survey questions to the authentic personal
responses provided by open-ended qualitative interview methodology (Maxwell, 2013).
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
41
Research Design
Identifying the leadership strategies urban superintendents have employed to increase the
academic achievement of ELL students is a complex enterprise. As a result, a mixed-methods
study design was deemed appropriate to thoroughly address the research questions. The study
began with a quantitative survey of selected superintendents, based upon the study criteria.
Following the quantitative survey, select superintendents were engaged in qualitative interviews.
Sample Population
To identify superintendents for both quantitative and qualitative inquiry, the study used
purposeful, criterion-based sampling (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Purposeful, criterion-
based sampling allowed the researcher to select active school superintendents in large urban
districts that served student populations with a significant subgroup of students classified as
ELL. Quantitative sampling criteria utilized to determine superintendent participation focused
on district leaders from (a) California school districts; (b) districts with a comprehensive
enrollment of grades K–12; (c) districts with an enrollment greater than 20,000 students; and (d)
districts with an ELL population greater than 20%. The quantitative and qualitative sampling
selection criteria for the study were identical. Superintendents who agreed to participate in the
qualitative interview were selected from respondents who indicated willingness to do so on the
quantitative survey.
Data used for the purpose of sampling were restricted to current information reported by
the California Department of Education. School districts throughout the state of California were
included in the initial examination; however, 34 districts met the aforementioned criteria of the
study. The researcher elected not to extend the scope of the study beyond the state of California
due to variance among states in accountability formulae and assessment tools used to monitor the
achievement of students classified as ELL.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
42
Instrument Validity
Survey and interview instruments were aligned with instruments used in similar studies
on superintendent leadership. The research on superintendents, superintendent leadership, and
ELL populations in the existing body of scholarly literature informed the questions. The
instruments of the study were gender neutral and were field tested on education professionals at
the district-office level and above to ensure that the questions were presented in a cogent and
concise manner, while confirming expected time commitments for participants in the study—
namely district superintendents.
Instrumentation
The quantitative and qualitative instruments listed below facilitated the research and
ensured that a consistent approach to collecting data was developed for the inquiry process. The
alignment between the four research questions and the quantitative and qualitative instruments
used in the course of this study is outlined in Appendix A.
Quantitative Instrumentation
A review of the literature informed the quantitative survey question design. The survey
questions follow three major themes that emerged from the literature review: (a) equity and
access for ELL students; (b) creating a collaborative culture; and (c) building capacity. Bolman
and Deal’s (2008) four frame, multilens leadership approach of symbolic, human resource,
structural, and political frames were aligned to the strategies employed by superintendents in
developing, implementing, and monitoring improvements to student academic outcomes. The
quantitative instrument used by the researcher included 48 questions (Appendix B) organized in
the following way: (a) six demographic questions; (b) one question to determine the willingness
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
43
to participate in a follow-up interview; and (c) a survey consisting of 48 Likert-style items
aligned with the four research questions.
Superintendents responded to the 39 Likert-style survey items with a value of 1–4, 1
representing strongly agree, 2 representing disagree, 3 representing agree, and 4 representing
strongly agree. The Likert-style format allowed the researcher to measure the level of support for
each survey item.
Qualitative Instrumentation
The qualitative interview protocol consisted of 11 open-ended questions that reflected the
research questions and body of scholarly literature relevant to the topic (See interview protocol,
Appendix C). The protocol was consistently implemented among interview participants but was
not limited to the predesigned interview protocol. The researcher asked follow-up questions
either to gain clarity or to acquire more elaborate information about specific statements or
sentiments. The questions were designed to allow for opportunities for the superintendents to
share strategies they had utilized in response to demands for improved ELL academic
achievement.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
44
Data Collection
Data collection was divided into two distinct linear phases. The first phase involved
gathering quantitative survey data from superintendents (Appendix B). The second phase
entailed conducting qualitative interviews with selected superintendents. In accordance with the
provisions of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Southern California, an
application was submitted to ensure that the research subjects were protected during the course
of the study. All identifiable data were protected from access beyond this study, and the
participants’ identities remain confidential. Participation in the study was voluntary.
Quantitative Data Collection
Surveys were sent to 34 California superintendents identified as meeting the sampling
criteria. Surveys were delivered using Survey Monkey, an online survey tool designed to collect
and report survey data. Surveys were delivered via email, along with a survey cover letter
explaining the purpose of the study and the potential risks and benefits of responding (Appendix
D). Participants electing to participate in the study were directed to follow a survey link
contained in the email (Appendix B). After 10 calendar days, the researcher phoned and sent
follow-up emails to participants who did not respond to the initial survey request.
Qualitative Data Collection
The researcher conducted interviews with eight California superintendents who met the
sampling criteria. Only superintendents who indicated an interest in participating in a follow-up
interview on the initial quantitative survey were contacted to participate in a 45-minute
interview.
The researcher conducted the interview using the aforementioned interview protocol
(Appendix C). At the start of the interview, the survey participant was asked to confirm his or
her willingness to be audio recorded and was provided an information letter (Appendix F). At
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
45
the time of the interview, superintendents were offered an opportunity to receive a copy of the
final dissertation. Audio recordings of the interview were transcribed via a professional
transcription service.
Data Analysis
To identify the strategies employed by superintendents in developing, implementing, and
monitoring improvements to ELL student academic outcomes, the researcher strategically
analyzed quantitative and qualitative data. To further validate the significance of the study,
research findings were compared to the body of literature.
Quantitative Data Analysis
The researcher collected surveys from 14 participants. The data from each survey were
analyzed using the four research questions. Survey Monkey, an online survey tool, was used to
quantify the mean for each survey item, allowing the researcher to identify the level of
agreement with each research question.
Qualitative Data Analysis
Transcriptions of the interviews and the accompanying field notes were analyzed using
the step-by-step process of analysis as outlined by Merriam (2009). The data analysis process
included:
1. Data Management: Data were coded by assigning a designation that made retrieving
specific pieces of data easy.
2. Category Construction: Categories were used to assign data to specific categories to
compare codes from the data and to identify similar themes and recurring patterns.
3. Categories Sorted: Data were sorted into categories and subcategories based on
themes, thus allowing conclusions to be drawn.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
46
4. Theorizing: The researcher was able to derive meaning by making inferences and
theorizing the data to draw conclusions based on the data collected.
Summary
This chapter explained the study’s purpose, research design, sample population, data
collection protocols, and data analysis processes. The all-encompassing research goals dictated
the need for a mixed-method study design. The study included a quantitative survey and
qualitative interviews of superintendents of large urban school districts in California deemed
applicable to the study though purposeful criterion-based sampling. The researcher strove to be
transparent in the process so as to limit the appearance of impropriety (Merriam, 2009). Chapter
Four presents analysis of the data collected and the major findings.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
47
CHAPTER FOUR:RESULTS
Introduction
In light of increasingly rigorous demands for improved student academic outcomes
brought on by progressive accountability measures, educational agencies must meet the
formidable challenge of raising achievement levels for all students. These accountability
demands have proven most challenging for large urban districts, which have the greatest
concentration of minority students, and have significantly widened the achievement gap among
student groups (Gándara et al., 2003; Lauen & Gaddis, 2012). In particular, improving the
achievement of students classified as English language learners (ELL) has presented a great
challenge for schools and school districts (Jackson, 2005). Due to numerous factors and
inequitable conditions, the achievement gap between ELL students and their English-only
counterparts has grown over time (Gándara & Rumberger, 2002; Rumberger & Gándara, 2004).
Nevertheless, educational leaders—namely school superintendents—play a vital role in leading
school organizations toward sustained reforms that impact the achievement of this growing
population (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). This study looked specifically at the growing subgroup
of students classified as English language learners (ELLs) and the efforts of school
superintendents to support them. In effect, the United States’s viability in the global marketplace
hinges on its educational system’s ability to cultivate and sustain improvement in this important
segment of the student population (Schmidt & McKnight, 1998).
This chapter presents the findings from a mixed-method study comprised of a
quantitative survey completed by 14 superintendents and qualitative interviews conducted with 8
superintendents, which aligned with the following research questions:
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
48
1. What factors do urban superintendents consider when developing strategies to
improve the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
2. Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban superintendents to assist in
improving the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
3. What strategies do urban superintendents execute when implementing plans to
improve the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
4. What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor and evaluate the academic
achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to identify superintendent leadership strategies that
positively impact the academic achievement of students identified as English language learners
in large urban K–12 school districts. Specifically, the study considered the approaches employed
by superintendents in developing, implementing, and monitoring improvements to student
academic outcomes.
Response Rate
Based upon the designed criteria utilized for this study, 34 superintendents of large urban
K–12 school districts qualified to participate in the quantitative survey. Table 1 indicates that of
the 34 potential participants, 14 elected to participate. This result yielded a response rate of 41%
of superintendents, which satisfied the goal of the researcher (a response rate of 40% or greater
based on the average return rate for a survey conducted through email) (Dillman, 2000).
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
49
Table 1
Quantitative Survey: Response Rate
Measure No. Invited to
Participate
No.
Participated
%
Participated
Superintendents 34 14 41
Of the 14 superintendents who elected to participate in the quantitative survey, eight agreed to
participate in a qualitative interview. Reasons reported by superintendents for declining
participation included lack of time, having left the school district, and lack of interest.
Quantitative Demographic Data
Table 2 shows the gender of the 14 superintendents who participated in the quantitative
survey. Respondents were 64.3% male and 35.7% female.
Table 2
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Gender
Measure Male
Female Total
No. of
Superintendents
9 5 14
% of
Superintendents
64.3 35.7 100
These values are a departure from the results of a national survey of superintendents, in which
24.1% of the 1,867 superintendents who participated were women (Kowalski, McCord, Peterson,
Young, & Ellerson, 2011). The results of the two surveys yielded a variance of 11.6%.
Table 3 reports the ethnic breakdown of the 14 superintendents who participated in the
quantitative survey.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
50
Table 3
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Ethnicity
Measure Asian Black/
African
American
Hispanic/
Latino
White Two
or
More
Other Total
No. of
Superintendents
1 1 4 8 0 0 14
% of
Superintendents
7.1 7.1 28.6 57.2 0 0 100
Kowalski et al. (2011) reported that 94.1% of the 1,800 respondents in their
superintendent survey were White; however, when the percentage of minority students served
increased, the number of minority superintendents also increased (Kowalski et al., 2011).
Because the focus of this study is on superintendents serving large comprehensive urban school
districts with an ELL student population of at least 20%, the selection criteria may have
influenced the ethnic distribution of superintendents and skewed the number of non-White
superintendents in the sample upward from the overall national trend.
Table 4 shows the distribution of superintendents by age, broken down into bands of 10
years.
Table 4
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Age
Measure 29 and
under
30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 and
over
Total
No. of
Superintendents
0 1 5 5 3 0 14
% of
Superintendents
0 7.1 35.7 35.7 21.5 0 100
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
51
The number of superintendents over 60 in this study did not align with the research of Kowalski
et al. (2011), who reported that only 18.1% of the 1,867 superintendent respondents in their
nationwide survey were older than 60. The superintendents in this study were 3.4% more likely
to be over 60.
Table 5 represents the highest level of education attained by the 14 superintendents who
participated in the quantitative survey.
Table 5
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Education
Measure Bachelor’s
Degree
Master’s
Degree
Other
Professional
Degree
Doctoral
Degree
Total
No. of
Superintendents
0 4 0 10 14
% of
Superintendents
0 28.6 0 71.4 100
Kowalski et al. (2011) reported that of the 1,867 superintendents who participated in their
nationwide survey, only 45.3% had earned doctoral degrees. This finding indicates that the
superintendents identified for this study earned doctoral degrees at a rate of 26.1% above
projected national rates.
Table 6 indicates the distribution of years of experience as superintendents in their
current district, as reported by the 14 participants. Interestingly, 100% of superintendents had an
experience level of five years or fewer.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
52
Table 6
Quantitative Survey: Superintendent Experience in Current District
Measure Fewer
than 2
years
2–3 4–5 6–7 7–8 9 or
more
Total
No. of
Superintendents
5 8 1 0 0 0 14
% of
Superintendents
35.7 57.2 7.1 0 0 0 100
On average, superintendents reported 3 years of tenure in their current districts. These
values align closely with the research of Kowalski et al. (2011), which indicated that the 1,867
superintendents who participated in a nationwide survey had an average of 3.6 years.
Table 7 indicates the distribution of years of experience as superintendent, reported by
the 14 respondents. Similar to the results pertaining to experience in their current district,
superintendent tenure skewed heavily toward the lower range, with 71.4% of respondents having
experience of five years or fewer.
Table 7
Quantitative Survey: Overall Superintendent Experience
Measure 2 or
fewer
years
3–5 6–8 9–11 12–14 15 or
more
Total
No. of
Superintendents
6 4 2 0 0 2 14
% of
Superintendents
42.8 28.6 14.3 0 0 14.3 100
Kowalski et al. (2011) found that superintendents had an average of 8.75 years of overall
experience after having worked for an average of 1.75 districts. Superintendents participating in
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
53
this study had an overall experience in the superintendency of 6.1 years, resulting in a variance
of 2.65 years compared to the participants of the nationwide survey.
Table 8 shows the total enrollment and percentage of English language learners for each
district whose superintendent participated in the quantitative survey.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
54
Table 8
Quantitative Survey: District Characteristics
District Total
Enrollment
% English
language learners
1
57,250 51.3
2 56,222
29.2
3
54,378 29.2
4
53,170 20.2
5
47,999 45.9
6
40,592 34.1
7
38,810 27
8
35,690 23
9
32,829 20.2
10
30,136 22.7
11
26,228 25.3
12
25,593 24.4
13
23,507
22.3
14
20,690 20
Average 38,792 28.2
Qualitative Demographic Data
Fourteen superintendents of large urban K–12 school districts elected to participate in the
quantitative survey of this study. During the completion of the quantitative survey, each of the 14
superintendents was given the option to participate in a qualitative interview. Eight
superintendents opted to participate in the qualitative interview; no additional considerations
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
55
were made in the selection of superintendents for participation in the qualitative interview, as
they all satisfied the criteria of the study.
Table 9 shows the demographic profile of each superintendent who participated in a
qualitative interview along with the characteristics of the district he or she led. This information
provides a snapshot of the leaders interviewed and lends context to the responses provided.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
56
Table 9
Qualitative Interview: Characteristics for Superintendents and Districts
Superintendent Profile
District
A
Gender: Female
Ethnicity/Race: Asian
Age: 60-69
Education level: Doctorate
Years as superintendent: 2
Years in current position: 2
Enrollment: 20,690
English learner: 20%
B
Gender: Male
Ethnicity/Race: White
Age: 60-69
Education level: Doctorate
Years as superintendent: 17
Years in current position: 3
Enrollment: 53,170
English learner: 20.2%
C
Gender: Female
Ethnicity/Race: White
Age: 40-49
Education level: Masters
Years as superintendent: 5
Years in current position: 5
Enrollment: 35,690
English learner: 23%
D
Gender: Female
Ethnicity/Race: Black/African-American
Age: 50-59
Education level: Doctorate
Years as superintendent: 3
Years in current position: 3
Enrollment: 40,592
English learner: 34.1%
E
Gender: Male
Ethnicity/Race: White
Age: 50-59
Education level: Doctorate
Years as superintendent: 8
Years in current position: 3
Enrollment: 39,829
English learner: 20.2
F
Gender: Female
Ethnicity/Race: Hispanic/Latino
Age: 40-49
Education level: Doctorate
Years as superintendent: 0
Years in current position: 0
Enrollment: 47,999
English learner: 45.9
G
Gender: Male
Ethnicity/Race: White
Age: 30-39
Education level: Doctorate
Years as superintendent: 1
Years in current position: 1
Enrollment: 25,593
English learner: 24.4%
H
Gender: Male
Ethnicity/Race: White
Age: 50-59
Education level: Doctorate
Years as superintendent: 6
Years in current position: 2
Enrollment: 23,507
English learner: 22.3%
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
57
Of the superintendents interviewed, five were male and three were female. The ethnic
distribution was as follows: five White, one Asian, one Black/African American, and one
Hispanic/Latino. One superintendent was 30–39 years-old, two were 40–49 years–old, three
were 50–59 years old, and two were 60–69 years old.
Five of the eight superintendents were in their first superintendency. Five of the
superintendents had five years or fewer total experience as superintendent, two had between 6 to
8 years total experience as superintendent, and one superintendent had 17 or more years total
experience as superintendent. Overall, they had an average experience of 8 years as a
superintendent.
Research Question One
What factors do urban superintendents consider when developing strategies to improve
the academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Urban superintendents must contend with a variety of factors and pressures in order to
significantly impact student academic outcomes, particularly those of ELL students who have
historically underperformed compared to other demographic groups (Gándara & Rumberger,
2002; Rumberger & Gándara, 2004). Increasingly, escalating expectations from the community
(Pascopella, 2011), along with stringent bureaucratic accountability demands (Sherman, 2008)
and the unique cultural, linguistic, and learning needs of ELL students (Gándara & Rumberger,
2002) have placed enormous pressure on school organizations to examine their capacity to
sustain reform efforts and bring about results for all students. As organizational leaders,
superintendents are at the forefront of the intense scrutiny and attention to achievement gaps that
have developed over time and spurred demands for change.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
58
Table 10 shows superintendent responses to the question: To what extent do you agree
that the following factors influence the academic achievement of English language learners?
Superintendents were asked to indicate level of agreement using a Likert scale ranging from 1 to
4.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
59
Table 10
Superintendent Rating of Factors that are Important in ELL Academic Achievement
Factor Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
Agree
(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Bureaucratic
accountability
2 7 3 0 2.08 12
Demands from
the community
1 7 4 1 2.38 13
Access to
highly qualified
teachers
0 1 2 8 3.64 11
Culturally
responsive
curriculum
0 2 6 4 3.17 12
Standardized
assessment
design
0 7 3 2 2.58 12
Teacher
expectations for
ELL
performance
0 0 1 10 3.91 11
Data-driven
decision-
making
0 0 4 6 3.6 10
Instructional
leadership
0 1 3 9 3.62 13
Professional
development
focused on ELL
instruction
0 1 4 8 3.54 13
Teacher Expectations for ELL Performance
“Teacher expectations for ELL performance” recorded the highest response mean (3.91)
from superintendents. Six of the eight superintendents interviewed affirmed that expectations
issuing from their district culture, particularly from their respective teaching corps, affect the
academic achievement of ELLs. Each of the superintendents who addressed expectations
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
60
relative to the performance of ELL students, cited teacher expectations as pivotal to establishing
a culture of high expectations for all students.
Teacher expectations have a considerable impact on an organizational culture and are
evident not only in expectations for the levels at which ELL students can achieve, but also in the
willingness to address the unique learning needs they present. Therefore, maintaining high
expectations for all student learners—regardless of linguistic background—is of the utmost
importance. Superintendent C, for example, indicated that although NCLB expectations had “lit
a fire,” they were also “mediocre,” and there was a need to “raise the bar” and “establish higher
expectations.” Because teachers have the most direct influence over student learning, the belief
systems to which they subscribe have the potential to heavily influence their actions, including
the implementation of organizational initiatives and instructional approaches known to better the
learning outcomes of ELL students. Along these lines, Superintendent G stated:
There are, in many cases, English language learners that are not receiving targeted ELD
(English Language Development) instruction for a lot of different reasons. Sometimes
it's that they're on that cusp of reclassification and then the instructional teams feel like
they don't need ELD anymore, but other times it's an oversight. Other times it's in an
elementary self-contained class where the teacher says that they're doing ELD, but when
you dig into it, you find that the materials are still in the shrink wrap and the instruction is
not observed, so there's no evidence that it's occurring.
Teacher expectations clearly are an important factor for organizational leaders as they attempt to
raise the achievement level of ELLs.
Access to Highly Qualified Teachers
“Access to highly qualified teachers” recorded the second highest response mean (3.64)
from superintendents. Furthermore, eight of the eight superintendents addressed access to highly
qualified teachers for ELL as a factor influencing their academic achievement. Two categories of
highly qualified teachers were mentioned during superintendent interviews; the first was teacher
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
61
selection and retention; the second was the development of teachers to appropriately meet the
learning needs of ELL students.
Superintendent E described the significance of ensuring access to highly qualified
teachers for all students, describing the importance of selecting appropriate teaching candidates
for the district:
This is not an easy school district to teach in because we do expect a lot. We have
incredibly good teachers who work very, very, very hard and luckily, we can be really
selective about who comes to teach here.
Furthermore, Superintendent C described the process of integrating ELL preparation as a
valuable component of teacher retention criteria. In fact, ELL professional development
offerings were mandatory and included in “slipping criteria, therefore they became more
relevant.” In both instances, superintendents underscored the importance of highly qualified
teachers providing instruction for the districts’ students in greatest need by addressing practices
and modifying policies.
The second category mentioned by superintendents involved teacher development and
preparation for meeting the distinct learning needs of ELL students. Superintendent responses
indicated that providing professional growth for the teachers who instruct ELL students was a
major factor leading to academic improvements for this important subgroup. Superintendent D
described the focus on developing highly qualified teachers in the following way:
We brought in a team, a consultant team, to come in, actually running systems, and some
of their strategies that they have strategically used in the classroom helped with our
English learner population, as well as helped with some of our other populations in sub-
groups that are not performing at grade, you know, where we want them to. All of them
are progressing, but they're not exactly where we want them to do. With the direct
interactive instruction, what they do is teach the teachers strategies for using language
more, helping with students to do, you know, share, and using oral language
development, because that's a major part.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
62
According to four other superintendents, internal and external means and partnerships were
utilized to develop teachers’ capacity to address the instructional needs of ELL students.
These statements affirm that superintendents understand the value of ensuring that ELL
students are afforded ample access to highly trained, highly qualified teachers. Based on
responses provided, superintendents clearly understand the importance of selecting and retaining
teachers with the capacity to be strong practitioners of effective instructional pedagogy.
Simultaneously, providing access for ELLs entails developing teachers’ abilities to improve their
practice, thereby furthering students’ language acquisition and content mastery.
Instructional Leadership
“Instructional leadership” recorded the third highest response mean (3.62) from
superintendents; consequently, it was a factor that all eight of the superintendents interviewed
described as important to the academic achievement of ELL students. Specifically, two
categories were discussed in relation to instructional leadership: district and site. Moreover,
instructional leadership, at all levels of the organization, was one of the most discussed
influences on the academic outcomes of all students, particularly those classified as ELL.
Superintendents firmly understood that instructional leadership begins with their
leadership and that of the district office. Superintendents described the need to establish a focus
and vision for instructional practices tailored for the needs of ELL students. Superintendent E,
for example, expressed the following in describing the process of setting a framework for
instruction in the district:
Our assistant superintendent and I really begun a focus professional development
program. Number one, we did something about the suspension data to really look at the
suspension and expulsion data. To teach administrators and teachers about ways to work
with students to do a better job of keeping them in school, so that was one of our original
focus areas, keeping kids through school. Secondly, instructional strategies that are more
culturally appropriate or culturally, responsive, really understanding. We’ve done a lot to
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
63
help the staff understand the population and then some of the issues that students bring
with them, how to begin to build that sensitivity . . . and third, I think big thing is we’re
going to be relentless in talking about it, in telling the community that’s very reluctant to
admit we have a problem. We have a huge achievement gap guys. Here is what it looks
like. Here is what causes it.
Leadership from the district office and from the superintendent, specifically, not only establishes
a framework for the entire organization, but also signals to all stakeholders the importance of a
sound instructional program inclusive of all student groups.
The second category superintendents described under instructional leadership was that
exhibited by site leadership. Extending from district office leadership, superintendents asserted,
administrative leadership at the site level was vital to the success of ELL students. Furthermore,
superintendents described ensuring that site leadership had the knowledge and ability to assume
their role as instructional leaders. Superintendent D assessed the importance of site-based
instructional leadership in the following way:
One of the things that we do is we hold our principals accountable. What we've asked the
principals to do is to make sure that they know, who are the English learners in their
school and so they know there's a target that's set and that we want the students to
progress at that and use the targets. Then, if the students don't, we make sure that they
write out a plan on what are they doing to alleviate. What are you doing to improve? My
training is by the individual teachers. It's also by the site principal.
Additionally, Superintendent H described the role of site administrators thusly:
I really believe that the principal can't lead professional development or things that they
haven't had. We use a lot of our principals' meetings for that professional development.
They've all gone through the teacher training as well. I think it's really important to
provide everyone the training. They just . . . it never works to send teachers off to
something and then hear about it second hand, as the leader, and same thing with our
administrative team up here, we also have to get to experience it, I think for it to be
effective, for you to be an effective leader.
In both instances, superintendents described the importance of the district office and school site
administration working in conjunction. Aligning instructional leadership creates a greater
likelihood of affecting achievement outcomes for students in the district. Consequently,
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
64
superintendents recognize the value of leveraging instructional leadership to better the academic
achievement of ELL students, ensuring that this population is a central focus for each group.
Discussion
As organizational stewards, superintendents must account for a number of internal and
external factors that impact student achievement. Not only must superintendents have the
capacity to strike a balance among competing interests, but also identify factors with the greatest
potential to improve achievement levels for all students. Large urban school districts with
substantial contingencies of ELL learners function in a particularly unique context.
Superintendent leadership in such districts face formidable public scrutiny and pressure to
increase student achievement for a major demographic group.
Although they generally regarded all survey items to be relevant to the achievement of
students classified as ELL, the superintendents identified three factors primarily: teacher
expectations for ELL performance, access to highly qualified teachers, and instructional
leadership. These factors encompass the structural, cultural, and organizational constructs that
superintendents must address to create an environment conducive to the success of their ELL
populations. In turn, superintendent responses during qualitative interviews served to clarify the
nuances and complexities these factors present in their organizations.
Research Question Two
Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban superintendents to assist in
improving the academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
The most successful superintendents understand the value and importance of building
support from within the organization and meaningfully engaging stakeholders in the
improvement cycle. According to Marzano and Waters (2007), one of the leadership
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
65
responsibilities with the highest correlation to student academic achievement is collaborative
goal-setting. For effective superintendents, the process of goal-setting unquestionably involves
all relevant stakeholders, as these individuals will implement articulated goals in schools and
classrooms. Additionally, involving stakeholders leads to increased support in attaining those
goals, while establishing a shared ownership. Shared ownership of strategic plans also creates
internal accountability for the results, which cannot be accomplished through top-down mandates
and compliance measures. Therefore, identifying the critical stakeholders who will participate in
the decision-making process is of utmost concern to superintendents.
Table 11 depicts superintendent responses to the question: To what extent do you agree
that the following stakeholders should be included in decisions made to improve the academic
achievement of students classified as English language learners? Superintendents were asked to
indicate level of agreement using a Likert-scale, 1 through 4.
Table 11
Superintendent Rating of Stakeholders Important to ELL Academic Achievement
Stakeholder Strongly
Disagree (1)
Disagree (2) Agree
(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Community
members
0 3 7 1 2.82 11
District-level
personnel
0 0 3 8 3.73 11
Parents
0 0 7 4 3.36 11
School-level
administrators
0 0 4 8 3.67 12
Teachers
0 0 3 11 3.79 14
Unions
1 5 7 0 2.46 13
School boards
1 1 7 4 3.08 13
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
66
Teachers
Superintendents who participated in the survey and interview process overwhelmingly
supported involving teachers in decision-making to improve the academic achievement of
students classified as ELL. Not only did superintendents unanimously approve to the survey
item, but also four of the eight superintendents described teachers as a critical stakeholder group
in developing plans to address their academic outcomes. Each of the four superintendents spoke
about the important role that teachers play in ensuring a quality education for students with
linguistic needs. Superintendent A, for example, offered the following to describe the district’s
approach to involving teachers in formulating plans to address the needs of ELLs:
We have these monthly meetings with all of our school leaders, but more specifically in
terms of improvement of achievement of EL students. We do not have a cookie-cutter
approach to our schools. We’re not a very top-down district. People want to get here,
they are thinking, “What is the district saying about this?” We have to throw that back.
We have to ask them, “What are you saying about this?” It put some at a very different
kind of a situation, especially for those who’ve been from very large districts that have
very distinct more top-down structures.
Superintendent H based the selection of teachers on those who had accomplished results teaching
ELL students, explaining, “We also selectively invited people who should have an interest…
teachers who were doing it well. We needed to hear what was working and get their evaluation.”
Overall, teacher involvement and input from the outset of goal setting and decision-making was
integral to ensuring both buy-in and teacher support of district initiatives.
District-Level Personnel
District-level personnel recorded the second highest response mean (3.73) from
superintendents and were also unanimously supported by survey participants. Eight of the eight
superintendents interviewed spoke at length about the role of district-level personnel in crafting
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
67
strategic plans and making decisions about the academic achievement of ELLs. Superintendent
A made ELL achievement a central focus for district leaders. She explained the process in the
following way:
I have a very dynamic cabinet. On that cabinet are representatives of curriculum
instruction. EL students and EL instruction or ELD instruction is not a separate entity. It
is just included in our overarching umbrella of academic, what we call academic services.
When we plan, we incorporate in all of our cabinet meetings a focus on the areas of our
strategic plan. Every year, we will bring in the people who are responsible for those
particular areas. In some cases, it would be in Special Education. In this case, it would be
on ELL.
Superintendents created formal mechanisms for continuously involving district-level personnel
in goal-setting and strategic planning. One such example was Superintendent D, who described
this system as follows:
We have an assistant superintendent of educational services and critical administration.
Then he oversees the director over English learning programs. Then she asks
coordinators, there's professional development people that work specialists, and then each
group site sends a person when they're developing this district plans.
Because of the size of the urban districts identified in this study, superintendents must rely on
district-level leadership, particularly the executive cabinet, for input and insight during planning
and goal-setting; this stakeholder group is critical as it is comprised of the individuals who
oversee implementation on a broad scale.
School-Level Administrators
School-level administrators recorded the third highest response mean (3.67) from
superintendents. Similarly, eight of the eight superintendents interviewed reported school-level
administration as important to improving the academic achievement of students classified as
ELL. Superintendents understood the integral element principals provided to help propel the
entire organization forward. In particular, superintendents acknowledged that principals and
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
68
other school-level administrators were stewards of their vision within schools. Promoting their
participation during the development of plans also facilitated their full support and buy-in during
implementation. Superintendent F described the value of incorporating site-level administrators
in decision-making over the achievement levels of ELL students, as explained in the following
statement:
I think one of the most important ways for transparency, a lot of discussions about what
we’re doing, why we’re doing it, what we’re here to do is very important. For school
leaders, it’s really important that they’re critically involved even though we're a
centralized district, that they understand the why. Why are we doing this? What does it
look like? How did we come up with this? It’s not just something, “Thou shalt.” It's
actually a discussion. It’s actually a discussion of why we’re doing this, why is this a
good approach and also getting feedback from folks. I want to think our site level folks
are involved to the extent that they provide feedback and the input in the process.
Superintendents consistently described an overwhelming desire to address the achievement gap
for ELL students. Furthermore, they clearly understood that any efforts to do so must begin with
fundamental changes at the school level. By garnering the input and support of principals and
site-level leaders, superintendents are better able to develop a strong infrastructure for the
changes to take hold.
Discussion
Superintendents surveyed and interviewed acknowledged the inherent value of involving
various stakeholders in establishing a plan to address the learning needs of students classified as
ELL. Although most stakeholder groups were considered valuable, three groups were identified
as being of greatest importance: teachers, district-level personnel, and school-level
administrators. Collectively, these stakeholders not only bring a wealth of experience and
expertise working with ELLs, but also have the most direct and daily influence over the learning
environment.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
69
Research Question Three
What strategies do urban superintendents execute when implementing plans to improve
the academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
A strong focus on student learning is contingent upon the adoption and implementation of
a variety of school district actions, especially in support of traditionally underperforming
demographic populations. The role of superintendent is integral to setting the stage and tone for
organizational improvement. Although other district- and school-level leaders play an active
role in implementing plans to address student needs, the superintendent must keep the focus of
the district on teaching and learning (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). In the end, the extent of their
efforts must become visible in the district’s goals and strategies for improvement that the
organization adopts.
Table 12 shows superintendent responses to the question: To what extent do you agree
that the following are important to superintendent implementation of plans to improve the
academic achievement of students classified as English language learners? Superintendents
were asked to indicate level of agreement using a Likert-scale, 1 through 4.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
70
Table 12
Superintendent Rating of Factors that are Important in Implementing Plans to Improve ELL
Academic Achievement
Stakeholder Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree (2) Agree
(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Creation of a vision 0 0 4 8 3.67 12
High expectations
for student
achievement
0 0 0 11 4.0 11
Analyzing subgroup
assessment data
0 0 5 7 3.58 12
Collaboration
among stakeholders
0 0 6 7 3.54 13
Resource allocation 0 0 4 7 3.64 11
Clearly defined
district-wide
academic goals for
ELL students
0 0 2 9 3.82 11
Instructional
leadership
0 0 3 8 3.73 11
Professional
development for
school-site
administrators
0 0 5 6 3.55 11
Professional
development for
teachers
0 0 3 8 3.73 11
Professional
development
facilitated by the
district office
0 1 6 4 3.27 11
Professional
development
facilitated by the
school-site
0 0 7 4 3.36 11
Two-way
communication
between district and
school-site staff
0 0 4 7 3.64 11
Alignment between
district vision and
school vision
0 0 4 7 3.64 11
On-site teacher
collaboration
0 0 3 9 3.75 12
Alignment of
instruction with
curricula
frameworks
0 0 5 6 3.55 11
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
71
High Expectations for Student Achievement
High expectations for student achievement recorded the highest response mean (4.0) from
superintendents surveyed. It is appropriate that the item received unanimous support from
superintendents as it was also explicitly mentioned during four of eight interviews. Overall, the
quantitative and qualitative data indicate that superintendents have a mandate to expect all
members of the organization to maintain rigorous expectations for all students, regardless of
background. Furthermore, the data suggest that superintendents expect stakeholders to align
their practices and actions with this fundamental belief. In doing so, superintendents helped
foster results-oriented—as opposed to deficit-based—organizational. On the topic of maintaining
a high level of expectations for all students, Superintendent C summarized by saying, “There was
a moral imperative to serve the underserved, especially when there was a ‘majority minority.’”
Using data as a catalyst, superintendents began confronting the disparity in achievement
results as a means to address the underlying issue of uneven expectations for demographic
groups, particularly ELL students, who possess a differing set of linguistic and cultural needs.
Superintendent E explained the process in the following manner:
We’ve done a lot to help the staff understand the population and then some of the issues
that students bring with them, how to begin to build that sensitivity . . . I think the big
thing is we’re going to be relentless in talking about it, in telling the community that’s
very reluctant to admit we have a problem. We have a huge achievement gap guys. Here
is what it looks like. Here is what causes it.
Raising awareness of the outcomes of organizational practices assisted superintendents in
creating a sense of urgency among stakeholders about their work. Awareness also provoked
dialogue about embedding effective practices that yield improvement in academic achievement
for ELL students into goal-setting and strategic planning. On this topic, Superintendent F stated:
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
72
Really we make sure that we have goals that are focused on the needs of English learners
and that we're, I think from the district office’s perspective, continuing to put that in
people’s minds, continuing to talk about English learners . . . I think as a district because
we have so many ELs, it’s more about the craft that differentiate a targeted support
versus, “Oh we forgot about them because we have so many.” We can't forget about
them.
Interviewees discussed maintaining high expectations for student achievement as an important
strategy for improving achievement outcomes for ELL students. By investing in addressing the
disparity in achievement results of the district, superintendents were able to attend to the
underlying mindset of the organization.
Clearly Defined District-Wide Academic Goals for ELL Students
Clearly defined district-wide academic goals for ELL students recorded a response mean
of 3.82 from superintendents surveyed. This strong level of support was also reflected during
interviews, as eight of eight superintendents discussed the importance of this topic as greatly
impacting the achievement of ELLs. Specifically, superintendents described using bureaucratic
accountability measures and mechanisms as drivers of goal-setting for their respective districts.
Superintendent G succinctly described the process in the following statement:
It's all (strategic plan and goals) described in our master plan for English learners, but
what we're trying to do is integrate that master plan as much as possible with the LEAP,
local education plan, and now thinking forward, how does that tie into our local control
accountability plan which we're still learning quite a bit about, but trying to integrate
these systems as much as possible instead of having multiple layers, sort of redundant
processes, within the system.
Superintendents described a systemic approach to goal setting that included having documents—
such as the district master plan for English learners and Local Education Agency Plan (LEAP)—
aligned in order to provide clear, concise goals that could be easily understood by all stakeholder
groups. In doing so, ELL students became a focus of district-wide goals—as opposed to goals
pertaining only to select departments or groups within the organization.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
73
Additionally, superintendents described having committees comprised of critical
stakeholder representatives provide input to shape and refine district-wide goals for ELLs.
Superintendent H provided an overview of stakeholder involvement in goal setting throughout
the organization:
There's also some alignment of goals. The school board has it as a goal or priority that's
close to achievement gap of ELLs. Then, the principals write objectives for how they can
impact ELLs and teachers write objectives for what they will do. There's an alignment for
that expectation that is throughout our planning and goal setting.
This statement provides a general outline for the manner in which superintendents lead the
process of soliciting stakeholder input. Furthermore, important standing committees provide
invaluable feedback to the district in order to articulate goals that truly meet the needs of ELLs.
One such committee is the District English Learner Advisory Council, or DELAC, which was
mentioned by several superintendents as a major contributor to district-wide goal setting.
Superintendent G summarized DELAC’s involvement in his district as follows:
DELAC in this district is very structured. Here's it highly formalized, very structured,
runs very much like what you would think school board meetings would look like when
elected officials run the meeting and highly structured agenda. It's very structured and
that group takes that role of reviewing the master plan for English learners very seriously,
and they give us a lot of feedback, which is beneficial. In addition to that plan, DELAC
gives a monthly report directly to the school board and they discuss what they did in the
DELAC meeting and what the recommendations are for district action. Sometimes those
are kind of apart from the formal planning process, but that feedback is highly valued and
often very actionable.
By involving stakeholders in crafting authentic goals for ELL students, superintendents noted a
greater awareness of the needs of this important demographic group, as well as increased
involvement and ownership over the plans of action.
On-Site Teacher Collaboration
On-site teacher collaboration recorded the third highest response mean (3.75) from
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
74
superintendents surveyed. Four of eight superintendents interviewed spoke about the importance
of having teachers engage in collaboration with their site-level colleagues. Superintendent D
discussed deploying district-level support providers to facilitate the process of on-site
collaboration among teachers. In the words of Superintendent D:
We have a professional development team in our district that's an office and each one of
the professional development directors are assigned to a school. There's 12 people that
are assigned to the 37 schools, so you might have each with three schools. They're
responsible for providing professional development for each one of our sub-groups in
English language learning. When they actually provide the on-site professional
development, they will look at the leading research to deal with English language and
then talk about what are some of the strategies to help with the English learner
population. Not only do they provide the professional development, but they go out to
the schools and do demonstration reference and the culture on campus.
Superintendent D understood that each school is its own context with its own unique needs
pertaining to teacher collaboration around English language instruction. Furthermore,
superintendents interviewed responded positively to the need to find a balance between district-
led collaboration and site-based collaboration.
Discussion
Superintendents surveyed and interviewed expressed tremendous support for utilizing a
wide array of strategies to increase the achievement levels of ELL students. In particular, this
study focused on maintaining high expectations for student achievement (Fullan et al., 2004;
Sherman, 2008), developing clearly defined district-wide academic goals for ELL students
(Marzano & Waters, 2007; Togneri & Anderson, 2003) and site-based teacher collaboration
(Fullan et al., 2004; Petersen, 1999). Superintendents provided significant insight into each
domain and detailed how their districts successfully implemented these strategies.
Overall, superintendents agreed with all of the strategies enumerated on the quantitative
survey. The qualitative interviews served to realize a deeper level of understanding into the
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
75
responses garnered through the survey, while affording a robust description of the
implementation of the strategies.
Research Question Four
What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor and evaluate the academic
achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Effective superintendents continually monitor and evaluate district progress toward the
attainment of achievement and instructional targets in order to ensure that organizational actions
remain aligned with the plans designed to achieve them (Marzano & Waters, 2007). Without an
ongoing cycle of evaluation, plans often simply become items of bureaucratic compliance.
Superintendent interviewees provided profound insight into how they embedded monitoring and
evaluation processes within their organization and how these processes led to continuous
improvement of academic support for ELL students. According to Togneri and Anderson
(2003), successful districts consistently use data to guide decision-making and measure student
achievement progress. All eight superintendents interviewed discussed this topic, in particular,
mentioning valid and reliable assessment instruments, analyzing subgroup assessment data, and
establishing instructional norms. These methods enabled superintendents to evaluate plans
designed to improved ELL academic achievement at multiple levels.
Table 13 depicts superintendent responses to the questions: To what extent do you agree
that the following are important in monitoring and evaluating academic achievement of students
classified as English language learners? Superintendents were asked to indicate level of
agreement using a Likert-scale, 1 through 4.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
76
Table 13
Superintendent Rating of Factors that are Important in Monitoring and Evaluating the Plans to
Improve ELL Academic Achievement
Stakeholder Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
Agree
(3)
Strongly
Agree
(4)
Response
Mean
Total
Valid and
reliable
assessment
instruments
0 0 4 8 3.67 12
Reclassification
rates
0 1 6 5 3.33 12
Analyzing
subgroup
assessment data
0 0 5 8 3.62 13
Site
administrator
classroom
observations
0 1 6 5 3.33 12
Established
instructional
norms
0 1 5 5 3.36 11
Site
administrator
collaboration at
the district level
0 0 8 3 3.27 11
Superintendent
visibility at
school sites
0 1 9 2 3.08 12
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
77
Valid and Reliable Assessment Instruments
Four of the eight superintendents interviewed mentioned the value of valid and reliable
assessment instruments to conduct ongoing, formative assessments of student achievement
levels. Acquiring student data in consistent intervals allows districts to conduct ongoing
evaluations of their instructional program and make appropriate adjustments in a timely fashion.
Although they are held accountable for year-end, summative outcomes on standardized tests,
superintendents do little to impact instruction in real-time. As such, assessment instruments
allow them to monitor progress throughout the year and avoid losing valuable time that could be
used to address students’ learning deficits. Superintendent F described how formative
assessments have led to significant improvements in monitoring student progress and using data
results to improve instruction:
One of the things that we have done and used pretty effectively is ORS, which is Online
Reporting System. That for example, in English Language Arts, rather than waiting for
one major test or to find out who failed at the end, we have these periodic benchmark
assessments across all subjects and across all grade levels. We’ve done a lot of training
with teachers and staff about how you look at that data and sitting down in collaborative
groups at the school to interpret what that data means and then what are you going to do
about it. You can actually see it happen pretty effectively. Interestingly enough, not just
in the elementary schools, but also in the secondary schools and the high schools that
they really sit down and they look at the data and have a conversation and say, “Okay,
here’s something we see with our English learners. What are we gonna do over the next
eight weeks?”
We all decided as a grade-level team that we’re going to take the English learners who
didn’t meet the benchmark and we’re going to pre-teach the vocabulary words to them.
We’re going to take 10 minutes during independent work time and we’re going to pull
those English learners and we’re going to pre-teach the vocabulary for the story for the
next day and then we’re going to sit down six weeks from now and see if that did make a
difference with that group. You got to do something and the conversations amongst
teachers I think are the most effective way in getting everybody to agree. We’re all going
to do this. Now, let’s see what the result was. We put that system in place at schools.
Valid and reliable assessment instruments provide stakeholders at all levels invaluable
information that can lead to prompt evaluations of instructional design and pedagogy. For ELL
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
78
students who often have significant gaps in their learning, formative assessment tools allow
immediate action to take place.
Analyzing Subgroup Assessment Data
Analysis of subgroup assessment data was discussed by eight of the eight superintendent
participants in interviews. Superintendents clearly understood the importance of analyzing both
formative and summative assessment data for ELL students. Compiling and analyzing
assessment data allowed district and site leaders to make informed decisions about areas of need
for ELL students. Moreover, utilizing data allowed for thorough evaluations of action plans and
indicators of success. Superintendent G viewed data analysis for ELL assessments as a best
practice and an integral part of the overall practice of district-wide data analysis:
A lot of the best practices for English learners, like monitoring their student achievement
outcomes, that's a best practice for any sub-group, not subgroup, for any group of
students. We should be discussing the evidence we have that reflects how students are
learning. So there are some components of that system that should be for all kids and
then there should be parts of it that are maybe more intensive for particular groups of
students with specifically identified strategies to maximize the impact.
In similar fashion, Superintendent A described data analysis as a cyclical process,
institutionalized to be carried out in regular intervals. In her district, analyzing subgroup
assessment data take place as follows:
You’ve got to look at multiple measures. That multiple measures could include of course
the CELDT (California English Language Development Test) results. It should include
like, for example, the districts are using district benchmarks throughout the year with
every six or every eight weeks depending on the district. In our case, it’s every six weeks
at every grade level. Then we have to look at . . . I firmly am a big advocate of teacher-
made test as well. End of unit level tests, those things are equally as I think even perhaps
in some cases much more better gauge of how our students are doing. It’s a variety of
measurements. It’s not just one that we look at.
Superintendent A clearly articulated the significance of maintaining a robust approach to
monitoring ELL academic achievement through data analysis. By maintaining a balance
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
79
between formative and summative assessment data, districts were able to make greater gains for
this student subgroup.
Established Instructional Norms
Establishing instructional norms for the district was mentioned during interviews with
seven of eight superintendents. Superintendents stated the importance of monitoring the
adoption of instructional strategies and norms across the organization directly aligned to the
needs of ELLs. Superintendent G identified establishing instructional norms as an important
element in improving academic achievement levels for ELLs and a critical part of evaluating the
implementation of plans to do the same. He described this strategy as follows:
Knowing what you want that instruction to look like, is there a program that you're using,
are there key strategies that you ought to see in every setting. So to that end, we have
identified different curriculum resources that we expect to see in different settings,
elementary, middle school and high school, and then with different proficiency levels as
well. Then there are some strategies . . . we've used Kate Kinsella as a consultant quite a
bit, so the use of modeling academic vocabulary, for example, that we ought to see at
every level.
In establishing instructional norms across the entire organization, superintendents aimed to
ensure consistency in the educational experience of every student—particularly those with the
greatest needs.
Superintendents also expressed a desire to integrate effective instructional practices for
ELL students into other facets of instructional design. They took every opportunity to promote
English Language Development (ELD) across curricular areas, and embedded it into other
district-wide initiatives. Superintendent A stated:
Actually like everybody, we’re all getting ready for a Common Core. I’m just going to
give you our experience in the last two years since 2010, where we’ve had really massive
training with all the teachers, first with the English Language Arts, then now
Mathematics. This year, we repeated another theory for trainings for three days. We
started the first phase with our 400 teachers. Embedded in that is the ELD strand. We
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
80
can’t forget that part of it. That’s part of the training. It’s not a separate word. They have
to come to three more days of ELD training. It’s just simply a part of it.
Superintendents interviewed in this study were fully aware of the impact that highly effective
instructional delivery had on student learning. To effectively implement action plans for ELL
students, they understood that the instructional program needed to be consistently monitored and
evaluated for fidelity. Moreover, they understood that established instructional norms had to be
beneficial for all students in order to be fully integrated into the district culture.
Discussion
The process of evaluation is a fundamental aspect of sustaining improved achievement
levels for any school district. As organizational leaders serving diverse communities, the
superintendents in this study were concerned with the achievement of all demographic
subgroups, particularly those that have traditionally underperformed. Through responses to
survey and interview items, superintendents identified several essential strategies for monitoring
and evaluating plans to raise the achievement of ELLs: valid and reliable assessment
instruments, analysis of subgroup assessment data, and implementation of instructional norms.
Although not intended to be an exhaustive list, the strategies provide a framework for the work
of superintendents in ensuring that plans for ELLs are implemented with fidelity.
Summary
The superintendents who were interviewed and surveyed cited a variety of strategies they
had employed to achieve success in improving the academic achievement of ELL students. The
data suggest the following findings related to the four research questions.
Research question one asks, What factors do urban superintendents consider when
developing strategies to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners? Teacher expectations, access to highly qualified teachers, and instructional
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
81
leadership are factors urban superintendents consider when developing strategies to improve the
academic achievement of ELL students.
Research question two asks, Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban
superintendents to assist in improving the academic achievement of students classified as
English language learners? Teachers, district-level personnel, and school-level administrators
are stakeholder groups included by urban superintendents to assist in improving the academic
achievement of ELL students.
Research question three asks, What strategies do urban superintendents execute when
implementing plans to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners? High expectations for student achievement, clearly defined district-wide
academic goals for ELL students, and on-site teacher collaboration are strategies used by urban
superintendents to implement plans for improving the academic achievement of students
classified as ELL.
Research question four asks, What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor
and evaluate the academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Urban superintendents use valid and reliable assessment instruments, analyze subgroup
assessment data, and establish instructional norms to monitor and evaluate the academic
achievement of ELL students.
Chapter Five is a summary of this research study including conclusions and implications.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
82
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
The public education system in the United States is under immense pressure to meet the
mandate of successfully preparing individuals to compete in a twenty-first century global
economy. Long-term plans for economic viability, as well as bureaucratic accountability
measures, have led to demands for improved academic outcomes for all students. Inevitably,
these external pressures will necessitate a significant paradigm shift in educational practice. In
particular, school districts and organizations must address the unique needs of ELL students for
whom an achievement gap has historically existed (Lauen & Gaddis, 2012). Due to dense
concentrations of this demographic subgroup, large urban K–12 school districts experience the
greatest challenges in meeting the academic and linguistic needs of ELL students (Lauen &
Gaddis, 2012). Furthermore, the achievement gap clearly demonstrates that current practices
within the education system are not effectively supporting ELL students in achieving success
(Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 2005). As organizational leaders, superintendents play a
critical role in improving the effectiveness of their organizations with respect to raising
achievement levels for this important group.
This chapter provides a summary of the study, including a statement of the problem,
purpose of the study, research questions, and a review of the literature and methodology utilized,
followed by findings aligned to the four research questions. In closing, implications and
recommendations for future study are detailed.
Statement of the Problem
Real-world competition in a global market, bureaucratic accountability, and pressure
from the public are placing intense pressure on public schools to ensure high academic
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
83
achievement levels for all students. Nevertheless, large urban school districts show a great
disparity in achievement levels among demographic groups. In fact, a distinct achievement gap
endures between ELL students and English-speaking counterparts (CDE, 2010). With numbers
of ELL students surging, urban school districts must secure the means and capacity to meet the
learning needs of this population. This reality presents unique challenges for superintendents of
large urban school districts charged with ensuring the academic success of this subgroup of
learners.
Research indicates that in response to increased accountability measures and explicit
external pressures, the role of the superintendent has shifted from that of manager to instructional
leader. However, the literature yields limited information about strategies that superintendents of
large urban school districts employ to positively impact the academic achievement of English
language learners.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify superintendent leadership strategies that
positively impact the academic achievement outcomes of students identified as ELL in large
urban K–12 school districts. The study specifically considered the approaches employed by
superintendents in developing, implementing, and monitoring improvements to ELL student
academic outcomes.
Research Questions
1. What factors do urban superintendents consider when developing strategies to
improve the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
84
2. Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban superintendents to assist in
improving the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
3. What strategies do urban superintendents execute when implementing plans to
improve the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
4. What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor and evaluate the academic
achievement of students classified as English language learners?
Review of the Literature
The following literature review concentrates on existing research that defines
superintendent leadership strategies that can be utilized to ensure the adequate and effective
support of ELL students. This review comprises vital background information, contextual
understanding within an existing theoretical framework, and a review of common themes that
outline potentially promising practices. The background and contextual information focus on two
significant stakeholders addressed in this study. First, the role of superintendent is reviewed.
Historical information about the transformation of that position is highlighted and concerns with
tenure are noted. Next, a comprehensive analysis of the plight of ELL students is outlined.
Issues of equity and access in relation to this specific population are considered.
As organizational leaders, superintendents are charged with ensuring that the entire
organization responds to the expectation of ensuring a rigorous education, as well as increased
achievement for all students (Schmidt & McKnight, 1998). This aim has led to a dramatic shift
in the focus of the superintendency—from superintendent as manager to superintendent as
instructional leader (Fuller et al., 2003; Glass et al., 2000). Despite the fact that accountability
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
85
measures are consistent for all educational leaders, the greatest challenge is reserved for urban
superintendents who must address the achievement gap among student groups. Urban schools
face a number of challenges, one of the most significant of which is the underachievement of
students with limited English proficiency and classified as ELL (Gándara & Rumberger, 2002;
Lunenberg, 1992). Therefore, urban superintendents must effectively implement strategies to
address the disparity in achievement outcomes among their student populace.
The literature suggests that to increase positive academic outcomes for ELL students,
superintendents must focus on those students and the practices most likely to lead to increased
student achievement (Verdugo & Flores, 2007). A comprehensive review of existing literature
yielded key themes that may serve to build the foundation necessary to ensure academic success
for K–12 ELL students in large urban districts. These key themes are (a) addressing ELL equity
and access in education; (b) creating a collaborative district and school culture; and (c) building
capacity across all levels of leadership.
Methodology
The study employed a mixed-methods design consisting of 14 quantitative surveys and
eight qualitative interviews completed by superintendents in large comprehensive urban districts.
This method was selected for increased rigor, as it allows for comparisons among findings and
provides greater depth and complexity to the data collected (Patton, 2002).
To identify superintendents for both quantitative and qualitative inquiry, the study used
purposeful, criterion-based sampling (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Purposeful, criterion-
based sampling allowed the researcher to select active school superintendents in large urban
districts that served student populations with a significant subgroup of students classified as
ELL. Quantitative sampling criteria served to determine superintendent participation focused on
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
86
district leaders from (a) California school districts; (b) districts with a comprehensive enrollment
of grades K–12; (c) districts with an enrollment greater than 20,000 students; and (e) districts
with an ELL population greater than 20%. The quantitative and qualitative sampling selection
criteria for the study were identical.
The qualitative survey queried demographic data, willingness to be interviewed, and level
of agreement with 48 questions organized in the following way: (a) 6 demographic questions; (b)
1 question to determine the willingness to participate in a follow-up interview; and (c) a survey
consisting of 48 Likert-style items aligned with the 4 research questions. Qualitative interviews
were conducted using an interview protocol of 11 questions, accompanied by follow-up
questions to clarify responses. All interviews were recorded and transcribed to ensure accuracy.
Findings
Research question one asks, What factors do urban superintendents consider when
developing strategies to improve academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners? Teacher expectations for ELL performance, access to highly qualified
teachers, and instructional leadership were salient themes in both the quantitative survey and
qualitative interview of superintendents participating in this study. Teacher expectations for
ELL performance recorded the highest response mean (3.91) on the quantitative survey and six
of eight superintendents interviewed identified this factor as important in the achievement of
students classified as ELL. Access to highly qualified teachers recorded the second highest
response mean (3.64), and was affirmed by eight of eight superintendents interviewed in the
study. Instructional leadership recorded the third highest response mean (3.62) and was also
identified as a critical factor impacting the achievement of ELL students by eight of eight
superintendents interviewed. Other factors such as professional development focused on ELL
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
87
instruction and data-driven decision-making also received high response means, whereas
bureaucratic accountability received the lowest response mean from superintendents.
Research question two asks, Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban
superintendents to assist in improving academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners? Superintendents surveyed and interviewed identified the following
stakeholder groups as critical to improving the achievement of students classified as ELL:
teachers, district-level personnel, and school-level administrators. Teachers recorded the highest
response mean (3.79) on the quantitative survey and were mentioned by all superintendents as
key stakeholders. District-level personnel recorded the second highest response mean (3.73) on
the quantitative survey and were also identified by all eight superintendents interviewed as
critical stakeholders in the process of improving academic achievement for ELLs. School-level
administrators recorded the third highest response mean (3.67) among stakeholder groups and
were characterized as critical stakeholders by eight of eight superintendents interviewed.
Although other stakeholder groups, such as parents and community members, were discussed
during interviews, superintendents described the three aforementioned stakeholder groups in
greater detail because of their immediate access to students and direct influence over student
learning.
Research question three asks, What strategies do urban superintendents execute when
implementing plans to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners? Superintendents surveyed and interviewed described utilizing the following
when implementing plans to improve the academic achievement of ELL students: high
expectations for student achievement, clearly defined district-wide academic goals for ELL
students, and on-site teacher collaboration.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
88
High expectations for student achievement were discussed by all eight superintendents
interviewed and had a 4.0 response mean on the quantitative survey. Superintendents discussed
the importance of having all members of the organization maintain rigorous expectations for all
students, regardless of cultural, linguistic, or academic background. In doing so, superintendents
helped foster a district culture geared toward results. Furthermore, superintendents began
confronting the underlying issue of uneven expectations for demographic groups, particularly
ELL students.
Clearly defined district-wide academic goals for ELL students were mentioned by eight
of eight superintendents interviewed and had a 3.82 response mean on the quantitative survey.
Superintendents emphasized the value of articulating academic goals for ELL students as drivers
for their respective districts. Superintendents described a systemic approach to goal-setting that
included having documents aligned to one another in order to provide clear, concise goals that
could be easily understood by all stakeholder groups. In doing so, ELL students became a focus
of district-wide goals, rather than of goals pertaining to only select departments or groups within
the organization.
On-site teacher collaboration was identified by four of eight superintendents participating
in interviews and had a response mean of 3.75 among participants on the quantitative survey.
Superintendents spoke about the importance of having teachers collaborate with their site-level
colleagues as a catalyst for improving ELL student achievement. Moreover, they discussed the
value of deploying district resources and supports into school sites to assist with facilitation and
implementation at the classroom level.
Research question four asks, What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor
and evaluate the academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
89
Superintendents interviewed supported the following measures to monitor and evaluate the
academic achievement of ELL students: valid and reliable assessment instruments, analyzing
subgroup assessment data, and establishing instructional norms.
Valid and reliable assessment instruments received the highest response mean (3.67) on
the quantitative survey and were mentioned by four of eight superintendents interviewed.
Superintendents emphasized that formative and summative assessment instruments allowed their
districts to monitor progress throughout the year and avoid losing valuable time that could
otherwise be used to address students’ learning deficits. Furthermore, acquiring student data in
regular intervals allows districts to engage in ongoing evaluations of their instructional program
and make appropriate adjustments in a timely fashion.
Analyzing subgroup assessment data received the second highest response mean (3.62)
on the quantitative survey and was mentioned during interviews for all eight superintendents
taking part in the study. Superintendents clearly understood the importance of analyzing both
formative and summative assessment data for ELL students. The process of compiling and
analyzing assessment data allowed district and site leaders to make informed decisions about
areas of need for ELL students.
Establishing instructional norms received the third highest response mean (3.36) on the
quantitative survey and was discussed during seven of eight superintendent interviews.
Superintendents expressed a desire to integrate effective instructional practices for ELL students
into all instructional design. In establishing instructional norms across the entire organization,
superintendents sought to ensure consistency in the educational experience of every student,
particularly those with the greatest needs.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
90
Implications
This study’s significant findings contribute to the body of scholarly literature by
identifying the strategies used by superintendents of large urban districts to positively impact the
academic achievement of students classified as English language learners. The data discussed in
this study may be relevant to current or aspiring superintendents in urban districts seeking to
improve academic outcomes for ELL students because they provide a framework for the
approach that superintendents have undertaken to lead their organizations in addressing the needs
of this historically underserved demographic group.
The findings of this study can be utilized by school district leaders seeking to increase
their organizational capacity to support this growing population of students and to address its
distinct learning needs. Specifically, the findings illustrate the integral function of classroom
teachers in facilitating learning for ELLs. All superintendents in the study identified teachers as
an influential stakeholder group. Therefore, organizational leaders’ ability to develop and retain
talented teachers is of utmost importance. By establishing strong collaborative practices among
teachers, school organizations can develop strong support systems for classroom instructors
while developing their individual and collective expertise in educating ELL students. Using this
study’s findings in this manner may establish an alignment between research-based strategies
and effective organizational practices that promote achievement for ELLs.
This study also recommends that superintendents personally engage in a variety of
strategies to ensure the academic achievement of ELL students. The identification of frequently
used and effective strategies can provide guidance to superintendent preparation programs as
they evaluate how to appropriately support organizational leaders to succeed in the face of
strenuous internal and external demands. Moreover, school boards can use this information to
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
91
develop superintendent selection and performance criteria, particularly in large urban districts
that have unique challenges. As selection and evaluation procedures for district leaders continue
to evolve and become more robust, the findings of this study can operate as a framework for
effective leadership practices that increase academic achievement levels for diverse linguistic
learners.
Recommendations for Future Study
In pursuit of greater depth of knowledge about the actions superintendents undertake to
positively impact the academic outcomes of students classified as English language learners, the
researcher recommends the following be considered for future study:
This study suggested that superintendents involve stakeholders at all levels of the
organization in support of ELL students. This support apparatus creates a need to
analyze the complex inter-relationships among these groups and how they facilitate
increased achievement for ELL students. Based on the results of the study, case
studies of teachers, district-level personnel, and school-level administrators should be
included in the inquiry.
Identifying the strategies utilized by urban superintendents in large comprehensive
districts underscores the need for comparison among districts of other sizes and
structures. These findings would assist in identifying how factors and strategies may
contribute to organizational effectiveness.
There is a need to analyze documents used by the districts in this study to develop,
implement, and monitor plans to impact the achievement of ELL students. This study
mentioned ELL master plans and local education agency plans, which could provide
significant insight into the leadership of superintendents in large urban districts.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
92
With major shifts looming in accountability measures, superintendents must identify
the diverse needs and challenges of distinct ELL classifications. As a demographic
subgroup, ELL students are deeply diverse not only in their linguistic proficiency, but
also in their cultural backgrounds. ELL students possess different levels of mastery
in English language acquisition, as well as differing experiences in the broader
educational context. Future studies could examine the impact of organizational
leadership on the academic achievement of various classifications of ELL students.
Conclusions
Schools and districts are encountering mounting pressure from internal and external
sources to ensure that every student receives an education that will assure viability in an
increasingly global economy. Due to their concentration of students with significant academic
needs, urban districts encounter the greatest challenges. In particular, the exponential growth of
students classified as English language learners has increased the urgency to enact practices to
improve their levels of academic achievement. To this end, urban superintendents must create
substantive changes within their districts to foster a climate that is supportive of and responsive
to their academic and cultural needs. Ultimately, the strategies utilized by superintendents
establish the conditions for this climate to prevail within their organizations.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
93
References
Abedi, J., & Gándara, P. (2006). Performance of English language learners as a subgroup in
large ‐scale assessment: Interaction of research and policy. Educational Measurement:
Issues and Practice, 25(4), 36–46.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. (2009, March). The American Recovery
Reinvestment Act: Recommendations for addressing the needs of English language
learners. Washington, DC: Authors.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Borkowski, J., & Sneed, M. (2006). Will NCLB improve or harm public education? Harvard
Educational Reform, 76(4), 503-525.
Bredeson, P. V., Klar, H. W., & Johansson, O. (2011). Context-responsive leadership:
Examining superintendent leadership in context. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 19(18), 28–28.
Bredeson, P. V. & Kose, B. W. (2007). Responding to the education reform agenda: A study of
school superintendents’ instructional leadership. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
15(5), 1-26.
Byrd, J. K., Drews, C., & Johnson, J. (2006). Factors impacting superintendent turnover: Lessons
from the field. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
University Council of Educational Administration, Chicago, IL.
California Department of Education (CDE). (2010). Improving education for English learners:
research-based approaches. Sacramento, CA: CDE Press.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
94
Casserly, M., Lewis, S., Uzzell., R., Horwitz., A., & Simon, C. (2010). Urban school
superintendents: Characteristics, tenure and salary. Washington, DC: Council of the
Great City Schools.
Crosby, E. (1999). Urban schools: Forced to fail. The Phi Delta Kappan, 81(4), 298-303.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Third annual Brown lecture in education research—The flat earth
and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our
future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318–334.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The total design method (2nd ed.). New York:
Wiley.
Dolph, D., & Grant, S. (2010). Practices of successful school leaders. International Journal of
Educational Reform, 19(4), 269–286.
Fullan, M., Bertani, A., & Quinn, J. (2004). New Lessons for Districtwide Reform. Educational
Leadership, 61(7), 42.
Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language
learners: A survey of California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional
development needs. Joint Publications, University of California Linguistic Minority
Research Institute, UC Berkeley.
Gándara, P., & Rumberger, R. (2002). The inequitable treatment of English learners in
California's public schools. Williams Watch Series: Investigating the Claims of
Williams v. State of California. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA’s Institute for Democracy,
Education, and Access.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
95
Gándara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R., (2003). English learners in
California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 11(36), 1-54.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English language
learners in US schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 363–385.
Glass, T. E., Bjork, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The study of the American school
superintendency, 2000. A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium.
Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators. (document stock
number 236-021)
Jackson, J. (2005, June). Leadership for urban public schools. The Educational Forum, 69(2),
192–202.
Kohler, A. D., & Lazarín, M. (2007). Hispanic education in the United States. National Council
of La Raza, Statistical Brief, 8(1), 7–8.
Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Evolution of the school superintendent as communicator. Communication
Education, 54(2), 101–117.
Kowalski, T. J., McCord, R. S., Peterson, G. J., Young, P. I., & Ellerson, N. M. (2011). The
American school superintendent: 2010 decennial study. R&L Education.
LaCelle-Peterson, M. W., & Rivera, C. (1994). Is it real for all kids? A framework for equitable
assessment policies for English language learners. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1),
55–76.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
96
Lauen, D. L., & Gaddis, S. M. (2012). Shining a light or fumbling in the dark? The effects of
NCLB's subgroup-specific accountability on student achievement. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 185–208. doi: 10.3102/0162373711429989.
Lounsbury, M., & Ventresca, M. (2003). The new structuralism in organizational
theory. Organization, 10(3), 457–480.
Lunenburg, F. C. (1992). The urban superintendent's role in school reform. Education and Urban
Society, 25(1), 30–44.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2006). School leadership that works,from
research to results. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd. ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Menken, K. (2010). NCLB and English language learners: Challenges and consequences. Theory
into Practice, 49(20), 121–128.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, D. C., Sen, A., Malley, L.B., & Burns, S. D. (2009). Comparative indicatorsof education
in the United States and other G-8 countries: 2009 (NCES 2009-039). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department
of Education.
Miller, K. (2004). Creating conditions for leadership effectiveness: the district's role. McRel
policy brief. Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL). Denver, CO.
Pascopella, A. (2011). Superintendent staying power. District Administration,47(4), 31-36.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
97
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Petersen, G. J. (1999). Demonstrated actions of instructional leaders: An examination of five
California superintendents. Education policy analysis archives, 7(18).
Rumberger, R., & Gándara, P. (2004). Seeking equity in the education of California's English
learners. The Teachers College Record, 106(10), 2032–2056.
Schmidt, W. H., & McKnight, C. C. (1998). What can we really learn from TIMSS? Science,
New Series, 282(5395), 1830–1831.
Schneider, M. (2009). The international PISA test: A risky investment for states. Education
Next, 9(4), 68.
Sherman, W. H. (2008). No Child Left Behind: A legislative catalyst for superintendent action to
eliminate test-score gaps? Educational Policy, 22(5), 675–704.
Spanneut, G., & Ford, M. (2008). Guiding hand of the superintendent helps principals
flourish. Journal of Staff Development, 29(2), 28–33.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to
improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: Learning First
Alliance.
Waters, T. J., & Marzano, R. J. (2007). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. ERS Spectrum, 25(2), 1–12.
Williams, P. R., Tabernik, A. M., & Krivak, T. (2009). The power of leadership, collaboration,
and professional development the story of the SMART consortium. Education and Urban
Society, 41(4), 437–456.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
98
Verdugo, R. R., & Flores, B. (2007). English-language learners key issues. Education and Urban
Society, 39(2), 167–193.
Yee, G., & Cuban, L. (1996). When is tenure long enough? A historical anaysis of
superintendent turnover and tenure in urban school districts. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 32(1suppl), 615–641.
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
99
Appendix A
Research Question/Instrument Connection
Research
Question 1
What factors do urban superintendents consider when developing
strategies to improve academic achievement of students classified as
English language learners?
Interview 1. How do you feel about the academic performance levels of English
language learners in this district?
3. What strategies have you employed in meeting the academic needs of
English language learners in your district?
4. What factors do you consider in establishing a plan to improve the
academic achievement of English language learners?
5. How have state and federal accountability measures influenced your
approach to English language learner achievement?
6. What professional development opportunities related to the academic
achievement of English language learners are offered in your district?
Survey To what extent do you agree that the following factors influence the
academic achievement of English language learners?
1. Bureaucratic accountability
2. Demands for the community
3. Access to highly qualified teachers
4. Culturally responsive curriculum
5. Standardized assessment design
6. Teacher expectations for ELL performance
7. Data-driven decision making
8. Instructional leadership
9. Professional development focused on ELL instruction
Research
Question 2
Who are the critical stakeholders included by urban superintendents
to assist in improving academic achievement of students classified as
English language learners?
Interview 7. Who are the critical stakeholders involved in the development of plans
to improve the academic achievement of English language learners?
8. How do you involve key stakeholders in monitoring and evaluating
plans to increase the achievement of students classified as English
language learners?
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
100
Survey To what extent do you agree that the following stakeholders should be
included in decisions made to improve the academic improvement of
students classified as English language learners?
1. Community members
2. District-level personnel
3. Parents
4. School-level administrators
5. Teachers
6. Unions
7. School Boards
Research
Question 3
What strategies do urban superintendents execute when
implementing plans to improve the academic achievement of students
classified as English language learners?
Interview 3. What strategies have you employed in meeting the academic needs of
English language learners in your district?
6. What professional development opportunities related to the academic
achievement of English language learners are offered in your district?
9. How do you build the capacity of school leaders in your district to
implement plans that improve the achievement of English language
learners?
Survey To what extent do you agree that the following are important to
superintendent implementation of plans to improve the academic
achievement of students classified as English language learners?
1. Creation of a vision
2. High expectations for student achievement
3. Analyzing subgroup assessment data
4. Collaboration among stakeholders
5. Resource allocation
6. Clearly defined district-wide academic goals for ELL students
7. Instructional leadership
8. Professional development for school-site administrators
9. Professional development for teachers
10. Professional development facilitated by the district office
11. Professional development facilitated by the school site
12. Two-way communication between district and school-site staff
13. Alignment between district vision and school vision
14. On-site teacher collaboration
15. Alignment of instruction with curricula framework
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
101
Research
Question 4
What strategies do urban superintendents use to monitor and
evaluate the academic achievement of students classified as English
language learners?
Interview 2. How does the district monitor the academic achievement of English
language learners?
8. How do you involve key stakeholders in monitoring and evaluating
plans to increase the achievement of students classified as English
language learners?
10. As the district leader, how often do you access or analyze English
language learner data for the district?
11. How do you determine the effectiveness of English language learner
instruction throughout the district?
Survey To what extent do you agree that the following are important in
monitoring and evaluating academic achievement of students classified as
English language learners?
1. Valid and reliable assessment instruments
2. Reclassification rates
3. Analyzing subgroup assessment data
4. Site administrator classroom observations
5. District level administrator classroom observations
6. Established instructional norms
7. Site administrator collaboration at the district-level
8. Superintendent visibility at school sites
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
102
Appendix B
Survey Instrument
Gender?
Male
Female
Ethnicity?
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian
Black/African-American
Hispanic/Latino
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
White
Two or More
Other: ____________
Age Category?
29 and under
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70 and over
Highest Educational Attainment
Bachelor’s Degree
Master’s Degree
Other Professional Degree
Doctoral Degree
Years of experience as the superintendent of your current district: _____
Total years of experience as a superintendent: _____
Would you be willing to participate in a 45-minute follow up interview?
Yes
No
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
103
Question 1: To what extent do you agree that the following factors influence the academic achievement of
English language learners?
(1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree)
1. Bureaucratic accountability 1 2 3 4
2. Demands from the community 1 2 3 4
3. Access to highly qualified teachers 1 2 3 4
4. Culturally responsive curriculum 1 2 3 4
5. Standardized assessment design 1 2 3 4
6. Teacher expectations for ELL performance 1 2 3 4
7. Data-driven decision making 1 2 3 4
8. Instructional leadership 1 2 3 4
9. Professional development focused on ELL instruction 1 2 3 4
Question 2: To what extent do you agree that the following stakeholders should be included in decisions
made to improve the academic improvement of students classified as English language learners?
(1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree)
1. Community members 1 2 3 4
2. District-level personnel 1 2 3 4
3. Parents 1 2 3 4
4. School-level administrators 1 2 3 4
5. Teachers 1 2 3 4
6. Unions 1 2 3 4
7. School boards 1 2 3 4
Question 3: To what extent do you agree that the following are important to superintendent
implementation of plans to improve the academic achievement of students classified as English language
learners?
(1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree)
1. Creation of a vision 1 2 3 4
2. High expectations for student achievement 1 2 3 4
3. Analyzing subgroup assessment data 1 2 3 4
4. Collaboration among stakeholders 1 2 3 4
5. Resource allocation 1 2 3 4
6. Clearly defined district-wide academic goals for ELL students 1 2 3 4
7. Instructional leadership 1 2 3 4
8. Professional development for school-site administrators 1 2 3 4
9. Professional development for teachers 1 2 3 4
10. Professional development facilitated by the district office 1 2 3 4
11. Professional development facilitated by the school site 1 2 3 4
12. Two-way communication between district and school-site staff 1 2 3 4
13. Alignment between district vision and school vision 1 2 3 4
14. On-site teacher collaboration 1 2 3 4
15. Alignment of instruction with curricula framework 1 2 3 4
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
104
Question 4: To what extent do you agree that the following are important in monitoring and evaluating
academic achievement of students classified as English language learners?
(1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree)
1. Valid and reliable assessment instruments 1 2 3 4
2. Reclassification rates 1 2 3 4
3. Analyzing subgroup assessment data 1 2 3 4
4. Site administrator classroom observations 1 2 3 4
5. District level administrator classroom observations 1 2 3 4
6. Established instructional norms 1 2 3 4
7. Site administrator collaboration at the district-level 1 2 3 4
8. Superintendent visibility at school sites 1 2 3 4
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
105
Appendix C
Interview Protocol
Leadership Strategies Employed by K-12 Urban Superintendents to Improve the Academic
Achievement of English Language Learners
1. How do you feel about the academic performance levels of English language learners in this district?
2. How does the district monitor the academic achievement of English language learners?
3. What strategies have you employed in meeting the academic needs of English language learners in
your district?
4. What factors do you consider in establishing a plan to improve the academic achievement of English
language learners? Follow up: How did you develop the plans?
5. How have state and federal accountability measures influenced your approach to English language
learner achievement?
6. What professional development opportunities related to the academic achievement of English
language learners are offered in your district?
7. Who are the critical stakeholders involved in the development of plans to improve the academic
achievement of English language learners? Follow up: How do you select these stakeholders?
8. How do you involve key stakeholders in monitoring and evaluating plans to increase the achievement
of students classified as English language learners?
9. How do you build the capacity of school leaders in your district to implement plans that improve the
achievement of English language learners?
10. As the district leader, how often do you access or analyze English language learner data for the
district?
11. How do you determine the effectiveness of English language learner instruction throughout the
district?
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
106
Appendix D
Survey Cover Letter
June 9, 2013
Dear (Superintendent’s Name),
Based on your success with supporting students classified as English Language Learners in your
district, we would like to invite you to participate in our research study. The study is being
conducted under the guidance of Dr. Rudy Castruita as part of our doctoral studies at the Rossier
School of Education at the University of Southern California. This study seeks to identify the
strategies employed by the superintendents of large, urban school districts to improve the
academic achievement of students classified as English Language Learners.
We understand that your time is both extremely valuable and limited. The survey has been
piloted and will take approximately fifteen minutes to complete. Your voluntary participation
would be much appreciated. It will provide an important contribution to the research on
superintendent implementation of leadership strategies to close the achievement gap associated
with English Language Learners. Your relationship with the University of Southern California
and parties associated with the study will not be affected whether you choose to participate in
this study or not. There are no known risks associated with participation in this study.
Thank you in advance for your time. Please contact any of us should you have any questions
regarding this study.
Sincerely,
Tiffani Curtis
Doctoral Candidate
tbgilmor@usc.edu
(213) 393-3777
Gretchen Janson
Doctoral Candidate
gjanson@usc.edu
(310) 863-3675
Raul Ramirez
Doctoral Candidate
rramirez@usc.edu
(213) 700-3128
Charles D. Smith
Doctoral Candidate
smithcd@usc.edu
(562) 685-6621
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
107
Appendix E
Interview Letter
Date
(Superintendent Name), Superintendent
Unified School District
1234 Main Street
Anywhere, CA 00000
Re: Request for Interview
Dear (Superintendent Name),
My name is Raul Ramirez and I am a doctoral student in the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California. I am conducting a research study as part of my dissertation,
under the guidance of Dr. Rudy Castruita. My study focuses on the leadership strategies
employed by the superintendents of large, urban school districts in an effort to support the
academic achievement of English Language Learners.
You have been identified as an outstanding superintendent of a large, urban school district. The
size and demographic constitution of your school district is ideal for my study. Participation in
this study would require one interview with a length of approximately one hour.
Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity as a participant will remain
confidential during and after the study. All interviews will take place in a private location of
your choice.
Please let me know if you are willing to participate or if you have any further questions
regarding my study. I can be reached via email at rramirez@usc.edu or via phone at (213) 700-
3128.
Thank you in advance for your consideration,
Raul Ramirez
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
108
Appendix F
Information Letter
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Leadership Strategies Employed by K-12 Urban Superintendents to Improve the Academic
Achievement of English Language Learners
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study was to ascertain the superintendent leadership strategies that positively
impact the academic achievement of students identified as English language learners in large
urban K-12 school districts. Specifically, this study considers the approaches employed by
superintendents in developing, implementing, and monitoring improvements to English language
learner student outcomes. Participation is voluntary.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete a 46 item survey (6 demographic
questions, 39 questions pertinent to the literature, and 1 question regarding availability to
participate in the qualitative portion). The instrument will take approximately 15 minutes to
complete. You may also be asked to participate in a 45 minute, 11 item interview with follow up
questions. This interview will be audio recorded with your permission.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The identity of survey participants will remain confidential and pseudonyms will be used. All
data will be kept in a secure location and will be destroyed after three years.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of subjects.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Tiffani Curtis: tbgilmor@usc.edu
Gretchen Janson: gjanson@usc.edu
Raul Ramirez: rramirez@usc.edu Charles D. Smith: smithcd@usc.edu
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier
Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Effective strategies that urban superintendents use that improve the academic achievement for African-American males
PDF
Effective strategies urban superintendents utilize that improve the academic achievement for African American males
PDF
Strategies employed by successful superintendents and boards of education resulting in increased student achievement
PDF
Strategies employed by successful urban superintendents responding to demands for student achievement reform
PDF
The critical aspects of oversight that suburban superintendents, as instructional leaders, must employ to improve instruction
PDF
An examination of traditional versus non-traditional superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve student achievement
PDF
An examination of small, mid-sized, and large school district superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
The role of superintendents as instructional leaders: facilitating student achievement among ESL/EL learners through school-site professional development
PDF
Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase student achievement
PDF
Superintendents' viewpoint of the role stakeholders can play in improving student achievement
PDF
An examination of small, mid-sized, and large school district superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams
PDF
Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement
PDF
Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals
PDF
Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of middle school principals in the support of English language learners
PDF
Strategies California superintendents use to implement 21st century skills programs
PDF
Successful communication strategies used by urban school district superintendents to build consensus in raising student achievement
Asset Metadata
Creator
Ramirez, Raul Cervantes
(author)
Core Title
Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
01/24/2014
Defense Date
10/22/2013
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
district leadership,English language learner,OAI-PMH Harvest,superintendent leadership
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy Max (
committee chair
), García, Pedro Enrique (
committee member
), Roach, John A. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
rramirez@rioschools.org,rramirez@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-360115
Unique identifier
UC11295978
Identifier
etd-RamirezRau-2233.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-360115 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-RamirezRau-2233.pdf
Dmrecord
360115
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Ramirez, Raul Cervantes
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
district leadership
English language learner
superintendent leadership